Forked Tongue

[blackshoe]

Hm, that's a good point, AT. As for "too much to ask of a committee", no, it's not.

[pran]

Yes, they did; they decided that "test the clubs as first priority" was not permitted as it was not embraced by the original clarification statement, under Law 70D1.

I am just anxious to hear from all those who agree with the AC how they would have ruled if the claim statement had been: "I cash the Ace, King and Queen of Diamonds and then try the finessee in clubs if Diamonds do not break"?

 

We may agree or disagree, but one of the principles since the birth of Bridge is that a player may correct an obvious misnomer without any penalty when his real intention is clear (and auction or play has not subsequently progressed to a point where such correction is no longer possible without damaging the game).

[lamford]

one of the principles since the birth of Bridge is that a player may correct an obvious misnomer without any penalty when his real intention is clear

You are usually right when it is a card named in dummy (until declarer has played), usually when it is a bid (if one's partner has not called), and sometimes when it is claim (if there is no other normal line to the intended one). So it is not the case that a misnomer always suffers no penalty. It usually has restrictions on when it can be changed. This is no different.

[lamford]

It sounds as though the TD ruled (point of law) that he was allowed to consider declarer's second statement. It seems to me that for technical correctness, the AC (who clearly disagreed with the director on this point) should have firstly recommended that the TD reconsider that part of his ruling, and secondly ruled itself on the validity of the revised claim.

The TD decision to allow the revised statement, although still rejecting the claim of 13 tricks, was a possible misuse of his power under Law 70D1. Under Law 83, if the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power could well be in order, he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee. So, I think that the club handled the appeal correctly, and the AC did have the authority to make the decision it did.

[pran]

You are usually right when it is a card named in dummy (until declarer has played), usually when it is a bid (if one's partner has not called), and sometimes when it is claim (if there is no other normal line to the intended one). So it is not the case that a misnomer always suffers no penalty. It usually has restrictions on when it can be changed. This is no different.

I am still interested in how you (and others) would rule when the (initial) claiom swtatement was:

 

"I cash the Ace, King and Queen of Diamonds and then try the finessee in clubs if Diamonds do not break"?

 

In other words when the claim statement makes no sense unless there is a misnomer.

[lamford]

"I cash the Ace, King and Queen of Diamonds and then try the finessee in clubs if Diamonds do not break"?

In this example, the statement is still just as impossible as his original one. If he changed that to "sorry, I meant, the ace, king, queen of clubs", and that was not part of his original clarification statement, then it is just tough. There is still an alternative normal line, the diamond finesse.

 

The Law seems quite clear here. If he makes an impossible claim, then it does not matter whether he corrects it or not. If there are only successful normal lines, he makes his contract. If there is an unsuccesful normal line he does not.

[mrdct]

South was very upset (the TD ruled against him) and he said he would not be coming to the club again.

I am told that South did appeal, unsuccessfully,

I'm having a little bit of difficulty reconciling the emerging facts in this case; muddied further by a strikingly similar hand by the same poster a few days after the original post. I'm not a great believer in lightning striking twice and have a strong feeling that the second hand may well have been contrived by Lamford to reinforce his position on the first hand; although I'm happy to stand corrected if Lamford can produce a hand record or some other corroborating evidence that the second hand did in fact occur.

 

As for the appeals report, despite disagreeing with the TD ruling and the AC decision, I am impressed that an appeals committee at club game would produce such a comprehensive written judgement; but I must say that I'm tempted to call shenanigans here given that there was no mention of the appeal in the earlier posts, an apparently contrived claims ruling was then posted and now an appeals report (in format and detail at least) worthy of a Bermuda Bowl final has emerged. Again, I'm more than happy to stand corrected, but can Lamford let us know exactly where this appeal took place and whether or not appeal reports in that jurisdiction go on the public record as I'd like to see a copy of it. Perhaps Lamford could let us know at least who the chair of the appeals committee was so he or she could be contacted independently to verify the accuracy of the transcription of the appeals report.

