discrepancies

[Fluffy]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq62hkjt4dq7ckt52&w=sajt84h62d9642ca4&n=shaq873djt85cqj96&e=sk9753h95dak3c873&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1h1s2s(inv%2B)3sp(slow%20for%20EW)p4h(slow)ppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Match points. When dummy hits table East calls director and explains that there has been a hessitation and dummy has accepted his own invitation.

North doesn't say much, he is kinda unexperienced.

South argues that he will never pass 3 spades and was considering double or 4 hearts. Director instructs all to continue play and call back after the deal if there was damage.

The result is +420 NS, EW call again.

 

Now south disputes that there was any hessitation by north since he is a weak player and always thinks. Both East and West agree on hessitations, although one says 15 seconds the other says 10.

South says that pass was not an option since either 4 hearts is good to make, or as a sacrafice against 3 spades, or if 3 spades is down then double is best, but pass is not.

South agrees that with no overcall he would only invite to partner bidding 1NT forcing then 3 hearts.

 

West also argues that he was going to bid 4 spades over north's 4 hearts if he was able to, but when south bid 4 hearts after hessitating, he though south should be quite strong and have a solid opening strength, and also north seemed to have mild extras so he didn't want to bid 4 at this vulenrability anymore.

[eagles123]

I know nothing about bridge laws but why doesn't West just bid 4 spades straight away??

[weejonnie]

EW should have reserved their rights or called the director when North passed 'out of tempo'. (Bad)

 

However EW at least have called the director before the result of the hand is known. (Good)

 

Normally pairs don't call the director unless they think there has been a breach in tempo and, looking at North's hand, it does have extra offence, but a minimum of HCP, which suggests North does have something to think about.

 

(Obviously if there had been no break in tempo then there would be no reason to adjust.)

 

No matter what South says, with a balanced hand, a minimum for the invitational bid and good defensive values, pass or double must be LAs. Given EW bidding it looks as if North has greater offence than might be expected for his pause. (He can't have a trump stack!), thus bidding 4 Hearts is definitely suggested by the BIT.

 

So now we look at South's words.

 

"South argues that he will never pass 3 spades and was considering double or 4 hearts. Director instructs all to continue play and call back after the deal if there was damage."

 

Score adjusted to

3 Spades Doubled made: NS - 730

 

( I think East will play South for something in Spades for his penalty double.)

[Cascade]

EW should have reserved their rights or called the director when North passed 'out of tempo'. (Bad)

 

However EW at least have called the director before the result of the hand is known. (Good)

 

Normally pairs don't call the director unless they think there has been a breach in tempo and, looking at North's hand, it does have extra offence, but a minimum of HCP, which suggests North does have something to think about.

 

(Obviously if there had been no break in tempo then there would be no reason to adjust.)

 

No matter what South says, with a balanced hand, a minimum for the invitational bid and good defensive values, pass or double must be LAs. Given EW bidding it looks as if North has greater offence than might be expected for his pause. (He can't have a trump stack!), thus bidding 4 Hearts is definitely suggested by the BIT.

 

So now we look at South's words.

 

"South argues that he will never pass 3 spades and was considering double or 4 hearts. Director instructs all to continue play and call back after the deal if there was damage."

 

Score adjusted to

3 Spades Doubled made: NS - 730

 

( I think East will play South for something in Spades for his penalty double.)

 

I don't like this ruling. Say you force south to double as it seems you are trying to do. You cannot force north to pass that, there is no suggestion that north has any UI so is unconstrained. North has more offense and less defense than expected for an opening one bid therefore north will pull to 4♥ appreciably often.

[lamford]

I don't like this ruling. Say you force south to double as it seems you are trying to do. You cannot force north to pass that, there is no suggestion that north has any UI so is unconstrained. North has more offense and less defense than expected for an opening one bid therefore north will pull to 4♥ appreciably often.

In the ACBL, and blackshoe and barmar will correct me if I am wrong, you give EW the best score that was at all likely, and that must be 3S= or 3Sx=. In jurisdictions in which weighted scores are permitted, you try to estimate how often 3S, 3Sx and 4H would occur legally. I say legally, because you do not include any % of 4H immediately, which is demonstrably suggested and disallowed. To include that would be a Reveley ruling. It looks clear to adjust as South's trump holding tells him North was unlikely to be thinking of doubling 3S. It looks clear for North to pass a double - after all his partner might have ♠ QJTx. However, I do not think South should be doubling 3S at all. He has no aces, and no sure trump trick. I would poll, but would expect to adjust to 3S= in all jurisdictions.

[sanst]

EW should have drawn attention to the hesitation when it occurred and NS should have called the director at that moment, because they claim there was no break in tempo. N is a inexperienced player who always thinks before bidding. That might be so, but only the director can find out whether that's true or not, and that there was UI because of that. Many inexperienced players do think a lot, but no one can make out what they were thinking about. In this case N might have been trying to find out what al the bids in the auction signify without even considering his own next bid.

