Unsatisfactory Alerts OR Crying Wolf

[Yzerman]

I have an interesting topic, and perhaps a call for some advice on this topic. Personally, I am sure that every tourney director on BBO has had to endure the follow argument at one time or another, so I am kind of interested in what others would have to say.

 

The argument is that some players will call director if/when they feel the opponents have not been forthcoming with alerts and/or explanations, which of course every player has a right to do. However, the problem is when people will call the director in an auction in which they have NO STAKE in what the opponents are bidding. I have 2 very good examples of this from recent AbaLucy tournaments in which I ruled against (and in one case penalized) the pair that had made the complaint. Here are the hands;

 

Example -

 

South Hand (E/W were playing WJ2000 and N/S not familiar with system);

 

xxx

J98xx

xx

xxx

 

Auction -

 

N E S W

P 1C P 1S

P 2D P 2S

P 4N P 5D

P 6S P P

P

 

Alerts -

1C was polish - 11-14 balanced, 15+ clubs, 18+ any ALERTED AS "2+"

2D alerted as "fit reverse" - 18+ relay asking for further description

2S alerted as "4 spades, and 10+ points"

4N/5D blackwood and response, no alert

 

All bids during play that should have been alerted playing polish club WERE IN FACT ALERTED, however the explanation of 1C was "2+", in my opinion not very good description of a polish 1C opener. During the play, I was summoned to the table by the south player in which he was mad as hell that 1C was alerted as 2+, he thought the alert was misleading. (fyi - We wasted 5 minutes arguing this, and policy in AbaLucy is to add time to clock upon incomplete round so I added 4 more minutes this round for this arguments ... I subsequently disallowed adding time because I felt this was abuse of tourney policy, that is another topic though:).

 

So here is my problem, South was arguing that he was upset with Easts lack of a good explanation of 1C opener. My question is, how does the lack of explanation in any way shape or form effect what South was going to do? You mean if 1C was better alerted he was going to overcall 1H with 5332 1 count? Or perhaps he has more information to come up with a superb opening lead? Come on, lets get real here, you were not injured and you have NO excuse to waste 5 minutes of the directors time (and 5 minutes of every other players time because of extra time added to clock). I subsequently have issued a 'warning' to this person that this type of 'crying wolf' director call will not be tolerated, and naturally this person resisted quite emphatically.

 

I have another example of the similar type problem but will not bore anyone with more details, however I will state my position on this as a bridge player first then as a director second on this topic.

 

As a bridge player, I could CARE LESS what the opponents are doing for I am more interested in optimizing MY PARTNERSHIPS RESULTS rather than learning the opponents bidding. IF I feel that I need some information during an auction, I inquire in private chat to one or both of my opps for more information (NOTE: I do NOT click box, for this may be interpreted by MY partner as UI, the fact he knows i requested information is in fact UI in my opinion). But experience has dictated that its best to let the opponents bid on their own without any prompting, 1st of all if you ask questions you may wake them up to something (agreement, convention, system) they may have forgot, so my silence is 'tactical', I simply let the opponents dig their own grave.

 

As a director, I think a median must be found in which the director if responsible for determining IF one pair has been injured or harmed during bidding or play. Personally, I will just as readily warn/penalize a pair that instigates or claims they are not satisfied with opp alert/explanation as I will warn/penalize a pair that actually is not forthcoming.

 

I would be very interested in what other directors and/or players have to say on this topic.

 

Thanks,

Michael A Lucy

[inquiry]

Well, I am as sick of silly calls as anyone. But let me play the devil's advocate on your example hand. What if the defender is playing some fancy stuff over "precision forcing 1♣ auctions" where every bid, including pass means something, for instance if they are playing rumble...

 

http://www.bridgematters.com/rumble.htm

 

With this convention, a pass over 1♣ has to be alerted and means at least 3-3 in minors when not vul. But over a "can be shorter" 1♣ opening, rumble is off. In this case, the defender has a right to know if the 1♣ is or can be precision like.

 

Now, of course, if you are playing rumble you 1) need to know if you play it over polish club or not, and 2) when someone opens 1♣ and they alert it, you have at least some responsibility to find out what the bid means (and maybe even if they don't alert).

