Break in Tempo Appeal

[bluejak]

Two questions:

1) How would you have ruled as the director?

2) How would you rule as a member of the appeals committee?

Legally, TDs and ACs rule the same way. Yes, this was not true fifty years ago, where there seemed to be an idea that a TD was just meant to rule against the offending side and let the AC sort it out, but that idea died many years ago.

 

That does not mean that they will always rule the same way even if they rule correctly, since often more facts are brought out at an AC. But when you give us one set of facts, whatever ruling is correct for a TD is correct for an AC.

 

Note that there are some minor differences in approach between [for example] the ACBL approach and the English approach. Posters are asked to say where the problem comes from. It often helps.

 

Technically, EW should have called the director at the time of the BIT, but that's a minor detail.

I am far from certain about this. As far as I am concerned you call the TD when you feel like calling the TD, unless there is a disagreement about whether UI was passed: in that case you should call him then, but there is no such disagreement here. Otherwise you call him when you like. Some authorities positively recommend calling him after a call is made that could easily be based on UI, and that is what was done here. You may not approve, but that is not the same as saying it is technically wrong.

 

Members of AC's don't rule, they vote.

Not in Committees I have sat on, including ACBL and WBF Committees. We have decided, very rarely falling back on a vote. Of course, there is a distinction in ACBL case-books and elsewhere that TDs rule, ACs decide.

 

I don't see how 2♥ can be a choice. South has xxx opposite partner's shortness, six trumps, an ace, and a singleton. What a hand!

That's fine if this was a bidding forum, and personally I should be considering whether to bid 3♥ or 4♥. But in a rulings forum you accept the bidding as given before any infraction.

[blackshoe]

Technically, EW should have called the director at the time of the BIT, but that's a minor detail.

I am far from certain about this. As far as I am concerned you call the TD when you feel like calling the TD, unless there is a disagreement about whether UI was passed: in that case you should call him then, but there is no such disagreement here. Otherwise you call him when you like. Some authorities positively recommend calling him after a call is made that could easily be based on UI, and that is what was done here. You may not approve, but that is not the same as saying it is technically wrong.

I did correct myself in post #16 in this thread, at least as far as calling at the time of the bit.

 

Law 16A2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such [unauthorized- ER] information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later. The opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.

Literally, one should just announce that he's reserving his right, and if the opps object, they should call the TD. First, that last doesn't happen, and second, many people consider reserving one's rights as controversial, and suggest asking opps if they agree UI was conveyed. Which is what I suggested in post #16.

 

I am not going to sanction a player for calling me at some other time and saying "there was UI", but I may suggest to him that the time to ensure that there's not going to be an argument from opps on this point is when the alleged transmission of UI occurs.

 

Law 16A3: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends*.

 

*It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.

It's not an infraction to call the TD before at some other time than when play ends. The footnote to this law says so. It is an irregularity; the body of the law defines correct procedure as calling "when play ends".

 

As a general rule, it seems to me that calling the TD when you feel the need (there may have been an irregularity, you have a question about procedure, just about any good reason - don't call him and ask him to bring you a coffee!) is fine, unless the law specifically requires another time, such as when correcting a misexplanation (one's own or partner's). But in this one case, calling because you believe opps used UI at a time other than "after play ends" is a (very minor) irregularity. Note that the footnote specifically contradicts the statement about "should" in the introduction to the laws (that failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction of law). I suppose the lawmakers can do that if they want. B-)

 

Members of AC's don't rule, they vote. After going through the same process, if it was determined there was no LA to 5H, I would vote to affirm the TD ruling. If it was determined pass was an LA, I'd vote to adjust the score as above.

Not in Committees I have sat on, including ACBL and WBF Committees. We have decided, very rarely falling back on a vote. Of course, there is a distinction in ACBL case-books and elsewhere that TDs rule, ACs decide.

I didn't intend to say the vote had to be formal, though I see now that the definition of the word implies formality. Fair enough, AC's "decide". :P

[barmar]

is the distinction between "rule", "vote", and "decide" of any import? Regardless of what you call it, a score on the board is established.

[pigpenz]

is the distinction between "rule", "vote", and "decide" of any import? Regardless of what you call it, a score on the board is established.

probably the easiest way to look at this hand is to just present the south hand and the bidding with the other hands not being seen.

[barmar]

probably the easiest way to look at this hand is to just present the south hand and the bidding with the other hands not being seen.

And how does that relate to the distinction between "rule", "vote", and "decide"? Why does it matter that we use one word for what the TD does, and a different word for what an AC does?

