Gold Cup Appeal

[Jeremy69A]

The appeal committee decided

 

a. to overturn the ruling because action was evident whether there was an alert or not

b. to fine the offending side 3 imps for their failure to alert

Edited February 16, 2011 by Jeremy69A

[lamford]

The appeal committee decided

 

a. to overturn the ruling because action was evident whether there was an alert or not

b. to fine the offending side 3 imps for their failure to alert

I agree with (a) but not with (b), pretty much for the reasons Dburn gave in #86 of Claim in a Grand Slam of Simple Rulings. The failure to alert 3♥ was not a heinous infraction, and 3 IMPs is probably more than half of the average adjustment made by ACs. It seems disproportionate to the offence.

[Jeremy69A]

The failure to alert 3♥ was not a heinous infraction, and 3 IMPs is probably more than half of the average adjustment made by ACs. It seems disproportionate to the offence.

 

I mostly agree. I would not have hit the pair with a fine because they were not experienced tournament players and,as you say, it was not a heinous crime, however if I had done so then it would have been the standard which, in this case, is 3imp's

[blackshoe]

The EBU's alert regulations use the words "must alert". When a player "must" do something, failure to do it is "serious indeed", more serious than failure to do what he "shall do", which should incur a PP "more often than not". So that suggests that it should be rare not to issue a PP for failure to do what one "must" do. That being the case, I agree with the committee's decision to issue a PP. The EBU White Book specifies that the "standard amount" for a PP under IMP scoring is 3 imps in Teams of Four, which the Gold Cup seems to be. If, in such contests, ACs are giving less than half the "standard amount", on average, then it seems to me someone needs to teach these ACs a little better.

[lamford]

The EBU's alert regulations use the words "must alert". When a player "must" do something, failure to do it is "serious indeed", more serious than failure to do what he "shall do", which should incur a PP "more often than not". So that suggests that it should be rare not to issue a PP for failure to do what one "must" do. That being the case, I agree with the committee's decision to issue a PP. The EBU White Book specifies that the "standard amount" for a PP under IMP scoring is 3 imps in Teams of Four, which the Gold Cup seems to be. If, in such contests, ACs are giving less than half the "standard amount", on average, then it seems to me someone needs to teach these ACs a little better.

I am not aware of any variation from the standard amount of a PP. I was referring to the average adjustment made by the TD or AC in a teams event, based on my experience.

 

Although the Laws spell out the effect of "shall not" and "must not", they are not consistent in their severity. For example:

 

"Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures,"

 

Later we have:

 

C. Requirement to Follow Suit

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible

 

On that basis, you would give a PP for all revokes, but only consider a PP for holding the cards in a manner that gave partner information about the heart suit.

[blackshoe]

Not my part of the ship. Talk to the WBFLC.

[Finch]

I am not aware of any variation from the standard amount of a PP. I was referring to the average adjustment made by the TD or AC in a teams event, based on my experience.

 

 

 

Isn't the "average adjustment" a pretty meaningless measure? Or do you mean the "average adjustment given that they do not keep the table result" ? In the latter, I think it's more than 3 imps on average. For the former, I'd have guessed somewhat less than 3 imps because it's quite common for at least one of the TD and AC to keep the table result.

[lamford]

Isn't the "average adjustment" a pretty meaningless measure? Or do you mean the "average adjustment given that they do not keep the table result" ? In the latter, I think it's more than 3 imps on average. For the former, I'd have guessed somewhat less than 3 imps because it's quite common for at least one of the TD and AC to keep the table result.

I was thinking of those that came before ACs, so the average will include those that are not adjusted; and I confess I did not trawl through the appeals booklets to check out my estimate. It might, as you say, be less than 3 IMPs. Perhaps the standard fine is too large - it seems that 3 IMPs for failure to alert a pre-emptive raise is too harsh. I have been involved in many a match where the margin was less than that, and would be unhappy to win or lose by such a fine. Is the standard fine not 10% of a top for matchpoints - which seems less punitive?

[Vampyr]

If, in such contests, ACs are giving less than half the "standard amount", on average, then it seems to me someone needs to teach these ACs a little better.

