alphatango

In an attempt to avoid conflicting discussions in the "Poor claim" thread, I repeat the relevant portions of posts below. A case was posted in which the OP noted: "E-W appeal, 23 IMPs at stake, Butler. To be held in 6 days time." I suggested that with which gordontd agreed. mrdct responded: The OP, shevek, said: Finally, nige1 stated that "I doubt that BBF ramblings will influence the committee. If they do, so much the better.", and bluejak chimed in with * * * It may not be worth worrying about that particular thread now, but there may well be a point in establishing a principle for the future. IMO: An appeal is ultimately an adversarial proceeding. Arguments may be brought up in a thread which are not repeated during the hearing, but which nevertheless influence a member. This is obviously unfair to the side that does not get a chance to respond.The case as posted may always be subtly different from the case as presented to the committee. Again, if unaware of the forum discussion, a side may not have the opportunity to demonstrate where the differences are and why they matter.I agree, of course, that adjudicators should recuse themselves where necessary. That includes both members and pollees, where a (perhaps supplementary) poll is taken between the decision and the hearing. However, it is a fact that at least one other person knows that you've had a conversation in real life about a case; the same is not true of reading a forum thread. I am not suggesting, of course, that anything improper occurred with the posted case! To invoke a cliche, however, justice should not only be done, it should be seen to be done. Deferring discussion of cases pending appeal seems to me to be an appropriate step in that direction. Obviously, it's nice to have this forum as a substitute for an appeals advisor, and perhaps we can't really stop people from using it in that way. I would not be unhappy if there was a general principle of "post your potential appeal if you want, but we'll be keeping our responses private until the appeal is heard". Maybe I'm just being unrealistic. :rolleyes:

EDIT: A second version has been posted at #48. I have followed, with some difficulty, the "Defective Trick" thread in the "Laws and Rulings" forum. It is now clear that pran's position is that the parenthetical clause of L67B is in fact definitional. blackshoe seems to have joined the "L67 is not applicable" camp. And between bluejak's posts and other people's commentaries on his posts, I now have no idea what bluejak's viewpoint actually is. :lol: What is obvious is that the 201x version of L67 could do with a rewrite. To start with, the term "defective trick" should be defined. The status of the parenthetical clause in 67B (definition or example) should be clarified. Hence this thread: what should the new L67 look like? As a rough starting point, I propose: "When a player fails to contribute exactly one card to a trick, and a member of his side plays (or designates a card to be played) to a subsequent trick, the former trick is defective." Then: The "establishment" of the defective trick occurs when the OS plays to the following trick, in line with revokes.Defective tricks which are currently dealt with under 67A continue to be subject to the same rectifications (offender supplies a missing card where needed, or is subject to 45E/58B when he has played too many cards). References to 45E and 58B are moved to a footnote, and a reference to 57 is added to cover the case where offender has failed to contribute a card. Need to check the consequences in the latter case.Note the current anomaly in 67A1 -- when offender supplies the missing card, it is not clear whether this affects the ownership of the trick, whether NOS's card can be withdrawn (and if so, who leads to the subsequent trick). Will need to add some clarification.Current 67B remains mostly the same, except for the first paragraph, which is simplified. Directors now determine whether there is a defective trick in the usual way (L85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts).The reference to L64A2 penalties is modified in order to clarify whether 64B and 64C are applicable (I have chosen to invoke the entire L64).

It's perhaps a little more complex than that. In the situation you described, the hand had been played out, so you legally must not accept the score for a greater number of tricks than you actually made. If you had gotten to a position where the opponents still had, say, a master trump, and they tried to concede all the tricks, you once again must not accept. However, if the opponents knowingly "duck[ed] tricks or pitch[ed] aces" during the play, that may be legal. First, of course, it may be a legitimate attempt to beat the contract (or increase undertricks, or decrease overtricks), erroneous or otherwise. Second, the opponents might reasonably believe that it is advantageous to their chances for you to achieve a higher score (perhaps qualifying for the next round in place of a stronger team/pair) or for them to achieve a lower score (perhaps, again, due to some quirk in the conditions of contest). That would, IMO, be legal within the parameters of L72A, although others might disagree. I believe the ACBL has made the latter reasoning illegal through a regulation which requires contestants to attempt to achieve the highest score on each board. I could be wrong, though, so perhaps someone more familiar with ACBL-land can confirm.