[pigpenz]

And how does that relate to the distinction between "rule", "vote", and "decide"? Why does it matter that we use one word for what the TD does, and a different word for what an AC does?

generally if you want to poll other peers, if would be nice to not be influenced by what you see with the other hands....just the auction

and the hand involved opposite the partner who made the BIT.

[barmar]

generally if you want to poll other peers, if would be nice to not be influenced by what you see with the other hands....just the auction

and the hand involved opposite the partner who made the BIT.

What does that have to do with "Members of AC's don't rule, they vote" and "Fair enough, AC's 'decide'"? I'm trying to understand why the distinction between these terms is relevant. How is polling and looking at the other hands related to this?

[Trinidad]

What does that have to do with "Members of AC's don't rule, they vote" and "Fair enough, AC's 'decide'"? I'm trying to understand why the distinction between these terms is relevant. How is polling and looking at the other hands related to this?

I think pigpenz is unaware that there are two reply buttons ("Reply" and "Add reply")...

 

and I think that you are unaware that he is unaware... :)

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I think pigpenz is unaware that there are two reply buttons ("Reply" and "Add reply")...

 

and I think that you are unaware that he is unaware... :)

 

Rik

And a "click in the box" for a fast reply.

[gordontd]

I think pigpenz is unaware that there are two reply buttons ("Reply" and "Add reply")...

I expect you are correct, though it's surprising of someone who has made more than 2000 posts here.

[Trinidad]

I expect you are correct, though it's surprising of someone who has made more than 2000 posts here.

Maybe he just got confused. It can happen to all of us. I know I have done sillier things...

 

Rik

[barmar]

Maybe he just got confused.

And apparently he didn't want to admit to this when answering my followup.

[pigpenz]

you guys are too much at times

[barmar]

Only at times? :)

[aguahombre]

Only at times? :)

Yes, it is a tempo thread. I suspect he intended the pun.

[bluejak]

is the distinction between "rule", "vote", and "decide" of any import? Regardless of what you call it, a score on the board is established.

Of course it is important. People read these forums - the first three anyway - to find out what is the best way to do things. An AC that relies on a vote to decide is usually a very poor AC. But if someone reads "vote" here unchallenged he may think it the normal way to do things.

[nige1]

Of course it is important. People read these forums - the first three anyway - to find out what is the best way to do things. An AC that relies on a vote to decide is usually a very poor AC. But if someone reads "vote" here unchallenged he may think it the normal way to do things.

I don't think I would trust an AC that disenfranchised any member. I've served on many committees. First we've established relevant law with the director. We've asked for and examined evidence from players. Then committee members have expressed opinions. Finally, we've always relied on a democratic vote. As far as I remember, all resulting decisions have been unanimous.

[bluejak]

I don't think I would trust an AC which disenfranchised any members. I've served on many committees. First we've established relevant law with the director. Then we've asked for and examined evidence from players and committee members have expressed opinions. Finally, we've always relied on a democratic vote. As far as I remember, all decisions have still been unanimous.

No-one is talking of disenfranchising a member. Normal ACs discuss and decide, not vote.

[aguahombre]

No-one is talking of disenfranchising a member. Normal ACs discuss and decide, not vote.

It might be another of those distinctions without a difference. We know that there are decisions where one AC member has dissented. That seems like a vote to me.

[blackshoe]

Committees (in general, not just bridge ACs) usually have an odd number of members so that the chairman can "break the tie" on a split decision. To me, that's a vote, even if it's not formal.

[pigpenz]

generally through discussion they do come to a consensus,

yes more or less a vote

[lamford]

The 2H bid was so poor that it will take quite a while to find enough peers to poll. I would guess that someone that timid would surely pass now. x Kxxx KQxx xxxx opposite is a good game.

[bluejak]

In my view anyone who does not understand the difference between a vote and a discussion would be unsuitable as an AC member.

[blackshoe]

Scenario one: Your committee has two members, plus a chairman. You discuss the case. The two members are split - one wants to uphold the table TD, the other doesn't. The chairman says "I agree with <pick one>". So you've "discussed", not taken a formal vote.

 

Scenario two: same committee, same case, same split amongst the two members. You take a formal vote, and the chair breaks the tie. This committee reports the same decision as in scenario one.

 

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

[aguahombre]

It might be another of those distinctions without a difference.

In my view anyone who does not understand the difference between a vote and a discussion would be unsuitable as an AC member.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Apparently the big difference is our suitability to be AC members, even if the result is the same. :rolleyes: