Higher Court for Bridgelaws

[UdcaDenny]

It would be nice if WBF and ACBL and all bridgeorganisations that follow the Laws from 1997 had some kind of Higher Court you could turn to if you have disagreements in your club about ruling. Several times I have been arguing with the TD:s in my club and even if I tell them I have over 100 posts in BBO that thinks same as me they just snort, calling them amateurs who cant interpret the law. So if the club belonged to one of those orgnisations they had to adjust to that ruling and not using any homemade interpretations. I think this can be a problem in many clubs and that many players dont know where to go for support especially if the Committee in the club dont dare to argue with their TD.

[Bbradley62]

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/70451-does-anyone-agree/page__mode__show

[hrothgar]

As long as we're asking for impossible things, I want a pony...

[helene_t]

I think a Swedish appeal committee is plenty. Maybe small federations who don't have enough top-level tds themselves could join forces and make an international appeal committee, for example one for west africa and one for central asia etc, but Sweden should have the resources.

[sanst]

It would be nice if WBF and ACBL and all bridgeorganisations that follow the Laws from 1997 had some kind of Higher Court you could turn to if you have disagreements in your club about ruling.

You weem to forget that is's just a game, not a matter of life and death. The role of the TD is the same of that as an umpire of referee in other sports: they decide, the players have to accept that decision, maybe after some polite protest. You shouldn't argue with a TD, but you could give the reason why you think that the situation is different from what the TD seems to think. In bridge there is the possibility for an appeal, but the AC has a limited power to overturn the TD's decision. In some countries there is even the possibility for a further appeal. That's far more than in other sports, where the referee's decision is final, whatever the consequences. And in professional sports, these can be enormous.

Is this question based on your experiences with the TD, who didn't apply Law 25A right? If so, do as you have been advised and find another club. Btw, the current laws are the 2007 edition.

[Hanoi5]

Why would you be using 1997's book when there was a new one in 2007?

[pran]

It would be nice if WBF and ACBL and all bridgeorganisations that follow the Laws from 1997 had some kind of Higher Court you could turn to if you have disagreements in your club about ruling. Several times I have been arguing with the TD:s in my club and even if I tell them I have over 100 posts in BBO that thinks same as me they just snort, calling them amateurs who cant interpret the law. So if the club belonged to one of those orgnisations they had to adjust to that ruling and not using any homemade interpretations. I think this can be a problem in many clubs and that many players dont know where to go for support especially if the Committee in the club dont dare to argue with their TD.

They are already supposed to have - see Law 93C.

 

(Whether they do have is of course a different question.)

[UdcaDenny]

I think a Swedish appeal committee is plenty. Maybe small federations who don't have enough top-level tds themselves could join forces and make an international appeal committee, for example one for west africa and one for central asia etc, but Sweden should have the resources.

Helene, if it was in Sweden this problem wouldnt even happen. But wintertime I live in Chiangmai and the TD here is one of the founders of the club and have done a lot of good work starting this club. He shall have credit for that but regarding ruling he can never admit he is wrong and when I try to reason with him he just refuse to listen. That unmature selfrightousness can be very annoying especially as Im the only one here that dares to protest. Someone also suggested I shud play in another club but there is only this one.

[helene_t]

ok, I think you just have to accept that what is being played here isn't really contract bridge but some similar cardgame call chinangmai bridge and try to cope with that as well as you can.

 

In a club a played in in Mumbai they had the rule that a BIT always bared partner, even if there was no LA to bidding. Another funny rule was that if you made a mechanical error you couldn't restore it but had to tell opps what you wanted to bid. I think it is futile to fight against that. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

[UdcaDenny]

Its a wise advice Helen and I shall try but it sucks when you know u are right and an ignorant person asks u to shut up as he thinks he knows much better. In a situation like that u wished u had a written document that explained the correct ruling.

[Vampyr]

In a club a played in in Mumbai they had the rule that a BIT always bared partner,

 

Could get a bit risqué...

