A Director Ruling / Appeal

[awm]

Does he claim to follow the Laws of Bridge, or not bother?

His typical approach seems to be, if one of his rulings is questioned or someone requests to appeal, he telephones a nationally rated director. He presents the situation to this director over the phone; neither of the two sides involved in the case are allowed to talk to the nationally rated director. The nationally rated director invariably confirms the table director's ruling (hardly surprising since the facts of the case are likely presented in a one-sided manner). The table director then denies the right to appeal.

 

I don't think there is any legitimacy in this procedure as far as the laws go, but my complaints have mostly fallen on deaf ears.

[Echognome]

If I had been on the committee, I would call (using pay phone of course) a nice restaurant and book dinner for the deposit NS paid. It would take the AC about 1 minute to rule "appeal without merit". I wish they were all this easy.

 

Roland

I wish the AC got to spend the deposits when I sit on them, we'd be keeping lots more of them...

Although, since EW would be the ones appealing, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be keeping any deposits.

 

However, I agree with both of your sentiments in general, just not in this instance.

[Finch]

Inconveniencing those who will be asked to serve is another thing. OTOH, if these folks have volunteered to serve, then so be it.

IMO this attitude is awful. You are saying they have volunteered their time so it's ok to waste it?

 

Educating the director is NOT what an appeal is for from the perspective of the appellants, even partially. If that happens then all the better, but it's why we have a recorder system.

Speaking as someone who sits on/chairs ACs fairly frequently I would observe that:

 

- Apart from some fairly obscure situations, you ALWAYS have the right of appeal against a TD's ruling

 

- An AC will always do their best. However, it is true that - in practice- appeals that make no difference to the result are not particularly popular. Particularly if there are multiple appeals at the end of an event and the poor TD is left running around trying to persuade people to put off their dinner/bed/trip home to sit on them.

 

- That means that you may not get a particularly high class AC. If there are two appeals and one decides the winner and the other decides between 29th and 30th place, which committee are the better arbiters going to be put on?

 

- Appeals will be rapidly dealt with if they involve a difficult or marginal judgement ruling, and the AC will usually uphold the TD's ruling on the basis it isn't worth anyone's time to discuss it at great length if it is a marginal case to start with.

 

- However a clearly wrong TD ruling will be corrected, and the AC in general will not object to hearing it; one of the jobs of an AC is to help stop people feeling upset and treated unjustly by the TD, whether it affects the outcome of a match or not.

 

It's true that it's not the AC's job to educate the directors. However - in the EBU at least - there is a distinct difference between TD rulings and AC rulings at national events. TD rulings do not get reviewed after they are given (although the TDs are of course strongly encouraged to consult each other before ruling). All AC decisions are reviewed by the Laws & Ethics Committee. So the 'TD eduction' is much more likely to happen if the ruling is appealed in the first place. While you can of course talk to the chief TD/send an email etc after the event, if there hasn't been a formal appeal process there will always be the suspicion that you have only told one side of the story, and possibly the TD saw/heard something completely different and gave a good ruling based on the information he had.

[Walddk]

If I had been on the committee, I would call (using pay phone of course) a nice restaurant and book dinner for the deposit NS paid. It would take the AC about 1 minute to rule "appeal without merit". I wish they were all this easy.

 

Roland

I wish the AC got to spend the deposits when I sit on them, we'd be keeping lots more of them...

Although, since EW would be the ones appealing, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be keeping any deposits.

 

However, I agree with both of your sentiments in general, just not in this instance.

I should have put it clearer. My point was that if the director, correctly, had adjusted the result to 6♥+1 and NS appealed, then they could be 100% certain that they would lose their money.

 

Roland

[mycroft]

I would make a habit of asking South in future: "Bid any grands off a known cashing ace lately?" Frequently. Eventually someone will ask me why. I might even tell him.

 

The *right* thing to do is take this to the CTD. But I bet the table director and the CTD was the same person, and the entire directing staff of the tournament. After the session, when E-W went to the TD and asked "how could bidding a grand off a cashing ace be anything but use of UI?", what did the TD use as justification?

 

Edit: it is possible that he thought North would "Oops, I misbid Gerber" raise to 7. He's allowed to, provided nobody woke him up to 4D being the wrong response.

[sieong]

Background: I was West on that deal (non-offending side). It was the GNT-A final in Northern CA. South is an experienced player.

