作者: jmc (貪玩的小孩) 看板: BridgeClub 標題: 有趣的上訴案件 時間: Sat Mar 27 06:48:57 1999 Joanna Stansby 就是世界冠軍名將 Lew Stansby 的夫人, Stansby 夫婦不久前 在 Orlando Fall NABC 獲得 Life Master Pairs 的冠軍, 所以 Joanna Stansby 可是擁有 NABC 公開雙人賽冠軍至高無上頭銜的不凡人物。不過以下的上訴案件 可真是把她的臉給丟光了。:) 如果覺得把整篇判決書看完太累, 那就看前面的故事就好。這個故事給我們一個 教訓: 如果喊錯夢家出的牌張, 要趕快說 " 不對, 我要出的是小梅花! " 更正, 而不是說 " 喔, 狗屎! " :) ********************************************************************* Appeals Case 5 Subject: Played Card Event: NABC Vanderbilt KO Teams, 22 March 99 Board: 4 Joanna Stansby Dealer: West S Q 6 Vul: Both H A 8 5 2 D --- C A K 8 6 5 3 2 Dan Morse Bobby Wolff S K 7 2 S J 9 5 3 H J 10 6 4 3 H 7 D A 8 5 4 3 D Q 10 7 6 2 C --- C J 9 7 Michael Shuster S A 10 8 4 H K Q 9 D K J 9 C Q 10 4 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C Pass 3NT (1) Pass 4C Pass 4H Pass 6C All Pass (1) Alerted; 13-15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Facts: The contract was 6C. The play went as follows: H7 to the king, D9 to the ace and ruffed, low club to dummy's queen. At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be called, as North had meant to call low club, and there could be some restitution. The Director was called, and after consultation with the other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b) that North misspoke (a slip of the tongue). Law 45C4(b) states in part: "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought." As the law allows an inadvertent card called from dummy to be withdrawn even if the next player has played to the trick, the Director ruled that the (apparently) inadvertent call could be withdrawn and replaced by the call she had intended. The contract was changed to 6C made six, plus 1370. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W believed that the correction was not without pause for thought and that the Director had not been called until the hand had been completed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee Decision: The Committee first considered the evidence as to whether the call had been an error in play or an inadvertent (slip of tongue) call. Two significant points of evidence favored the slip of the tongue interpretation. 1. At this stage of play there were 12 top tricks. Declarer had no apparent reason to be playing a low spade at this time, but was virtually certain to be planning on drawing trumps. 2. When the SK was played, the declarer appeared stunned and said "oh shit." The Committee believed that those words would not be said by someone who had just found the SK onside, but rather by someone who had just realized that the wrong suit had been played from dummy. The Committee therefore decided that the call of "low spade" was inadvertent. The Committee asked the Screening Director for the Laws Commission interpretation of Law 45C. He stated that "pause for thought" means "change of mind." No time frame for the change of call is specified, other than without significant time for thought. The key part of the interpretation is that the time for thought begins only AFTER the player realizes that an inadvertency has occurred. In this case the "oh shit" was after a short pause after the SK was played. The Committee explored whether or not rights were forfeited by waiting until the hand was over before calling the Director. The Screening Director assured the Committee that failure to know the law in this case did not cause forfeiture of rights and therefore, although calling the Director earlier would have been better, it did not cause loss of rights. During the discussion, it was noted that the law is quite different with respect to a play from declarer's hand (Law 45C2). A declarer's card must be detached from his hand and ". . . held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" to be judged played in spite of his intent to the contrary. Note that declarer cannot change a card played from hand even though it was played inadvertently. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): Law 45C4(b), correction of an inadvertent designation, states in the relevant part: " . . . a player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought . . ." The law is made to protect people from an inadvertent card designation, but not a change of mind. It is not made to protect people when their brains disconnect or from losing their minds, but is only to protect them specifically from a mechanical error. Here, a low spade was played, the SK was played by East, then, after a short pause, declarer realized that she should have played a club instead of a spade. This seemed to represent a change of mind rather than a correction of an inadvertent error made without pause for thought. I would have decided that the play at the table stood and changed the contract to 6C down one, plus 100 for E/W. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dissenting Opinion (Bob Schwartz): The majority view in this case was that no competent player would play a low spade once 12 tricks were clearly established. They further determined that when declarer "mispoke" by calling for a low spade, RHO played the king, and declarer paused and then said, "oh shit" that declarer had still not "paused for thought." Further, declarer then conceded down one. Mistakes do happen at all levels of bridge. If declarer had inadvertently played the low spade from her hand instead of dummy, end of story. Again, at this level, if declarer had immediately said, "No, I mean a low club" or, if immediately upon seeing RHO play the SK had said the same type of thing, I would not have dissented. This was not the case. The events as agreed by all the participants were that there was elapsed time between each step. Mistakes happen and they must be lived with. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Table Director: Stan Tench ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Directors consulted: Henry Cukoff (DIC), Steve Bates, Olin Hubert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Lowell Andrews, Nell Cahn, Bob Gookin, Robb Gordon, Ed Lazarus, Robert Schwartz ********************************************************************* --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.twbbs.org) ◆ From: ms10.hinet.net