...Now confused. Why do you believe I am advocating for N-S? Is the idea that we should defer public discussion of a case which is yet to be heard so outrageous?

It's certainly illegal for you to accept: Logically, it follows that it's improper for him to offer, I suppose. Also of relevance may be regulations which require contestants to "play to win", and there is Law 72A:

Neither, fortunately. Nor, before you ask, was I East, West, or the director. :rolleyes: I do believe it's a sensible rule of thumb that appeals should not be publically discussed before they are heard. Is that not generally accepted? There is always the chance that AC members may see or hear such a discussion, and both sides should have the chance to present their case to a committee free of that influence, for obvious reasons.

If this means the appeal is yet to take place, perhaps we should defer discussion until after the hearing?

For clarification, what is the abuse -- was the agreement not pre-alerted or disclosed on the card? If they were conforming with the regulations, surely that cannot lead to a reflection on their ethics?

Sorry, perhaps I was too verbose earlier. :unsure: Yes, I agree with your position. There was at least one post in the other thread in opposition, though, so I thought it was worth setting out my logic. I believe pran's position is that (first thread) one applies 67B when dummy's card was called (played) but not turned (I disagree with this), but that (second thread) L64B and L64C apply to the "deemed to have revoked" clause of 67B (I agree with this). They are two separate issues, and this thread deals with the latter only.

Subject to the restriction of the OS actually having won the defective or a subsequent trick, of course. :rolleyes: If it was the intention to just transfer one trick and have no further rectification, then that would be fine. But it seems to me that (as my second argument suggested) L64C is certainly intended to apply in order to protect the NOS, since 12A1 may not kick in.

I replied briefly to the first thread, then did not contribute further, since dburn and others eloquently expressed all my arguments. There, however, I noted that I interpreted "subject to" as including the remainder of L64. I have two arguments in favour of this interpretation. As a preamble, it may be worth remembering that L64A is constructed thus: When <initial condition>, then 1. if <A> then <B>, 2. if <C> then <D>, So the full reading of L64A2 should be (my emphasis): * * * First, consider the following alternative wordings of the relevant sentence of L67B1a: 1. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick. (first clause only) 2. He is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2. (second clause only) 3. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with L64A2. (actual wording) Under 1, we would go searching through the laws, presumably find L64, and apply all the relevant sections (A, B, C). Under 2, we would be directed to 64A2, but we could never invoke the penalty since there has been no established revoke. From those two considerations, it seems to me that in the actual wording (3), the substantive clause is the one which deems there to have been a revoke. The reference to L64A2 is only for convenience (perhaps to ensure that we don't erroneously apply 64A1 here). * * * Secondly, I would note that we can only apply L12A1 (adjusted score) when "these laws do not provide indemnity" to the NOS "for the particular type of violation" committed. L67B clearly provides for rectification for a defective trick, so I do not think you could use 12A1 unless there was some other infraction. Here, that infraction exists (of L45 and L65), but consider the case where declarer himself fails to play to a trick. Now if the NOS are insufficiently compensated by L64A2, they can only get further redress via L64C. But if 64C applies, so should 64B. And if all of L64 applies in the case where declarer has failed to play to a trick, then the same should be true if dummy is the offender. EDIT: Just to note the sentence in the Introduction which states, "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." Hence the reference to 64A2 does not limit the application of 64B and 64C once the offender is "deemed to have revoked". (64A1 operates too, of course, but will never be applicable.)

Doesn't look very defective. After all, (L45B) declarer "play[ed] a card from dummy by naming [the] card, after which" some administrative stuff that was supposed to happen didn't. So, bad dummy for infracting 45B and 65A (turning the trick), but the card was nevertheless played. *attempts to look confident* (In this case, even if one were to successfully argue that the ♥3 wasn't played, 67B1 would just restore the card to its proper position; I think "in accordance with Law 64A2" also leaves it subject to L64B, (no rectification for L64A when the revoke was a failure to play a card from dummy's hand). Might be more interesting if declarer led the ♥3 and won the ♥A in dummy, of course....)