 

Ok.. on this hand, South can have no complaint... Zap-em.... :=)

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Mike and I had a discussion back in early December about alerting policies as they applied to Abalucy. [Necessary caveat, to some extent this discussion was prompted by complaints that some players had about my own partnership’s alerting style playing MOSCITO]

 

From my own perspective, I strongly believe that the Convention Card should be the primary tool to provide information about methods to the opponents and that Alerts and Announcements are best viewed as supplemental information. I agree completely with the principle of full disclosure, however, expecting players to type out detailed descriptions of each and every bid in real time is going MUCH too far. It slows down the game too much. Instead, players should develop a standardized form that can be used to convey this information. If opposing pairs want/need information, then they should bloody well consult the Convention Card/Convention File, whatever. Factor in language barriers and this argument becomes even stronger.

 

Furthermore, I also believe that advanced/expert players have an obligation to familiarize themselves with methods in common use in the arena in which they play. I happened to be spectating the pair in question. While I missed the start of this round, I know that they pre-alerted that they were playing Polish Club throughout the rest of the tournament. From my own perspective, any Abalucy member should know the basic definition of a Polish 1C opening. [in fact, I'd go much further and expect them to know that the sequence 1C - 1M - 2D is a relay] I have zero sympathy for anyone who claims damage from an incomplete explanation under these circumstances.

[Gerardo]

Mike, you are right, with the caveat Ben mentioned ("it affected my bidding", even if it didn't modified the actual calls)

But the explanations should be corrected in a proper way (As Richard mentioned, that was done in an extent he considers satisfactory). One party at fault doesn't mean the other is not.

 

I read a little about WJ, so I know 1♣:2M:2♦ is a relay, but still insist on proper explanations when I met a WJ pair, because often my partner does NOT know, and him/her doesn't have to know WJ, but s/he is still entitled to meanings of the bids (and meanings of alternative bids, if s/he asks specifically).

 

And after requesting of proper explanations before the bidding starts, I found all sorts of incomplete explanations, being "12+" the most irritating for me (so much, I consider to make it a CC amend/declaration when heard, and penalize them on unauthorized info when they subsequent open with any other bid having 12+. Harsh? Yeah! I think it is deserved, though. But I don't direct much these days).

 

But then, rebids are NEVER properly explained (how many times did you hear 1♦ can be 7-11 without 4-card major? Or 15(or 16)+ balanced?). Nor opener's rebids, which discriminate over opener's hand.

 

The reverse is true, I once was noted by a polish pair for opening 1♦ with 4=4=3=2, rightfully in my opinion. They DON'T have to know my methods. I overlook a lot of little things when playing SA(YC) or 2/1 if not requested not to. But when I play Precision, my 1♦ explanation is "11-15 HCP, 2+♦, no 5M, no 6♣, no 5♣4M, no 13-15 bal".

 

DISCLAIMER: I'm NOT against WJ players, but I found them (as a whole) the most problematic in this regard.

[keylime]

OK here's my two cents about the alerting issues...

 

I think it's a cultural item that the WJ players have a high amount of failure to alerts. From what limited information I have it's illegal to alert their 1C in Poland because it's considered "standard" there. Same with Wilkosz 2D, their 2NT opening, you get the drift. So they come online not knowing any better because it's a language/system/bridge organization barrier and they fail to alert 1♣ and all the sudden, life as they know it comes raining down upon them. A lot of it is an education issue.

 

Now with that said, the WJ players that alert their bid as strictly "WJ" - I have very little sympathy for because they know enough to alert, but are infringing upon the active ethics and disclosure decorums of the game. They KNOW their bid is non-standard, yet far too many are not forthcoming in the furthering of the understanding of that bid to non-WJ players. Give you instance: my lovely pard who never had played a card of WJ in her life in 4th seat hears a 1♣ bid alerted in 3rd seat. At the time, we had no agreement on how to handle the WJ multipurpose club (that changed immediately after this incident). So she clicks on the alert, gets "WJ 2000" as the answer. She then asks the player to politely explain this bid, clearly showing a lack of understanding of the bid. The player didn't answer until a TD gave them an average minus and a stern warning to have a better alert for ALL players. After this, we went into chat room, I explained a brief lowdown on WJ, agreed to treat it certain way, and that's how we treat it. I treat WJ as I treat any unusual system - should warrant a pre-alert, a CC is better, and if neither are given, a case by case basis for adjusted scores. However, if the WJ alerts their bid in a way that explains the bid clearly, then they have met their obligations.