[Trinidad]

Helene, if it was in Sweden this problem wouldnt even happen. But wintertime I live in Chiangmai and the TD here is one of the founders of the club and have done a lot of good work starting this club. He shall have credit for that but regarding ruling he can never admit he is wrong and when I try to reason with him he just refuse to listen. That unmature selfrightousness can be very annoying especially as Im the only one here that dares to protest. Someone also suggested I shud play in another club but there is only this one.

This is a matter of adapting to the culture. But you need to realize that this is not exclusive for Chiangmai.

 

I have a very similar experience in ... Sweden. And not just with some club somewhere, no with the LK (Lagkommissionen, the Swedish national Law and Ethics Committee). When I was playing there, they wrote a bidding box regulation that said that once a call had left the bidding box, it couldn't be corrected, even if the call was unintended. This regulation was a clear violation of Law 25A. (And 80B2f says that organizers are not allowed to write regulations that are in conflict with the Laws.)

 

I pointed that out once or twice but the response was basically "This is Sweden, we don't care".

 

It happens everywhere, not just in Chiangmai, or Sweden, also in the Netherlands, and everywhere else. The thing is that you will only notice it when you come from outside. And, of course, you are absolutely correct that they are doing things wrong. But it is their wrong way, and they are happy with it. Let them. Just like I let the Swedes be happy with their wrong bidding box regulation, since they seemed to be happy with it.

 

It's the price you pay for living in another culture.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Could get a bit risqué...

I was wondering what Helene was playing, but if a BIT bares partner we can't call it bridge.

 

Rik

[barmar]

I was wondering what Helene was playing, but if a BIT bares partner we can't call it bridge.

Since there's Strip Poker, why couldn't there be Strip Bridge?

[UdcaDenny]

This is a matter of adapting to the culture. But you need to realize that this is not exclusive for Chiangmai.

 

I have a very similar experience in ... Sweden. And not just with some club somewhere, no with the LK (Lagkommissionen, the Swedish national Law and Ethics Committee). When I was playing there, they wrote a bidding box regulation that said that once a call had left the bidding box, it couldn't be corrected, even if the call was unintended. This regulation was a clear violation of Law 25A. (And 80B2f says that organizers are not allowed to write regulations that are in conflict with the Laws.)

 

I pointed that out once or twice but the response was basically "This is Sweden, we don't care".

 

It happens everywhere, not just in Chiangmai, or Sweden, also in the Netherlands, and everywhere else. The thing is that you will only notice it when you come from outside. And, of course, you are absolutely correct that they are doing things wrong. But it is their wrong way, and they are happy with it. Let them. Just like I let the Swedes be happy with their wrong bidding box regulation, since they seemed to be happy with it.

 

It's the price you pay for living in another culture.

 

Rik

Rik, did you put the bid on the table and let go of it or did you hold it in your hand ? I have many times discovered I pulled the wrong bid before putting it on the table and could always change it, like intending ro bid 2♥seeing I had 2♠in my hand. Also quickly pulling it back while still holding it on the table.

[Trinidad]

Rik, did you put the bid on the table and let go of it or did you hold it in your hand ? I have many times discovered I pulled the wrong bid before putting it on the table and could always change it, like intending ro bid 2♥seeing I had 2♠in my hand. Also quickly pulling it back while still holding it on the table.

My post was not about this particular complaint about bridge in Sweden. I have always loved the bridge there and many other things about the country too. Who knows? I might go back there when I retire. It was about the fact that local devations from the Laws can be found everywhere, even at home, you just don't see them because you are used to them. This bidding box regulation is merely one of many examples.

 

But to answer your question: It is not about what I did, it is about what the regulation says (or said, since I don't know whether it has been changed). And it doesn't matter whether the bid is on the table or "just leaving the box". I myself have always been very careful. :) But when you are a TD in Sweden (like I was) you would like to follow the Laws. When the LK then writes regulations that are conflicting with the Laws and you need to rule at the table, you have a problem: Do you rule according to the regulation or according to the Laws?