Yup. The EW argument is that South's possible hand types are (with the UI) restricted to those which didn't want to open; now EW are more likely to be having a constructive auction and North is less likely to be interfering with his own constructive auction. Without the UI, it might be more attractive to pass and hope that EW would act, then overcall and hope to find NS's best fit for a partscore (or even reach game). You could state that. But someone who knows the laws might recognise (perhaps subconsciously) that the reason they're being polled is overwhelmingly likely to be this situation. Certainly that's where my mind would jump if you asked me. :rolleyes: I'm just wondering whether it's sensible to try to minimise that effect. Maybe I'm worrying too much?

Dlr N, EW vul: [hv=pc=n&n=skjt7hqjt97dq4c86]133|100[/hv] Methods in use include an opening 2♥ which shows 4+♥4+♠, either could be longer, less than an opening hand. North's hand is about the top of the range at this seat and vul. Unfortunately, South passes before anyone else has called. The usual options are offered to West, who declines to accept the pass. The auction therefore reverts to North, and South is barred for one round (L30A). As I understand it, the information that South attempted to pass is UI; the knowledge that South must pass for one round is AI. North chooses to open 2♥, which is passed out. Subsequently, East/West suggest they were damaged (L16D) and request an adjustment. Assume that a pass from North would have led to a better result for EW. The questions seem to be: 1. Is pass a logical alternative? 2. Does the UI demonstrably suggest that 2♥ will be more successful than pass? Are the answers obvious? Suppose you wanted to poll North's peers. How would you phrase the question? I'm still thinking about this, but my current idea is to poll based on L24B: ask the pollees to assume they have exposed an honour (inadvertently, of course!) before making their first call, thus barring partner for a round. Is this a reasonable approach?

Correct, I wrote too quickly in my post above. I meant to say that I would not deny declarer an adjustment on the basis of the position as presented in the OP.

Without seeing the whole hand, how can you possibly know? :P From declarer's point of view, East (relevant defender) might hold Jxxx. Then East might think the layout is: N: KQxx E: Jxxx S: T W: Ax(xx -- pitched) where declarer, needing two club tricks, has decided to play for remaining stiff CA with West. EDIT: Or perhaps East has been reading too many textbooks with "second hand high" examples. :lol: Even if this was suboptimal (perhaps declarer needs all his dummy entries?), the hesitation occurred after the club was led from dummy, so declarer needs to decide now if he wants to pick up Jxxx. EDIT: For clarity, my viewpoint is that: a) on the facts given, the actual defender was not "particularly careful" (agree with the thread consensus), and b) without more information, it seems entirely plausible for a defender in this position to be considering playing the jack (disagree with bluejak and gnasher), and therefore c) I would adjust.

I'm not sure it's quite so clear -- maybe I'll try and make a case for a different answer and see if that clears up my thought process. Working backwards, it seems obvious to me that the information that there has been an established revoke must be authorised (hence, for example, you're allowed to "play for two off" on the basis that your side will end up being penalised a trick). From where does that information come? First, from the cards that were played, including the D8; second, from the knowledge of the laws (AI by 16A1c). Specifically, 63B tells us that an established revoke can't be corrected, and "the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played". So knowledge of the revoke laws ==> knowing that the D8 was played to the revoke trick that will stand. (Maybe.) Then I would answer "yes" to the first question. The analogous case would be that where partner has a penalty card -- knowledge that partner holds the card is UI, but knowledge that partner must play the card is AI. Here, the knowledge that the D8 has appeared is AI, so you are allowed to know your D7 is good when you subsequently see the DAKQJT9, and the fact of the established revoke, and so on. Perhaps also analogously, the knowledge that partner wanted to discard that card (whatever carding you play) would be UI, so the answer to the second question is "no". (Also maybe.) It feels like it gets a bit messy from here though -- when partner subsequently pitches a low diamond (on another suit, presumably), showing, say, count, what AI and UI do you have about their preference/length in diamonds? (Surely one cannot argue that the low diamond is UI, but are you then required to (choose from amongst LAs, etc.) play for partner to be discouraging diamonds?) I agree with dburn that 64C will cover the non-offending side, of course.