 

Another thing that I have issue with - the Multi 2D bid. Why is it outlawed in most of my events? Because there are way too many different flavors of Multi! Furthermore, I have had more forgets of Multi then I care to imagine - had one pair forget it three times in eight boards!!!! I don't mind the Multi, if you remember it and use it correctly!

 

Now, there are a couple of pairs that have played in my events with Magic Diamond/strong diamond systems, and had a Finnish pair use forcing pass (that was entertaining). They pre-alerted the opps, had a filled convention card, was forthcoming - so needless to say I'm not all that bad when it comes to "legalities". All I'm saying is know your methods, know the alerts to the method, and be prepared to face the procedural penalties if you forget to disclose properly.

[etherwiz]

Complaints about Alerts are always fun to handle.

 

Goes Double for Opps that do not share a same lanuage !

And does not help if I share none with either opps. It has happened but almost all the time one person at the table understands English enough to make it work.

 

I know that one thing that could really help (most times) with hionest mistakes is that someone familar with each system write short one liners in each language possible on some common card (or web site) where you could see each explaination in a language picked byu a drop down box. Would take way to much resources and requre by far too many people working together to cover all the languages possibly used here. Better then that key the Language displayed by the flag of teh countries so possible to match anyone opps without knowing what country thier flag is for. ANother Dream suufers from lack of resources.

 

For experts and above (really Advanced and Above) the calls should be easy. They should be familar with MOST systems played here and at least know something about if an explaination is off.

 

The problems comes when Beginers or Novices have given to them "12+Cl or 18+G or 7-11 5c". Now this may be english - or it may not be, There is no way to tell unless you know what the devil they are talking about. Maybe everybody "here" should but that will not include a lot of Begginers/Novices and maybe even some Intermediates/Advanced. Our good fortune is that hopefully the Int/Adv will not want to admott they can not understand it !

 

But the person who explained did an honst job in trying to explain it. And this is when they and I all share a common language. We all have been there when when we (as TD) share no language with both partnerships.

 

And then you can also get the ones that do give the absolute min explaination, also perhaps misleading but Technically correct. Lastly I think it only proper to metnion the ones who "FLAN" or "Splint"and expect a novice to know what that means. Sometimes these will even call the director because the requester for Alert Definition keeps asking (and by-gods-sake I allready TOLD them Flanery (or Splinter bid or whatever the abriev. ment).

 

And we do this for FUN ?

 

Yes sometimes you gat a legit call because the Alert was misleading (is very rare for me), and sometimes you get a legit call because the Alert was not given. Most of the times the call is because of miss understanding what was said.

 

Unfortunately all calls take time and that takes time away from every other table. Increasing the time for round is not always fair because some people have to be somewhere by a certain time. They may even have another tournamenteither to be or run at a certain time. If 8 rounds go from 7 mins each to 10 or 12 it is almost certain that someone will not be someplace they should be.

 

Has this been crytic enough ?? You are just lucky that nothing has reminded me of a Parable or Allegory yet.

 

_*_Dave

[irdoz]

I have done a lot of online directing. The situation that Michael describes where:

 

1. Someone is exteremely upset about a failure to alert or inadequate disclosure and is expecting some 'reward' but there was no possiblity of damage;

 

and

 

2. The failure to alert or inadequate disclosure is real - but sometimes it is trivial or minor and the response to it out of proportion to the "offense".

 

This is so familiar and common in my online directing experience.

 

In the instance Michael describes both parties are 'in the wrong' - '2+ clubs' is inadequate disclosure - and it may be the case that the director call was inappropriate - and neither party will be happy whatever the director does - and in the pressure of an online tournament, with the emotional heat already escalated, with the pressure of time, and the lack of time to patiently explain and with communication restricted to the typed word, when english may not be anybody's first language and without all the advantages of non-verbal communication skills - the director has a very difficult task. Very often in these situations I feel like my task is facilitate the process of getting all sides to move on to the next board or next round, to communicate that there is no damage and then afterwards I will endevour to speak privately to both parties about aspects of what happened after the event is over and when hopefully a state of calm has returned.

 

There are two common personality types in common operation

 

a) the failure to alert and the imroper disclosure police - who feel any infraction automatically results in damage and because they identified it they should be rewarded... these people have lost the intent of alerting and disclosing... it is not so that these behaviours can be policed for reward.. and most often they do not understand that there are two sufficent and necessary essential requirements for an adjustment to occur - the failure to alert or inadequate disclosure AND actual damage... not hurt feelings or 'they did wrong so I should be rewarded or at least they should be publically chastised' by the director 'so they know I am right'.