[lamford]

Perhaps Lamford could let us know at least who the chair of the appeals committee was so he or she could be contacted independently to verify the accuracy of the transcription of the appeals report.

I promised confidentiality to my correspondent, sorry, but why would it be in the slightest bit relevant whether either hand was genuine or not? The purpose of this forum is to consider what the correct ruling is for any set of facts. And why do you still disagree with the AC ruling?

[blackshoe]

The TD decision to allow the revised statement, although still rejecting the claim of 13 tricks, was a possible misuse of his power under Law 70D1. Under Law 83, if the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power could well be in order, he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee. So, I think that the club handled the appeal correctly, and the AC did have the authority to make the decision it did.

 

If the TD's decision was one on a point of law, and he believes a review of that decision may be appropriate, then referring the case to the AC is the correct action. However, that doesn't give the AC the authority to overrule the TD on that point of law.

[lamford]

If the TD's decision was one on a point of law, and he believes a review of that decision may be appropriate, then referring the case to the AC is the correct action. However, that doesn't give the AC the authority to overrule the TD on that point of law.

That is what I understood too, but the Law seems to contradict itself:

 

If a committee is available:

1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal

as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed

to the committee.

2. The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the committee for

adjudication.

3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned

by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not

overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on

exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may

recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)

 

So, under 1, the TD states how he interprets the law, and his ruling may be appealed, but then under 3, it says that they cannot overrule him, which makes one wonder what the purpose is of appealing a ruling that deals solely with the Law.

 

I guess the AC should therefore say: "we don't agree with you considering the second statement." And the TD will then accept or reject that decision; I wonder if the TD has ever ignored the AC recommendation?

[blackshoe]

So, under 1, the TD states how he interprets the law, and his ruling may be appealed, but then under 3, it says that they cannot overrule him, which makes one wonder what the purpose is of appealing a ruling that deals solely with the Law.

 

The purpose is to fulfill the prerequisite for further appeals. See Law 93C.

[mrdct]

I promised confidentiality to my correspondent, sorry, but why would it be in the slightest bit relevant whether either hand was genuine or not? The purpose of this forum is to consider what the correct ruling is for any set of facts. And why do you still disagree with the AC ruling?

If you are going to post hypothetical situations they should be indicated as such and not described as "this occured at the club last night" or similar.

 

So just to be clear, are you confirming that the appeals report you posted was in fact an actual appeals report and not something you made up to illustrate your point?

 

Can you at least identify the jurisdiction in which this hand arose, as I'd be interested to have a look at the local regulations governing appeals and the publishing of same?

 

As for the AC ruling, aside from being nicely laid-out and well referenced, it is even worse than the the TD ruling in several ways:

 

1. not allowing the obvious dyslectic adjustment of the initial claim statement which I think has been universally accepted by posters here; and
   
2. once adopting the inflexible position of the claim is "see if diamands are breaking and, if not, take a club finese" the only possible outcome is 7♠-2 as declarer will lose tricks to the ♦K and ♣J.
   

At the risk of being accused again of being an extremist, this is one of the worst appeals committee decisions I've ever seen.

[lamford]

[*]not allowing the obvious dyslectic adjustment of the initial claim statement which I think has been universally accepted by posters here; and

[*]once adopting the inflexible position of the claim is "see if diamands are breaking and, if not, take a club finese" the only possible outcome is 7♠-2 as declarer will lose tricks to the ♦K and ♣J.

Nobody disputes that the declarer intended clubs when he said diamonds and vice versa. The AC stated that, despite that, he cannot substitute an alternative successful line, unless there is no normal alternative. I think that this is the correct decision; allowing the substitution is a breach of Law 70D1.

 

The AC did not force the player to see if diamonds are breaking. They indicated that the original claim statement was invalid, and they did not allow the declarer to test clubs first as there was an alternative line, the immediate diamond finesse that was a normal alternative and this was imposed.

 

I responded that I am not able to give any further information on the appeal, nor even to confirm whether it is genuine or created. Bluejak has already indicated on here that there is no requirement for hands to be played at the table.