 

I thought the case was clear as day: South has clearly taken advantage of the UI. The only question I have in mind is whether a procedural penalty is warranted. I didn't want one; I wanted to beat them fair and square. I have a feeling my opponents may not be on the same wavelength.

 

I couldn't believe what the director told me when he gave the ruling. Here's the exchange:

 

Me: "Results stand?!"

Director: "Yes, it was a difficult decision ..."

Me: "How's it difficult?! Is there an infraction?"

Director: "Yes, North broke tempo ..."

Me: "No, breaking tempo is not an infraction; question is whether South takes advantage of the break in tempo ..."

Director: "Oh right, yes ..."

Me: "Don't you think bidding a grand off an ace when they are up after 1 quarter illogical?"

Director: "Well, South's confused ..."

Me: "Is that a legitimate reason for absolving guilt?"

Director: "As I said, it was difficult ... let's see if the results end up mattering"

 

I still have no idea why this was difficult. I agree with most that NS doesn't even have merit in any appeal had the contract been rolled back

 

My main concern in this instance, other than the ruling being awful. is that AC are not convened right away. In almost all tournaments I go to in this district, AC are never called unless the ruling is material. I can understand the logistical concerns, but this practice certainly creates problems. 1) Records are often not kept because there are no written proceedings; repeated offenders may get away. 2) AC are given tremendous pressure, because every time their ruling will materially change the outcome, and may have difficulty passing the right judgment.

 

Take this for example; suppose director decides to roll back the result and access some amount of PP. If NS appeal, AC will have to decide two things, the roll-back (which is easy), and the PP (which is more subjective). Without the bias of the match on the line, I think the amount of PP is easier to decide; when one knows the amount of PP matters, it would be a different issue.

 

In any case, I am going to file a player memo on this incident. I don't like doing such things, but how else can records be kept?

[Ant590]

Moreover, you can hardly be in a good state of mind for the rest of the match if you're peeved about the bad ruling.

[mikeh]

Having gone through an appeal on a similar auction (where responder, in a competitive auction in which his partner, opener, had bid clubs and pulled 3N to 4♣, wasn't sure if this was minorwood or asking for cue bids and broke tempo while he decided what to do.. its a long story, only hinted at here), I am strongly of the view that the 7♥ bid should have been disallowed. I agree with your intended action... and suggest that you might want to let the chief director, in the area, know about the ruling (assuming it wasn't him already.. in which case, I'd write the ACBL). This kind of ruling leads to acrimonious appeal cases, even more often than rulings where the director sets the result aside immediately. I think it is because the offending side feels that it was validated by the director, so that it is a close call, when it really isn't.

[Echognome]

Post it on http://forums.bridgetalk.com

 

Make sure to include the country where the ruling took place. You'll get a lot more feedback from TDs (although some users frequent both). Then take those comments along with the ones here and send that along with your reply. Just make sure to be as complete with the facts (not opinions) as you can be.

[Trinidad]

Background: I was West on that deal (non-offending side).  It was the GNT-A final in Northern CA.  South is an experienced player.

 

I thought the case was clear as day: South has clearly taken advantage of the UI.  The only question I have in mind is whether a procedural penalty is warranted.  I didn't want one; I wanted to beat them fair and square.  I have a feeling my opponents may not be on the same wavelength.

Let's look at it from the opponents' point of view: If you would have appealed, they would have been ruled against and they would have gotten a severe procedural penalty. They would have lost the match and they would have deserved that completely. By choosing to refrain from an appeal, you let the wrong team win. The fact that you gave away your own deserved victory doesn't change those facts.

In any case, I am going to file a player memo on this incident.  I don't like doing such things, but how else can records be kept?

Usually, appeals are recorded. That means an appeal is a good way to get the incident recorded.

 

Rik

[Poky]

To rule adjustment the answer on the question "Does the UI demonstrably suggest bidding 7♥?" has to be "Yes".

 

Lets see.

 

"Partner hesitated. Why? Probably he isn't sure what 4♣ is and tries to remember it. He finally bids 4♦.

Did he remember what 4♣ is? - Who knows.

Did he answer aces correctly? - I cannot really know.

Does the slow 4♦ suggest he has the ♦A and other few cards that 7♥ needs? - No, for sure not!