 

:D the person who understands the rules, can argue their case, whose grasp of english is excellent but still discloses inadequately and perhaps deliberately so his is much rarer but it does happen.

 

 

Of interest to me is the primary purpose of alerting and disclosure when the opponent has not in fact encountered the convention or system before. I'm not of the school 'you should just know'. Nor do I believe the coded information on a cc is necessarily sufficient. It is genuinely the case that many people starting on BBO will have initially not encountered WJ2000 or Polish club before. Therefore what should they know about 1c in order to facilitate their defense, or do we decide thats just impossible and they will have to go and learn how to defend against variable 1c for their next tournament?

 

For me disclosing that Polish 1 club is say...

 

i) 11-17 clubs unbalanced (not including 11-14 hands with 5+ clubs and a 4 card major)

ii) All 18+ hcp hands

iii) Balanced hands of 12-14 hcp

 

is not useful - except for the disclosure police - but for someone who has never encountered Polish 1c that is next to useless.

 

The essential information for me is:

i) it includes weak and strong hands

ii) about 90% of the time it will be weak so you should use whatever methods you use over standard american 1c opens

 

And advanced information might be

iii) it is forcing - so you can pass with strong balanced hands if you are interested in a possible penalty double...

 

It seems to me that most often the function of an alert will be inform the opps about a method they are familiar with and know how to defend against is being used - in this context disclosure has no great purpose. However, where they are unfamiliar then disclosure has a real purpose... and its not just what's on the cc in terms of the coded description of the bid - but the inferences and defense that is more important - and in my experience these things are rarely volunteered...

[McBruce]

Private message to Mr. 1-count once facts are determined: "There is no chance that you were damaged by the insufficient explanation to the Polish 1♣ opener. In my game, you don't get to wait until the opponents bid a slam and appear to be making it until you call the Director to complain about a poor explanation of the first call of the auction. Next time call me immediately when the 1♣ bid is made and only if you have a hand that may take action. There is no excuse for this needless disruption and if you try it again I will disqualify you, bar you from future tournaments I run, and report your behavior to BBO. Have a nice day."

[DrTodd13]

One has the right to call director as soon as one realizes that the

explanation of a bid was inaccurate or incomplete and if they believe

that this misinformation somehow affected the hand. For the given

hand, I doubt the worthless 1-point had was affected by the misinformation.

His partner maybe had more points and could have affected their play.

I don't know the hands well enough to say. If someone alerts 1♣ as 2+ then I assume they are playing a short club system, not Polish club. You can't have a system where people have to be satisfied with every explanation before the auction can proceed. How would they know at that point that what they were given was incomplete?

[Yzerman]

Having read responses, my perception is the majority (slight majority) are very adament about full disclosure, which I would say in the long run is the most fair and equatable way to run an online tournament.

 

I have a general question;

 

Why is it that there are MANY more director calls online, BBO, than in real life tournament play?

 

I think, as discussed in this thread, there are two primary factors.

 

1) Wider range of systems, languages, governance, and a much more diverse crowd of bridge play.

 

2) There are people who are always looking for a "free lunch", so to speak. It is my perception that these people feel they can take advantage of the diversity explained in (1) and use it to their advantage.

 

I think first and foremost, it is each players and directors responsibility to understand the rules (convention charts, conditions of contest, etc) and just as important each player and director in online bridge must play and direct under the following assumption;

 

YOU MUST ASSUME EVERY PLAYER PLAYS WITH GOOD INTENT

 

If you use this principle as a player, and as a director, I think there might be reduction in director calls and ultimately problems. Some people sit at the cyber bridge table see a Polish flag, or a Turkish flag, or US flag and AUTOMATICALLY start looking for reasons to get angry and make director calls.

 

Personally, I get EXTREMELY ANGRY when i feel I have been unjustly played against, but in general I do not make an issue and call a director. I understand this is online bridge, I understand that people sometimes are motivated by winning more than playing good/sound bridge and I understand I am not going to save the world. As a director I am much more open minded however online directing can sometimes be a very difficult task.

 

Regards,

Michael A Lucy

[mr1303]

My experience of the Polish Club system is as follows

 

1C* P 1D* P

2NT P 3NT All Pass

 

1C was Polish, not alerted AT ALL

1D was the negative response or natural with diamonds, also not alerted

 

next player to play had KQTxxxx in diamonds, with a bit extra on the side and assuming the diamond bid was natural, was forced to pass.