[mrdct]

I responded that I am not able to give any further information on the appeal, nor even to confirm whether it is genuine or created. Bluejak has already indicated on here that there is no requirement for hands to be played at the table.

I'll take that as "created" then as if it was "genuine" you surely would've said so.

 

It's one thing to make up a hand to illustrate an interesting ruling situation, but it's quite a different thing to make up an appeals committee judgement that purports to be from a properly constituted appeals committee when in actual fact it may have been made-up.

 

The forum rules do require that you state the jurisdiction where the matter arose. If the hand, ruling and/or appeal arose in Imaginationland, you should indicate as such. I have absolutely no problem with people posting hypothetical situations, but they should disclose that fact. I would very much like some clarity on this point from the moderators.

 

We ask people who start threads to say where the query is from, which country, or put online if suitable. It is often suitable to use the "Topic Description" entry for the jurisdiction.

[gordontd]

I am not able to give any further information on the appeal, nor even to confirm whether it is genuine or created.

Not able to?

[bluejak]

Speaking for myself, I really do not think the interest in this case is particularly different dependent whether this was real or created, and I strongly suggest that attacking lamford on this point does nothing constructive. I should prefer that people either comment on matters of bridge Laws etc raised by this thread or refrain, whichever they prefer. But do note this is a personal opinion not official.

 

The reason for stating the jurisdiction is that many things are different in different jurisdictions. In effect a hand that purports to come from England may have the same points of interest dependent on whether it actually comes from England or has been constructed to make a point under English regulations and interpretations.

 

The OP says “at a local club of mixed standard” which, in view of the fact that lamford is a Londoner sounds as though it is from England. Also, from reading the OP, I cannot see anything that is actually jurisdiction-dependent, so none of this probably matters.

 

As for the appeals report, despite disagreeing with the TD ruling and the AC decision, I am impressed that an appeals committee at club game would produce such a comprehensive written judgement; but I must say that I'm tempted to call shenanigans here given that there was no mention of the appeal in the earlier posts, an apparently contrived claims ruling was then posted and now an appeals report (in format and detail at least) worthy of a Bermuda Bowl final has emerged. Again, I'm more than happy to stand corrected, but can Lamford let us know exactly where this appeal took place and whether or not appeal reports in that jurisdiction go on the public record as I'd like to see a copy of it. Perhaps Lamford could let us know at least who the chair of the appeals committee was so he or she could be contacted independently to verify the accuracy of the transcription of the appeals report.

"an appeals report (in format and detail at least) worthy of a Bermuda Bowl final has emerged"??? We have not seen a report, and the format could be the worst ever seen. Where is the description of the hand, the players, what happened, and so forth?

 

I am not sure whether appeals reports are awful in your neck of the woods, mrdct, but all you know about his one is that the AC Chairman took the trouble to explain their thinking. I am not sure what that proves, but I have seen appeals reports with careful explanations from side games in minor English congresses.

[mrdct]

I reiterate that I have no problem with people making up hypothetical situations so that we can have an interesting discussion about the related ruling, but the forum rules should require that such posting be identified as such; particularly where there is a cross-over situation of a real hand but an imaginary appeals committee which may be what we are seeing here.

 

The way I look at this case is the OP posted an interesting ruling hand which arose at "a local club of mixed standard" that dealt with several interesting issues and with the general consensus being to allow the claim of 13 tricks for reasons well outlined earlier in the thread. The OP is on record as being of the minority view that the claim should be denied and subsequently posted a very similar hand (but with a more dramatic illustration of the concept of a suit "breaking" where slightly greater attention to the pips would be required) to reinforce his opinion on the first hand. The second posting was described as being "at a local club last night" but with a tongue-in-cheek rider of "had a surprisingly familiar ring to it" which very much makes it look like a made-up hand. No big deal, as I think it was pretty obvious to the forum users what was going on.

 

The matter that I do find concerning is that the OP went a step further in reporting on the subsequent "appeal" on the hand, including a very well worded summary of the AC's deliberations which was represented by the OP as being a verbatim quote from what the AC wrote on the form. I've called shenanigans on that as I just find it too hard to believe that a hand from "a local club of mixed standard" involving a player of "intermediate" skill would go to appeal after the player in question had already flagged his intention to "not be coming to the club again". I'm not sure what goes on the UK, but in 25 years of playing bridge in Australia I think I've only ever seen one appeal coming from a club duplicate. If the OP can produce some evidence that this hand did in fact go to appeal and the reported judgement is factual, I will gladly donate US$100 to a charity of his choice (provided it has deductible gift recipient status in Australia so it will need to be a mainstream international charity such as the Red Cross, World Vision, etc.).

[lamford]

I reiterate that I have ... <yawn>

I reiterate that I have no further comment to make on whether the hand was genuine or constructed. As Catherine Tate would say "am I bovvered." And I shall not comment any further on this thread, other than the following correction:

[lamford]

Not able to?

Unwilling is correct; apologies for misusing "not able to" in the slang way it seems to be used by politicians.

[mrdct]

I reiterate that I have no further comment to make on whether the hand was genuine or constructed.

I'm only interested in whether or not the "appeal" was constructed.

[lamford]

I'm only interested in whether or not the "appeal" was constructed.

I reiterate that I have no further comment to make on whether [any aspect of] the hand was genuine or constructed.

[bluejak]

I'm not sure what goes on the UK, but in 25 years of playing bridge in Australia I think I've only ever seen one appeal coming from a club duplicate.

I have sat on several over the years in England, and taken matters to appeal occasionally.

 

:ph34r:

 

I reiterate that I have no further comment to make on whether [any aspect of] the hand was genuine or constructed.

I don't think reiteration is necessary: I should keep any future posts on that specific subject to follow the following interesting post, which I have repeated in its entirety: :)

 

.

[Vampyr]

 

 

I don't think reiteration is necessary: I should keep any future posts on that specific subject to follow the following interesting post, which I have repeated in its entirety: :)

 

Indeed, reiterating that one has no further comments to make is worse than unnecessary; it is a contradiction.

 

I agree with Bluejak that the purpose of threads like this is for all of us to think and maybe even learn something; the source of the data is not very important.

[gnasher]

Indeed, reiterating that one has no further comments to make is worse than unnecessary; it is a contradiction.

Surely it only tells us that Paul's previous statement turned out to be incorrect? For it to be a contradiction, he would have had to say something like "I reiterate that I had no further comment to make."

[mrdct]

I agree with Bluejak that the purpose of threads like this is for all of us to think and maybe even learn something; the source of the data is not very important.

I would agree that the source of hands is generally not very important, unless there is some NBO or tournament specific regulation in play. However, my gripe here is completely different. It is nothing short of academic fraud to make up what purports to be an authoritative source or reference to support your own argument.

 

An analogous situation would be if were take a recent ruling posting that I made such as Possible UI from a non-alert where the TD ruled against me and the general sentiment of the forum was that the TD was right, but I then represent to the forum that when I took the hand to appeal the appeals committee found in my favour and I back-up that representation with a detailed dissertation from the appeals committee presented as a direct quote filled with lots of well-expressed arguments in support of my position. The only problem is that the hand never went to appeal and the detailed dissertation was a figment of my imagination.

 

Whilst bridge rulings and appeals don't strictly adhere to the principle of legal precedence, they are to varying degrees influenced by precedent; particularly in jurisdictions with well structured appeals processes and reporting on appeals. If people can freely run around making-up appeals committee decisions and posting them in well-respected and moderated forums such as this, there is a danger that forum users will treat such "decisions" as being in some way authoritative and will be influenced to rule in line with such decisions in similar situations.

 

The quoting of imaginary appeals committee decisions, unless properly disclaimed as such, has no place in a discussion forum about Laws and Rulings. I appeal (excuse the pun) to the moderators to make it clear in the forum rules that it is not acceptable to insert purportedly authoritative references in support of an argument where such references have been made-up.