 

According to the Swedish regulation, it was 100% clear that a call that was on the table could not be changed. Then you should have looked better. Law 25A is equally clear that you are allowed to change an unintended call for the call that you did intend. There are three conditions:

• the call you made was not your intended call
  
• your partner hasn't called yet
  
• you do change it without pause for thought
  

So, where law 25A puts the "deadline for change" at the point where your partner has called, the Swedish LK decided to ignore that and put the deadline half a round of bidding earlier. They knew it was against the Laws, but they didn't care.

 

Rik

[pran]

My post was not about this particular complaint about bridge in Sweden. I have always loved the bridge there and many other things about the country too. Who knows? I might go back there when I retire. It was about the fact that local devations from the Laws can be found everywhere, even at home, you just don't see them because you are used to them. This bidding box regulation is merely one of many examples.

 

But to answer your question: It is not about what I did, it is about what the regulation says (or said, since I don't know whether it has been changed). And it doesn't matter whether the bid is on the table or "just leaving the box". I myself have always been very careful. :) But when you are a TD in Sweden (like I was) you would like to follow the Laws. When the LK then writes regulations that are conflicting with the Laws and you need to rule at the table, you have a problem: Do you rule according to the regulation or according to the Laws?

 

According to the Swedish regulation, it was 100% clear that a call that was on the table could not be changed. Then you should have looked better. Law 25A is equally clear that you are allowed to change an unintended call for the call that you did intend. There are three conditions:

• the call you made was not your intended call
  
• your partner hasn't called yet
  
• you do change it without pause for thought
  

So, where law 25A puts the "deadline for change" at the point where your partner has called, the Swedish LK decided to ignore that and put the deadline half a round of bidding earlier. They knew it was against the Laws, but they didn't care.

 

Rik

I feel surprised but must first of all state that I am in no position to question or discuss the Swedish regulation on this point.

 

However, my experience is that we generally take care to avoid discrepancies between the Scandinavian countries in our understandings of laws and regulations .

 

And in Norway the understanding of Law 25A is that a possible pause for thought shall be considered from the moment the player became aware of his mistake regardless of the manner in which he became aware of it and regardless of the time possibly elapsed since the call was legally made.

 

So the fact that a bid card was already exposed on the table in front of the player is in itself irrelevant.

[Trinidad]

We are quite a few years further now. There is a new LK (with Calle Ragnarsson). It would surprise me if the bidding box regulation would still be like it was. (Though UDCADenny's reaction implies that in Sweden it is still not allowed to change your unintended call once it hits the table.)

 

Edit:

I found the regulation and it seems like it always was... except that an article has been added: it still emphasizes that you need to look carefully and ascertain that you pull the correct bidding card. The added article says that you are allowed to change a bid that was the result of a misspull. (I could argue that a brain fart where you mean to bid clubs, but pull the other black suit is still unintended in the sense of Law 25A, while it is not a misspull according to the bid box regulation, but that is a small difference.)

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

I could argue that a brain fart where you mean to bid clubs, but pull the other black suit is still unintended in the sense of Law 25A

 

Well, you could do, although of course you would be wrong.

[lamford]

Helene, if it was in Sweden this problem wouldnt even happen. But wintertime I live in Chiangmai and the TD here is one of the founders of the club and have done a lot of good work starting this club. He shall have credit for that but regarding ruling he can never admit he is wrong and when I try to reason with him he just refuse to listen. That unmature selfrightousness can be very annoying especially as Im the only one here that dares to protest. Someone also suggested I shud play in another club but there is only this one.

The TD in question may well suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

If you're incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is. —David Dunning

 

So, I fear you are fighting a losing battle in trying to persuade this founder that he is wrong. A well-known bridge club in London plays bridge according to its own rules - you just let someone correct an insufficient bid or correct a revoke. It seems to be popular, although it is not a member of the EBU.

[Trinidad]

I could argue that a brain fart where you mean to bid clubs, but pull the other black suit is still unintended in the sense of Law 25A

Well, you could do, although of course you would be wrong.

Do you care to explain the difference between 'to mean' (my post) and 'to intend' (Law 25A), in this context?