 

Contract ends up in 3NT, making plus 1 on a non-diamond lead, when a diamond lead almost certainly would have set it. On seeing the dummy, player calls the director (me) and I decided to adjust to 3NT-1

 

I think this is a reasonable decision. If an artificial call is made that seriously affects the bidding, which is not alerted, then I think it is correct to adjust

[Cascade]

My experience of the Polish Club system is as follows

 

1C* P 1D* P

2NT P 3NT All Pass

 

1C was Polish, not alerted AT ALL

1D was the negative response or natural with diamonds, also not alerted

 

next player to play had KQTxxxx in diamonds, with a bit extra on the side and assuming the diamond bid was natural, was forced to pass.

 

Contract ends up in 3NT, making plus 1 on a non-diamond lead, when a diamond lead almost certainly would have set it. On seeing the dummy, player calls the director (me) and I decided to adjust to 3NT-1

 

I think this is a reasonable decision. If an artificial call is made that seriously affects the bidding, which is not alerted, then I think it is correct to adjust

I agree with your decision but with a condition ...

 

If the opponents new that this pair was playing Polish club and if they new the meanings of Polish club then the damage has not been caused by the failure to alert.

 

The Polish club pair have still infracted by their failure to alert.

 

I would warn them or penalize them if I thought this was serious even if I did not adjust the score.

 

I have started using the notes feature to make notes of warnings and unusual behaviour on player's profile when I direct tournaments - in case I come across the same pair again.

 

Wayne

[McBruce]

mr1303 wrote:

 

1C* P 1D* P

2NT P 3NT All Pass

 

1C was Polish, not alerted AT ALL

1D was the negative response or natural with diamonds, also not alerted

 

next player to play had KQTxxxx in diamonds, with a bit extra on the side and assuming the diamond bid was natural, was forced to pass.

 

Contract ends up in 3NT, making plus 1 on a non-diamond lead, when a diamond lead almost certainly would have set it. On seeing the dummy, player calls the director (me) and I decided to adjust to 3NT-1

 

Cascade replied:

 

I agree with your decision but with a condition ...

 

If the opponents new that this pair was playing Polish club and if they new the meanings of Polish club then the damage has not been caused by the failure to alert.

 

The Polish club pair have still infracted by their failure to alert.

 

I would warn them or penalize them if I thought this was serious even if I did not adjust the score.

 

Not sure I (McBruce) agree here. The Laws apply equally to everyone. If we decide that a Polish 1♣ and the 1♦ response must be alerted, those are the rules. It leads to chaos to create alert rules that must be followed "unless you figure your current opponents are aware of your methods." For example (just an example), in the ACBL we must immediately announce "transfer" when partner makes a Jacoby transfer. If you play a three or four-board round and you make Jacoby transfers on two boards, it's not a valid defense to the Appeal Committee to say "but I used the exact same convention on the previous board." Full disclosure means we must remind opponents what we play at every opportunity, whether the information is redundant to them or not.

 

What would be best would be if we could deal with these situations the way a real life Director would. Adjust the declaring side to 3NT-1, but use judgment in deciding what to assign the defenders. If you judge that they probably should have been aware, you might make them "eat their score," especially if they played very poorly after the infraction. (Currently we are limited to adjustments based on average, A+ and A-.) My standard is "does it seem to me that the aggrieved party - the non-offending side - is trying to improve their score, or are they merely trying to annoy the opponents?" If I feel that they are calling in full knowledge that they cannot gain unless I make a mistake in judgment, I will make them eat their score, and I may even penalize further if the non-offenders call for the police often.

 

BTW, neat effect for the Web savvy: replace color-words like 'orange' with hex codes like #e07000 in the tags for different shades. Works like a charm!:(

[Cascade]

Not sure I (McBruce) agree here. The Laws apply equally to everyone. If we decide that a Polish 1♣ and the 1♦ response must be alerted, those are the rules. It leads to chaos to create alert rules that must be followed "unless you figure your current opponents are aware of your methods." For example (just an example), in the ACBL we must immediately announce "transfer" when partner makes a Jacoby transfer. If you play a three or four-board round and you make Jacoby transfers on two boards, it's not a valid defense to the Appeal Committee to say "but I used the exact same convention on the previous board." Full disclosure means we must remind opponents what we play at every opportunity, whether the information is redundant to them or not.