For arguments sake let's assume there was UI. What options does S have? I would say pass, but S states clearly that's not a LA for him. So there remain 4H, double and, in MP's, 3NT. A poll could give an indication of the likelihood of the LA's, but it might be pretty hard to find players of 'the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership'. I would give a weighed score of 40% 4H=, 40% 3Sx= and 20% 3NT-4.

AFAIK the concept of Reveley rulings is not used in Holland, and I wouldn't about Spain. Is it EBU specific or is it based on the laws and/or WBFLC minutes?

[lamford]

I would say pass, but S states clearly that's not a LA for him.

That is not relevant. What is relevant is what players of the same ability and playing the same system think is an LA, and surely Pass is an LA for them. You do not poll the offender.

 

Sorry, do not know whether Reveley rulings are allowed in other jurisdictions.

[Vampyr]

 

In this case N might have been trying to find out what al the bids in the auction signify without even considering his own next bid.

For arguments sake let's assume there was UI.

 

The fact that North might have been thinking of something besides his next bid is completely irrelevant as to whether there was UI as far as South's actions are concerned.

 

AFAIK the concept of Reveley rulings is not used in Holland, and I wouldn't about Spain. Is it EBU specific or is it based on the laws and/or WBFLC minutes?

 

Reveley rulings are ones in which a disallowed bid is included in a weighted score. I think that what it is based on is simple logic.

[weejonnie]

That is not relevant. What is relevant is what players of the same ability and playing the same system think is an LA, and surely Pass is an LA for them. You do not poll the offender.

 

Sorry, do not know whether Reveley rulings are allowed in other jurisdictions.

 

"(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players

in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given

serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom

it is judged some might select it."

 

South is amongst the class of players who would not consider pass to be a LA.

 

The next question is whether North (who has no UI other than South has doubled 3 Spades based on his UI (if there is UI) will bid 4 Hearts - He didn't bid 4 Hearts on the last occasion (i.e. in the diagram when South bid 4 Hearts using UI) so why should he now bid 4 hearts when south has shown a more defensive hand than he could have had by doubling 3 spades? South hasn't shown anything extra offensively.

[lamford]

South is amongst the class of players who would not consider pass to be a LA.

This is a reductio ad absurdum. You are trying to establish LAs for this South, so you do not ask South what he considers the LAs.

[Cascade]

"(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players

in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given

serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom

it is judged some might select it."

 

South is amongst the class of players who would not consider pass to be a LA.

 

The next question is whether North (who has no UI other than South has doubled 3 Spades based on his UI (if there is UI) will bid 4 Hearts - He didn't bid 4 Hearts on the last occasion (i.e. in the diagram when South bid 4 Hearts using UI) so why should he now bid 4 hearts when south has shown a more defensive hand than he could have had by doubling 3 spades? South hasn't shown anything extra offensively.

 

This logic is flawed. North didn't bid 4♥ previously but now north has additional information. "South hasn't shown anything extra offensively" is only partially relevant as south hasn't denied anything extra offensively. Especially at this vulnerability south might go after 500 or even 200. North is unconstrained and at the very least we need to be asking north what they would do on this auction should south double.

[Fluffy]

This hand is from the seconds session in the "International" Open bridge championship in Biarritz (France)

 

When I called director again he took the hand to review with othe other 2 tournament "international" directors (the 3 of of them french). After many come and go talking to everyone they decided that result would stand, on the grounds that they surveid some players and all bid 4♥.

 

My impression was that they didn't do a great job finding players to poll so I made a poll here and another on bridgewinners to get some data to backup what should be an obvious decision when Appeal's comitee would gather before starting last session on sunday.

 

This "international" comitee was composed of 3 French players, and not any of the world masters present. So be it. I presented all my data, and I was atonised that they would start deliberating without the other pair being even present.

 

It took them 24 seconds to decide result would stand.

 

How is that even possible?, maybe they didn't understand me since they don't speak english?

 

Nah, what actually happened is that 2 of the 3 members of the comitee were team mates of the players who were on first position after 2 sessions with us trailing close behind.

 

http://xavier.schurer.free.fr/Biarritzbridge/Resultats/Patton_2015.txt (teams)

http://xavier.schurer.free.fr/Biarritzbridge/Resultats/Open_2015.txt (final standings)

Edited July 14, 2015 by blackshoe
Remove names of specific individuals

[barmar]

This is a reductio ad absurdum. You are trying to establish LAs for this South, so you do not ask South what he considers the LAs.

It's circular logic, which is not the same as reductio ad adsurbum.

[sanst]

Nah, what actually happened is that 2 of the 3 members of the comitee were Mr. Oursel and Mr. Beauvillain

why should that matter?, well they were team mates of the players who were on first position after 2 sessions with us trailing close behind.

You're making a very serious allegation in public about a EBL assistant chief tournament director without much proof. If a decission goes against you and the AC supports the TD, there is not much you can do, but accusing those concerned in public won't help you anyway. These oviously thought that it was not the obvious decision you thought it was. I gather you won, so be happy with that.