 

I will clarify, to make my position 100% clear:

 

I have a 1♣ opening. I decide consciously that I want to open 1♣. I intend to open 1♣. For some reason (not including a coffee stain, thick fingers, etc.) my brain tells my hand to pull the 1♠ card out of the bidding box and put it on the table (perhaps someone else in the room just mentioned the words "one spade" and I pull the 1♠ card or my gardener passes by and I remember that I need to go and buy a new spade).

 

What was my intended call? 1♣

What call did I make? 1♠

Am I allowed to change my 1♠ to 1♣? Yes (provided that my partner hasn't called yet and I make my change 'without pause for thought').

 

Nowhere in Law 25A it is mentioned through what mechanism the unintended call was made instead of the intended call. It is important to realize that Law 25A is older than the bidding box. It was intended for spoken bidding, i.e. where your mouth says something that you didn't intend to say, not for mechanical mistakes like coffee stains on bidding cards (though it obviously extends to those as well).

 

Rik

[pran]

The TD in question may well suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

If you're incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is. —David Dunning

 

So, I fear you are fighting a losing battle in trying to persuade this founder that he is wrong. A well-known bridge club in London plays bridge according to its own rules - you just let someone correct an insufficient bid or correct a revoke. It seems to be popular, although it is not a member of the EBU.

 

Good!

[lamford]

Do you care to explain the difference between 'to mean' (my post) and 'to intend' (Law 25A), in this context?

The interpretation in England seems to be that if the brain tells the hand to select a bidding card, that is not "unintended", regardless of the original intent. We had an initial ruling in our favour at a local club when the auction went Pass-1S-Pass-4H*-Pass. My partner correctly did not alert (at the time it was not alertable). He "intended" to bid 4S, but selected Pass, having used brain power to decide whether it was a splinter and brain power to decide if it was alertable. The TD was called by me when my partner said "I did not mean to do that", before the next person bid, and the TD consulted and ruled that he could change it to 4S. I thought this was wrong and it was not "unintended" within the meaning of the law, which I think should only be that you pulled the wrong card out. I asked the TD if I could appeal against his decision (even though it was in our favour). He said that "he was not changing it again", but eventually did adjust it to 4H-8 at the end of the evening. I was admonished for badgering the TD by the then secretary, but the final ruling was correct, so I did not bother complaining.

[Vampyr]

Lamford is correct as to the EBU position, and I honestly had no idea that other jurisdictions have much more liberal criteria than "mechanical error". I think that these other jurisdictions are in the wrong, because "unintended" does not mean "did by mistake".

[Trinidad]

The interpretation in England seems to be that if the brain tells the hand to select a bidding card, that is not "unintended", regardless of the original intent.

You seem to fail to appreciate the considerable difference between "selecting a bidding card" and "intending to make a call".

 

The interpretation in England seems to be that if the brain tells the hand to select a bidding card, that is not "unintended", regardless of the original intent. We had an initial ruling in our favour at a local club when the auction went Pass-1S-Pass-4H*-Pass. My partner correctly did not alert (at the time it was not alertable). He "intended" to bid 4S, but selected Pass, having used brain power to decide whether it was a splinter and brain power to decide if it was alertable. The TD was called by me when my partner said "I did not mean to do that", before the next person bid, and the TD consulted and ruled that he could change it to 4S.

 

In your example there is no indication whatsoever that there was ever any intent to bid 4♠ (other than what the player said), nor did you indicate how -if 4♠ was indeed the intended call- the player came to select 4♥: coffee stain (25A: change allowed), an intent to splinter (no 25A: no change allowed) or an intent to bid 4♠, but bidding 4♥ since someone said "four hearts" which made them select the 4♥ card (25A: change allowed).

 

I thought this was wrong and it was not "unintended" within the meaning of the law, which I think should only be that you pulled the wrong card out.

Do you think that the authors of this law would have meant "pull the wrong (bidding) card" when bidding was spoken at the time that this law was written?

 

To me that is like saying that "thou shalt not murder" is only referring to murder by fire arms because nowadays most murders are committed by fire arms and we can hardly imagine someone using his bare hands.

 

Rik