 

What would be best would be if we could deal with these situations the way a real life Director would. Adjust the declaring side to 3NT-1, but use judgment in deciding what to assign the defenders. If you judge that they probably should have been aware, you might make them "eat their score," especially if they played very poorly after the infraction. (Currently we are limited to adjustments based on average, A+ and A-.) My standard is "does it seem to me that the aggrieved party - the non-offending side - is trying to improve their score, or are they merely trying to annoy the opponents?" If I feel that they are calling in full knowledge that they cannot gain unless I make a mistake in judgment, I will make them eat their score, and I may even penalize further if the non-offenders call for the police often.

 

BTW, neat effect for the Web savvy: replace color-words like 'orange' with hex codes like #e07000 in the tags for different shades.

That is not what I am saying.

 

The fact that there is a rule saying that some bid or other needs to be alerted is different that saying that whenever that bid is not alerted then there needs to be an adjustment. An adjustment is only warrented if there is first an infraction and second there is damage and third that the damage is caused by the infraction.

 

I would handled failures to alert where no damage resulted or the damage was not caused by the failure to alert by warning offenders and penalizing them if there were repeated offenses.

 

You will not be made aware of every single failure to alert in a tourney so it is impractical to penalize every single failure to alert. I also believe that it is wrong to do so as some systems and therefore some players bare a higher burden in alerting than other players and systems. Occasional lapses must be tolerated. As of course should be adjustments when those inadvertent lapses cause damage.

 

For example, personally I make full use of the online alert procedure to inform my opponents to our methods however even so occasionally I get distracted and fail to alert. And much more often I find I am rushing to alert or explain after I have already made the bid because I have forgotten.

 

The alerting rules on BBO are minimal at best. Many players seem to think that their local rules apply. This is a dangerous assumption as your opponents will not know what your local rules are. This may be true even if they know where you are from. e.g. I do not know the ACBL rules in detail.

 

Therefore I would alert any artificial bid even ones that may not be alerted locally. I also alert four-card majors or five-card majors and four-card minors and short minors etc etc

 

Also note it is possible to adjust to an assigned score not just to an average score. We cannot make non-matching adjustments to both sides - this would be an improved option.

 

Wayne

[McBruce]

Cascade wrote:

 

The fact that there is a rule saying that some bid or other needs to be alerted is different that saying that whenever that bid is not alerted then there needs to be an adjustment. An adjustment is only warrented if there is first an infraction and second there is damage and third that the damage is caused by the infraction.

 

I would handled failures to alert where no damage resulted or the damage was not caused by the failure to alert by warning offenders and penalizing them if there were repeated offenses.

 

I agree, and I guess my previous post implied that I thought all failures to alert/explain should be worth a penalty. Of course this is not the case.

 

Is the Laws standard that damage must be caused by the infraction, or damage might have been caused by the infraction? I think the latter is correct.

[DrTodd13]

I think the standard is that damage must have been caused for the opponents to receive an adjusted score. If the opponents know it is a transfer, splinter, etc.

without it being alerted but the offending continues to non-alert then the directory may assign a procedural penalty against them. That is my current understanding of the laws. The non-offending side can even be held partly responsible if they have failed to protect themselves adequately in certain situations where people often play bids differently. If you think something is fishy, at least ask once the auction is over.

[Gweny]

Unfortunately this is maybe rule/law BUT we no ability to assess procedual penalty at this time...

 

unless you consider A+/- procedural penalty :(

[Cascade]

Is the Laws standard that damage must be caused by the infraction, or damage might have been caused by the infraction? I think the latter is correct.

That depends on what you mean by 'might have been caused'.

 

If there has been an infraction and there has been damage I guess there are three situations:

 

1. We can see that the damage was caused by the infraction;

 

2. We can see that the damage was not caused by the infraction;

 

3. We can not tell if the damage was caused by the infraction.

 

In the latter case the laws

 

L84D

If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified penalty and the award of an adjusted score, he attempts to restore equity, resolving any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side.

 

L84E

If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged, notifying the offending side of its right to appeal (see Law 81C9).

 

require the doubt to be resolved in favour of the non-offenders.

 

If you mean 'might have' in this sense then I agree.

 

Wayne

[Cascade]

Unfortunately this is maybe rule/law BUT we no ability to assess procedual penalty at this time...

 

unless you consider A+/- procedural penalty :(

IMO the ability to issue procedural and disciplinary penalties would be a great enhancement to our tourneys.

 

Wayne