 

Joost

[Trinidad]

AFAIK the concept of Reveley rulings is not used in Holland, and I wouldn't about Spain. Is it EBU specific or is it based on the laws and/or WBFLC minutes?

The concept that Reveley rulings are illegal is very much used in Holland. A Reveley ruling includes a weighting of the result(s) that can only be achieved by the infraction. This is obviously not legal, since you are supposed to come up with a result that would have been achieved if the irregularity had not occurred. In Holland very few TDs come up with the idea of giving a Reveley ruling, since the fact that it is wrong is obvious to anyone who understands "if the irregularity had not occurred".

 

AFAIK, the term "Reveley ruling" is very British and named after a British TD who made lots of these erroneous rulings, claiming that they were perfectly correct.

 

Rik

[Fluffy]

You're making a very serious allegation in public about a EBL assistant chief tournament director without much proof. If a decission goes against you and the AC supports the TD, there is not much you can do, but accusing those concerned in public won't help you anyway. These oviously thought that it was not the obvious decision you thought it was. I gather you won, so be happy with that.

 

Joost

I am stating the facts as they happened mostly, not sure who you say its an EBL assistant chief director, if you mean one of the players in the AC who happened to be team mates of a parir directly involved they should obviously know they shouldn't be there for a start.

[nige1]

IMO when a director or appeals-committee member has a potential conflict of interest, then if possible, he should recuse himself, or at least offer to stand down. This makes it more likely that justice be seen to be done.

[sanst]

I am stating the facts as they happened mostly, not sure who you say its an EBL assistant chief director, if you mean one of the players in the AC who happened to be team mates of a parir directly involved they should obviously know they shouldn't be there for a start.

Olivier Beauvillain is the TD I referred to. For what purpose you gave the names? I suppose you asumed that these would mean anything to us. I think it unwise to use this forum for naming and shaming, but that's up to the individual users and the moderators.

I don't doubt that you gave the facts as they happened according to you. But we can't know what the others involved have to say. And yes, it's a lot better if the AC is composed of players with no interrest, directly or nidirectly, in the outcome.

 

Joost

[Fluffy]

Now that you ask Joost the problem is that this is not just one particular case. Along the years the had been numerous outrageous directors ruling at this tournament against spannish people. They seem to think of us as inferior or something.

 

-There is a spannish international pair that decided not ot play anymore since 2006 after a completelly ridicoulous ruling.

-I got an AV- 2 years ago because my sponsor stopped in a partscore with 14 HCP over my opening and everything was offside, because it was not allowed to be lucky?

-This year a bidding of 1♥-pass-3♥ was asked (by a spnnish pair) and explained (by the french opener) as invitational. too bad responder had 3 HCP and 3♥ made exactly with 3 spades making as well. Director ruled psyche instead of missexplanation with no written proof of their methods. Curiously when same situation arises, with the difference that it was a spannish pair who had the missunderstanding. Director rules missexplanation then.

-Last year a spannish team had another ridicoulous and outrageous ruling, after complaining they were instructed to ask for their entry fee and go home if they wanted.

 

This are just a few examples of an endless list. Same as with cheaters, shutting up is not working for me, so I have decided to stop shutting my mouth. If someone is ashamed of the naked truth, it is their problem.

[blackshoe]

Now that you ask Joost the problem is that this is not just one particular case. Along the years the had been numerous outrageous directors ruling at this tournament against spannish people. They seem to think of us as inferior or something.

I would suggest bringing this up with your NBO, and asking them to complain officially to the Tournament Organizer and the Regulating Authority. They may want to ask other Spanish participants in this tournament (including those you mention who no longer play in it) for their stories.

[barmar]

This are just a few examples of an endless list. Same as with cheaters, shutting up is not working for me, so I have decided to stop shutting my mouth. If someone is ashamed of the naked truth, it is their problem.

That's your prerogative, but this isn't the appropriate place for it.

[blackshoe]

That's your prerogative, but this isn't the appropriate place for it.

No, it's not. I've removed the names from the post.

[gordontd]

This hand is from the seconds session in the "International" Open bridge championship in Biarritz (France)

 

When I called director again he took the hand to review with othe other 2 tournament "international" directors (the 3 of of them french).

Is it surprising that there would be three French directors at a French event? Is it relevant to this case?

[blackshoe]

Is it surprising that there would be three French directors at a French event? Is it relevant to this case?

I think the point is that it's labelled an "international" event.

 

Who's the Tournament Organizer? Who's the Regulating Authority?

[gordontd]

I think the point is that it's labelled an "international" event.

 

Who's the Tournament Organizer? Who's the Regulating Authority?

As far as I can tell from the website, it appears to be organised by a committee under the auspices of the FFB. It's "international" in the sense that it actively seeks participation from those from other countries, in the same way as we do in the EBU for our Spring Foursomes and our Summer Meeting at Brighton. At either of those events a ruling would be given by an "English" TD (perhaps in origin from elsewhere) after consultation with other "English" TDs, and I would be unhappy with someone from another country who disliked the ruling implying that the reason was to do with national allegiances.