Penalties for non-disclosure

[awm]

There are a number of situations where directors seem to rule primarily to "restore equity." These include:

 

(1) Failure to alert

(2) Playing illegal methods/conventions

(3) Failure to have a filled out convention card

 

In general, the onus seems to be on the non-offending side to prove that "there was damage" in order to receive any adjustment. This is very different from most other sports/games where failure to follow the rules carries penalties regardless of "damage." In fact, even in bridge we have:

 

(1) Revoke

(2) Exposed card

(3) Lead/bid out of turn

 

In each of these cases a penalty is often assessed regardless of damage. For example, if I revoke on a hand where the only possible result is one more trick for my side, then that trick will be taken away as a penalty for the revoke.

 

Even more curious, the second set of three offenses is very frequently inadvertant. Someone doesn't see a card in their hand, or a card falls out of their hand, or they don't realize who took a trick or who is declarer. These are certainly not "attempts to cheat" most of the times they occur. On the other hand, the first three frequently are attempts to circumvent the rules, or at the very least a willful ignorance of the local regulations (as to alerts or permitted methods).

 

Does this seem strange to anyone else? And are there any directors or jurisdictions where penalties are regularly assessed for the first three regardless of damage?

[pigpenz]

On the second set, these seem to be irregularites covered under the RULES of BRIDGE. So these infractions are spelled out quite well as to what the penalties are.

 

The first set seems to be more infractions that relate to the conditions of the contest. A TD has more discretion on how he wants to hand out penalites for these type of infractions and if opps arent satisfied they are even allowed to appeal the TD's ruling.

 

The second set the penalties are spelled out in the laws and the TD doesnt reallly have any discretion on these penalties.

[hrothgar]

There are a number of situations where directors seem to rule primarily to "restore equity." These include:

 

(1) Failure to alert

(2) Playing illegal methods/conventions

(3) Failure to have a filled out convention card

Not quite sure what jurisdiction that you're talking about:

 

For example, within the ACBL:

 

Case 3: Both members of a partnership are required to have a completed convention card. If the partnership fails to abid, then they are required to play some "vanilla" system until they are willing/able to comply. This regulation does have anything to with "equity" (Please note: I've never actually seen seen this rule enforced, but its on the books)

 

Case 2: I can only recall a handful of occasions in which I have seen players using illegal methods in a formal event. Most of those involved simple ignorance regarding the rules. (I know of one occasion where partner and I were doing to deliberately in the hopes of generating a test case, however the directors refused to enforce the regulations). Here, once again, proceedural penalties are typically assessed.

 

Case 1: Cases of misinformation are typically based on restoration of equity. However, it is also possible for proceedural penalties to be assessed.

 

Cases 19, 22, 30, and 36 in the 2004 Reno Case books deal with this issue. Case 36 specifically address the case of a failure to alert.

http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/renoappeals2004.pdf

[awm]

My experience (in ACBL-land) is that no penalties are ever assessed for failure to disclose (1,2,3) in my initial post, except to restore equity. In the casebook situations hrothgar pointed out, in only one case was a procedural penalty assessed, and this was more for a blatant attempt to take advantage of UI (partner's failure to alert woke the individual in question up to a misunderstanding).

 

Apparently from hrothgar's experience no penalties are assessed for these things either (in fact he even intentionally violated the system regulations to test the policy, and no penalty was assessed).

 

I can give any number of times when illegal methods were in use, even in B/C/D (lower flight) events. Most popular is a non-game-forcing artificial 2♣ response to 1M (i.e. drury opposite 1st/2nd seat opener). I've also seen artificial 1m calls which could be as light as 8 points (i.e. 1♦ showing 8-12 balanced), and a 2♠ opening showing a weak bid in any suit (that's not even allowed on the super-chart which governs the spingold and the like, and was being played in a B/C/D event). Note that I don't necessarily agree with the policies that make these treatments illegal, but it seems to me that rules are rules, and flagrantly and purposefully disregarding the rules should meet with some penalty.

 

I was curious as to whether this situation was different in Europe or other parts of the world, and to whether anyone else finds it strange that inadvertantly playing the wrong cards carries a big penalty in the laws, but purposefully playing illegal methods or failing to disclose methods carries no particular penalty, only an attempt to restore "equity."

[LH2650]

There are a number of situations where directors seem to rule primarily to "restore equity." These include:

 

(1) Failure to alert

(2) Playing illegal methods/conventions

(3) Failure to have a filled out convention card

 

In general, the onus seems to be on the non-offending side to prove that "there was damage" in order to receive any adjustment.

"Restoring equity" is not an exact description of what happens.

 

(1) Failure to Alert - When an adjusted score is considered, it is assumed that the non-offending side would have gotten any close decisions right. This can be quite an advantage over having to do it at the table.

 

(2) Illegal methods - Once an illegal convention has been used, the board is unplayable, and a score adjustment favoring the non-offending side is made. This occurred at the local Sectional this weekend in a knockout match, and the ruling was "table results discarded, 3 Imps to the non-offending side".

 

(3) No convention card - If there is any difference between an explanation and the actual play or call, misinformation must be assumed, and a score adjustment must be considered. "No agreement" is not an acceptable response for the basic situations covered by the convention card.

[candybar]

An important point here is that all of these things from revokes (fixed penalty) to failures to alert (judgment required) must always be assumed to be accidental or from ignorance.

 

We are NOT talking about deliberate cheating or deliberate unethical behavior, deliberate use of illegal agreements, etc. Those belong to an entirely different category of penalties. In the ACBL, for example, those sort of things are covered in the ACBL Disciplinary Code. They are not part of the Laws.

 

When a failure to alert happens, and as TD you are forced to make judgments about damage, what might have happened, what action would restore equity, and benefit of the doubt going to the non-offending side, always remember that no crime has been committed, and you are not the police, jury, or executioner.

 

Your job as TD is to make sure the non-offending side is not damaged by the failure, and that is ALL. It is NOT to punish, and you should NOT assume that any failure to alert is deliberate.

 

If you have evidence that it is deliberate, then it falls into the Disciplinary Code venue and should be handled by those whose job it is to deal with cheating, NOT by the TD at the table.

[McBruce]

How surprising that nobody invoked what I like to call Law Zero, which precedes Law 1 in the book:

 

 

Scope of The Laws

 

The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty graciously, or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.

 

 

Thus, unless there is a penalty clearly spelled out in the Laws, a TD's first priority to attempt to restore equity. I'm not sure that your examples are completely on point though:

 

(1) Failure to alert

This one always should get a procedural penalty even when no damage results. Usually in that case, the PP will be only a warning. I have found that the dreaded Memphis-created word 'alertable' is not so much a detriment to the offline game due to the damage created by offenders, but because players spend way too much g.d. time debating about whether some bid which obviously caused no damage should have been alerted. I find it important to settle these petty arguments quickly, and remind players that we are here to play bridge and not to waste time. If there is damage, the TD restores equity as best he or she can.

 

(2) Playing illegal methods/conventions

When it is clear that this has happened, a result should still be obtained, but the offending side should get a maximum of A- (or whatever the SO demands in the specific case). It's never a question of damage or restoring equity.

 

(3) Failure to have a filled out convention card

In ACBL events, online and offline (with a lot of lenience at the club level) this renders any convention not on the ACBL SAYC illegal until a convention card is filled out. Back to #2. Damage/eqiuty is not an issue.

[Guest Jlall]

ive gotten a PP for not having a card, and also was forced to play SAYC until I made one out. This is probably pretty rare...it was about my 20th offense (I can never seem to hold on to my cards!). Now my partners usually carry two copies, lol.