Are you referring to Lamford's post? He indicated that 3 IMPs was more than half the amount normally given. It is true that "twice" is "more than half", but if the former is meant, the latter would be a strange way to express it.

[blackshoe]

The EBU defines the "standard" adjustment in 12C2 (artificial adjusted score) cases to be ±3 IMPs for Average -/Average +. If ACs are awarding something other than the "standard" amount in such cases, somebody needs to investigate why that is, and whether ACs need further training in how to do their jobs.

[Finch]

The EBU defines the "standard" adjustment in 12C2 (artificial adjusted score) cases to be ±3 IMPs for Average -/Average +. If ACs are awarding something other than the "standard" amount in such cases, somebody needs to investigate why that is, and whether ACs need further training in how to do their jobs.

 

Lamford's not suggesting that - he's trying to make a different point. He's saying that the "standard amount" seems very big, given that the "average score adjustment resulting from a ruling, including those where the table result stands" is less than 6 imps. He's also saying that 3 imps seems like 'more' than 10% of a top.

 

On a 24-board pairs event, 10% of a top is a bit under 0.5%. I have no evidence to back this up at all, but I would have thought that the winner of a 24-board pairs event is separated from 2nd place by under 0.5% about as often as a 24-board match is determined by less than 3 imps. But that's just my gut feel (and of course winning margin is not the only relevant thing to consider).

[gordontd]

Perhaps the standard fine is too large - it seems that 3 IMPs for failure to alert a pre-emptive raise is too harsh. I have been involved in many a match where the margin was less than that, and would be unhappy to win or lose by such a fine. Is the standard fine not 10% of a top for matchpoints - which seems less punitive?

There would be little point in giving a fine if it never made the difference between winning or losing a match.

 

The standard fine in IMP-pairs (which is a better comparison with matchpoints than is teams) is 2 IMPs.

[Jeremy69A]

The EBU's alert regulations use the words "must alert". When a player "must" do something, failure to do it is "serious indeed", more serious than failure to do what he "shall do", which should incur a PP "more often than not". So that suggests that it should be rare not to issue a PP for failure to do what one "must" do. That being the case, I agree with the committee's decision to issue a PP. The EBU White Book specifies that the "standard amount" for a PP under IMP scoring is 3 imps in Teams of Four, which the Gold Cup seems to be. If, in such contests, ACs are giving less than half the "standard amount", on average, then it seems to me someone needs to teach these ACs a little better.

 

It is not typical in England to fine a pair for failing to alert. Most committees take into account the experience of the pair which is why I don't agree with this referee.

If you do decide to fine then, as DBURN said earlier in the thread, you should fine whether you adjust the score or not. Appeal committees often do not do that which is where, perhaps, education is needed.

There is no evidence that appeal committees or referees are giving anything less than the standard fine.

[lamford]

Lamford's not suggesting that - he's trying to make a different point. He's saying that the "standard amount" seems very big, given that the "average score adjustment resulting from a ruling, including those where the table result stands" is less than 6 imps. He's also saying that 3 imps seems like 'more' than 10% of a top.

 

On a 24-board pairs event, 10% of a top is a bit under 0.5%. I have no evidence to back this up at all, but I would have thought that the winner of a 24-board pairs event is separated from 2nd place by under 0.5% about as often as a 24-board match is determined by less than 3 imps. But that's just my gut feel (and of course winning margin is not the only relevant thing to consider).

Your estimates seems reasonable, but the penalty is much less likely to matter in a pairs event. It would need the 0.5% to change your position from 1st to 2nd, although some might care whether they got the 13th or 14th prize; firstly you need to be leading before the penalty for it to matter. If it changes the result of a match, it seems much more significant; I recall a Spring Fours match being decided by the 3 IMPs North was penalised for East taking out North's cards! I believe the EBU changed that regulation soon after. The 2 IMPs in an IMP pairs seems fairer, and there it will only matter if you are in contention. And as Jeremy69A said, 3 IMPs for an inexperienced pair failing to alert was too harsh. Is there any reason why one has to award a standard PP or none at all?