So, what should I do? Whatever, the slow bid doesn't suggest anything that guarantees the grand will be a good contract, so, I can bid 7♥ in the dark and hope for the best (p having ♦A/diamond not lead), prepared to say sorry if p hasn't the ♦A."

 

So, I rule "Result stands". The bidder bid 7♥ taking his own risks in situation where the UI didn't suggest anything very useful to him, just partner's unsureness about the Gerber convention.

 

Where is my logic wrong?

[Cascade]

To rule adjustment the answer on the question "Does the UI demonstrably suggest bidding 7♥?" has to be "Yes".

 

Lets see.

 

"Partner hesitated. Why? Probably he isn't sure what 4♣ is and tries to remember it. He finally bids 4♦.

Did he remember what 4♣ is? - Who knows.

Did he answer aces correctly? - I cannot really know.

Does the slow 4♦ suggest he has the ♦A and other few cards that 7♥ needs? - No, for sure not!

So, what should I do? Whatever, the slow bid doesn't suggest anything that guarantees the grand will be a good contract, so, I can bid 7♥ in the dark and hope for the best (p having ♦A/diamond not lead), prepared to say sorry if p hasn't the ♦A."

 

So, I rule "Result stands". The bidder bid 7♥ taking his own risks in situation where the UI didn't suggest anything very useful to him, just partner's unsureness about the Gerber convention.

 

Where is my logic wrong?

The slow 4♦ makes you aware that partner may not be answering aces. This increases the chance that he has an ace - the ♦ A.

 

That is information that suggests 7♥ over not bidding the grand.

[Poky]

The slow 4♦ makes you aware that partner may not be answering aces.  This increases the chance that he has an ace - the ♦ A. 

 

That is information that suggests 7♥ over not bidding the grand.

Yes, it increases the chance from ~0% to ~50%. You really think this is enough to rule that "the UI demonstrably suggests bidding the grand"?

 

Furthermore, speaking of procedural penalty. If someone thinks the bidder should get a PP, in my view this means the PP should be assesed even when the grand fails (opps cashing the ♦A). This really has no sense.

[TimG]

Usually, appeals are recorded. That means an appeal is a good way to get the incident recorded.

In the ACBL, I think appeals are recorded only at the NABC level. There may be some districts that also record appeals, but I suspect if there are there are only a very few. In short, in ACBL-land, an appeal does not record the incident.

[Finch]

The slow 4♦ makes you aware that partner may not be answering aces.  This increases the chance that he has an ace - the ♦ A. 

 

That is information that suggests 7♥ over not bidding the grand.

Yes, it increases the chance from ~0% to ~50%. You really think this is enough to rule that "the UI demonstrably suggests bidding the grand"?

Yes

 

Furthermore, speaking of procedural penalty. If someone thinks the bidder should get a PP, in my view this means the PP should be assesed even when the grand fails (opps cashing the ♦A). This really has no sense.

 

Makes sense to me

[blackshoe]

Score adjustment depends on damage — you adjust the score if there was damage, you don't if there wasn't. A PP depends on whether there was an infraction — and in this case the laws use the term "may not" in regard to what calls the recipient of UI is prohibited from choosing. This means that a PP should be issued "more often than not", even if there was no damage.

 

It is not the case that in ruling on use of UI "no damage" is the same as "no infraction".

[mycroft]

Poky, the slow 4D call raised the percentage that the grand was on from 0% to non-0%. Give that auction to 100 bridge players (well, those that play Gerber) without the hesitation - NONE of them would bid 7; they're off a cashing ace.

 

The only reason to even think about 7 is the hesitation.

 

I have just demonstrated that the UI from the hesitation suggests bidding 7 over not. Next case.

[Apollo81]

If the director can get this one wrong, maybe he shouldn't be directing important events?

[han]

Disturbing story, you would think this is as clear as it can get.

[skjaeran]

This should be a non-brainer for a competent TD - it's not difficult at all. He still got it completely wrong. :angry:

It's really surprising that an experienced player wouldn't know (or care?) to do the correct thing here. I'd be very hard on south as a TD and on both south and the TD as an AC.

[Fluffy]

The appealing comitee should apply some penalty to N/S for playing this conventions.

 

Now seriously Adam. Its obvious N/S don't know how to answer this G€¬~·$%, why do you state it so clearly that 4♦ is no aces?