Well, almost all the finesses are working. Overtake the spade lead, draw all trumps (West pitching one diamond and two clubs), heart A, heart K -- oops, East pitches a club. Now DA, DQ for the ruffing finesse...one off.

Just a short note re Australian bidding box regulations, of which the current version is located here. Relevant (IMO) quotes below, including all references to "select/ed":

Out of interest, would those advocating a ruling of one down rule differently if declarer's spade suit were AKQJT8?

I took some time to search through the EBU Appeals Books from 2005-2008. My only criterion was to look for the word "protect", and ignored results where the word did not refer to this principle of "protecting oneself". I came up with the following: 2005 (2), 2006 (6, 12), 2007 (19, 24), 2008 (2, 22, 27). Of these, only 2007 #19 came anywhere near the situation I was thinking about (needing to ask about an unalerted call). In that situation, a player holding 92-void-KT987-AKJT93 heard the auction: P 1D 1S 2H (NFB) P 3C P 3D X P P P and claimed damage from a failure to alert the X as penalties (would run to 4C). The player did not ask at his turn to call, did ask at the end of the auction, and heard (quoting from the writeup): "'Good question, we are not a regular partnership, I would double for penalties in that situation but I know my partner plays more takeout doubles than I do' (paraphrase)." I note that the director ruled against the player based on a failure to ask ("details of ruling"), although he did note the regulation relating to "general bridge inferences" under his comments. It was not clear to me why he commented in the same section that the player had an opportunity to ask "without putting his side's interest at risk". (The player claimed in the appeal that he could not ask during the auction without potentially alerting up the opponents to a possible misunderstanding about the double.) The AC upheld the ruling solely on the basis of a failure to "protect himself". I don't see why both rulings were based on a failure to ask rather than "general bridge inference", as the latter seems to be a far more solid argument to me. The commentators all seemed to focus on this as well. Frances, you were apparently on the AC -- would you be able to provide any insight? I agree with these examples (and the rest that I have not quoted). But ISTM that it can only "appear that opponents have merely neglected to alert an obviously alertable call" if that call would be alertable regardless of the meaning. But if there are any such situations, the alert would be somewhat useless. :P (However, one can safely ask about a missing announcement where is always either an announcement or an alert, as in your example.)

Fair enough. Apologies if I misrepresented your position.

*grins* Noted. Also, I suppose, if you can convince the director that in a particular situation you always ask or randomly ask. But I am thinking of the particular case of an unalerted bid (and where you cannot so convince the director).

1. It seemed that Trinidad was arguing that one can almost never ask without giving UI which may restrict partner (in the words of the regulation, "putting their side's interests at risk). That seems to me to be a plausible viewpoint. Clearly, you disagree -- could you provide an example of a situation where one can ask without passing UI? 2. From the discussion, I understand that there have been cases in which directors have ruled that the NOS in a misinformation case could and should have asked questions, and were denied redress on that basis. It is not clear to me what those situations would be, and I'd appreciate an example (or a case writeup). (Comments for clarity: By "null effect" I meant that rulings should be the same under the law with and without the regulation. By "directors ruling incorrectly" I meant that they must be so doing if they are ruling that the NOS must protect themselves even when they "put their side's interests at risk" by asking.)

The regulation: If I understand correctly, Trinidad argues that 1) the regulation as written is of essentially null effect, but 2) this is not the case in practice due to previous and current directors' rulings (rather, the effect is to disadvantage the NOS), and 3) further, the regulators would not have written a regulation intending it to be of null effect, so 4) the regulators must have intended the actual effect. bluejak counters that the regulation is indeed intended to be of null effect (a clarification rather than a modification) and therefore that the implication about the motives of the regulators is improper. Expressing no opinion about the merits of that argument, can someone explain to me why directors are ruling incorrectly, leading to point 2? (Or is that under dispute?) Have relevant appeals been considered by the L&EC? (Links to any cases would be appreciated.)