MrAce Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/td-ruling/ This happened in recent Turkish Nationals pair event.It's been long time since I directed any event and my knowledge may as well be outdated.My personal decision is same with the TD ruling. What do you guys think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfi Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 I'm struggling to see any merit in the appeal. Declarer's play looks reasonable given the information presented. More generally, I tend to give leeway to the side who made a play that was less than optimal but was clearly indicated by MI. Maybe we should all think deeply about every hand, but if we are presented with information that means a play will obviously work, it's common to focus on that line. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted April 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 I'm struggling to see any merit in the appeal. Declarer's play looks reasonable given the information presented. More generally, I tend to give leeway to the side who made a play that was less than optimal but was clearly indicated by MI. Maybe we should all think deeply about every hand, but if we are presented with information that means a play will obviously work, it's common to focus on that line. Actually EW never appealed. The person who wrote this to me had an appeal form and a decision next to his message on messenger of face book, which belongs to another decision. It was my bad to confuse the 2 with each other when i wrote the article, but now corrected it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 This is why the law about ESEOG action says that the action has to be unrelated to the irregularity. In this case, even if you consider the club finesse to be a dangerous gamble, it was directly related to the MI, so he doesn't lose indemnity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted April 25, 2018 Report Share Posted April 25, 2018 "Unrelated to the infraction" only applies to "extremely serious errors", not to gambling actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted April 25, 2018 Report Share Posted April 25, 2018 "Unrelated to the infraction" only applies to "extremely serious errors", not to gambling actions.Indeed, and the club hook is certainly not a serious error, let alone "extremely" serious. And arguing that any finesse is a "gambling action" does not wash. TD decision very clear here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted April 25, 2018 Report Share Posted April 25, 2018 Actually EW never appealed. Since there was no appeal, I've moved the thread to a more appropriate forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted April 26, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2018 Since there was no appeal, I've moved the thread to a more appropriate forum. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted April 26, 2018 Report Share Posted April 26, 2018 I saw it on bridgewinners and considered it a VERY fast AWM decision if it had been appealed. Any pair that provides MI, has no CC and produces system notes on a cellphone deserves an icy stare (or a stink eye) from the director but I understand it's much too and sadly common. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.