[blackshoe]

As I read the regulation, the "standard" amount is a guideline, not a requirement. So the TD (or AC) could award a different amount. I do think "none at all" completely disregards the law, and so is not appropriate.

 

It may not be typical to award a PP for failure to alert - or for that matter for failure to do other things that one "must" do. That doesn't make it right.

[mycroft]

I for one am happy with "you did something wrong. 99% of the time, it doesn't matter, and 99% of the rest of the time, the solution is trivial. But when you do cause a problem, you still did something wrong and should be punished for it". I am not happy with "adjustment or PP", however, because now the PP looks like "we aren't allowed to adjust, but we're going to 'back door' in the adjustment" (if that is the case, it is in violation of the Laws).

 

The difference is subtle, I know.

[bluejak]

But when that is just untrue? I have told you the reason I think a PP is correct when there is no adjustment. That is the reason and there is no secret of it as far as I am concerned. Nothing to do with a backdoor approach.

[mycroft]

It is not "just untrue", at least in history, at least in the ACBL. Especially when the size of the PP approximates what the adjustment would have done as opposed to a "standard adjustment" (funny that). Where it is untrue (and had I not read the other thread, I wouldn't have noticed), fine. However, unlike some, I'm quite happy with adjustment and PP, especially for a repeated offence.

 

I also am happy with "look, we've told you repeatedly You Can't Do That. You still do it, so this one is going to cost you X. In this case, there happens to be no damage, so we are not also adjusting the score, but you will keep getting "cost you X" every time we hear it happens again until it stops. And rectify the irregularity if rectification is necessary."

 

I am also more likely to give warnings as procedural penalties, if I think that that will be sufficient.

[blackshoe]

Seems a reasonable approach — although I'm disinclined to give repeated warnings. Warn once, and then penalize.

[mycroft]

Probably a good idea. However, I am coming from a "team directing" standpoint, where (of course) we talk about the rulings, but maybe not in time. I remember being told "so <this> happened", and I asked "so who was South?" (because I had an idea...) and was told. I filled the other TD in on that particular person's peculiar ideas about Law 16, and he said "oh. If I had known that, I would have given him a penalty." So, when next *I* get this ruling at this person's table, "we've repeatedly told you, at the table and away from it, that this is not legal bridge. Enjoy your 1/4 board."

[ICEmachine]

The appeal committee decided

 

a. to overturn the ruling because action was evident whether there was an alert or not

b. to fine the offending side 3 imps for their failure to alert

 

 

I agree with a. If South is a professional player he is probably aware if he wants to bid depending on the meaning of 3H, so he can easily ask. I always thought that is south is good enough to understand he mighe be in a "double shot" position, the TD should not allow him to make that double shot. Isnt that exactly what South is doing here? Not that it matters much anyways as a professional player would bid here no matter the meaning of 3H as long as it shows heart support.

 

 

 

 

but I dont understand or agree with b.

 

Does this mean that everytime a pair forgets to alert I can summon TD and ask him to hand out 3 imps penalty for their failure to alert?

[Jeremy69A]

Does this mean that everytime a pair forgets to alert I can summon TD and ask him to hand out 3 imps penalty for their failure to alert?

 

You can call the director and it is his decision as to whether to issue a procedural penalty for the failure to alert. In England this is fairly unusual. Inexperienced pairs, for example, are rarely fined. In this particular case the director did not fine the pair but the referee judged to.

[blackshoe]

You can call the TD (politely, please) and report the facts to him. It is not appropriate to suggest how he should rule.

[ICEmachine]

You can call the TD (politely, please) and report the facts to him. It is not appropriate to suggest how he should rule.

 

Ofcourse I didnt mean that you should tell him to hand out 3 imps, but to summon the TD with the intention to have him give 3 imps penalty to your opponents.

 

I at least dont like the randomness of this procedural penalty and the logic that its only given when cases go to AC.

Shouldnt we try and have a system or rules that at least tries to be fair and either penalises all or none in the same way?

[bluejak]

That tends to be completely impractical so it is not generally the right approach. Take speeding on the roads: it is not practical to prosecute everyone who speeds, but as a reason not to prosecute anyone I am afraid that is not valid.