What Should Be the Decision of Appeal Committee

[pescetom]

I think he meant that 4S was followed by Blackwood. The original post was not a model of clarity.

I too first read it as "Majorwood", but I agree it must mean that 4S was followed by RKCB.

 

This is not true if 2S was a one-round force. In that case, 4S would show a better than minimum hand.

I agree with this too, but in that case it would seem he has the inference that opener is better than minimum with fit both as AI (partner bid 4S over my one round force) and as UI (partner considers my bid non forcing but still bid 4S). Do I read this right and is he still not allowed to take advantage of this information?

[barmar]

Intent is irrelevant when an action suggested by UI is taken.

But it's relevant when deciding whether someone was cheating.

[DozyDom]

But it's relevant when deciding whether someone was cheating.

It's a tournament with an appeals committee. There is not a single person down at the local bridge club who does not know that you aren't allowed to use things your partner says when informing your decisions. Get a grip, boyo - there is cheating and there is cheating, I'm not accusing them of collusive lead signals and encrypted cigar movements. Some people, in the heat of the moment, will break rules that they are aware exist. That's human, but it's still cheating.

[gordontd]

I agree with this too, but in that case it would seem he has the inference that opener is better than minimum with fit both as AI (partner bid 4S over my one round force) and as UI (partner considers my bid non forcing but still bid 4S). Do I read this right and is he still not allowed to take advantage of this information?

Well it will affect whether or not passing is an LA, which we can only really determine by polling with the given hand and the methods that the player thought were in force, which is not entirely clear. I would have expected to find that passing is an LA, but perhaps the TD polled and found otherwise.

[blackshoe]

Intent is irrelevant when an action suggested by UI is taken.

DozyDom asserted that the player was cheating. When I disagreed he reworded his assertion to avoid the word "cheating", but he's still asserting it's cheating. The player's intent is most definitely relevant to that assertion.

[pescetom]

Some people, in the heat of the moment, will break rules that they are aware exist. That's human, but it's still cheating.

 

A player who apparently does not know the meaning of his response to an opening bid is quite likely to to be unaware of some rules too. You might argue he shouldn't be playing in a tournament, but I see no reason to assume he is cheating.

[barmar]

A player who apparently does not know the meaning of his response to an opening bid is quite likely to to be unaware of some rules too. You might argue he shouldn't be playing in a tournament, but I see no reason to assume he is cheating.

I think it's quite true that the vast majority of players don't really know or understand the rules regarding UI. For instance, most US players don't pause over jump bids (not even when the STOP was in use), and they have no idea that they're doing anything wrong.

 

And at the other end, "cheating" can encompass a wide spectrum of actions. There's a big difference between collusive cheating (considered the most heinous way to ruin the game) and not carefully avoiding taking advantage of UI (there's often disagreement about what the UI suggests, and therefore what you're not supposed to do). So even if you think you understand Laws 16 and 73, you might still end up violating them inadvertently.

[Vampyr]

I think it's quite true that the vast majority of players don't really know or understand the rules regarding UI. For instance, most US players don't pause over jump bids (not even when the STOP was in use), and they have no idea that they're doing anything wrong.

 

Obviously you cannot expect people to pause when a Stop card is not displayed. Yes, some people will bid when it is still displayed (but not the better players). And if such a silly requirement did exist, a player could just say, oh I wasn’t paying much attention and didn’t notice the bid was a jump.

[blackshoe]

Obviously you cannot expect people to pause when a Stop card is not displayed. Yes, some people will bid when it is still displayed (but not the better players). And if such a silly requirement did exist, a player could just say, oh I wasn’t paying much attention and didn’t notice the bid was a jump.

It's not obvious to me that one cannot expect people to follow the rules. And a player saying "oh, I wasn't paying attention and didn't notice" is not off the hook. Ignorance is not a defense.

[pran]

Obviously you cannot expect people to pause when a Stop card is not displayed. Yes, some people will bid when it is still displayed (but not the better players). And if such a silly requirement did exist, a player could just say, oh I wasn’t paying much attention and didn’t notice the bid was a jump.

 

It's not obvious to me that one cannot expect people to follow the rules. And a player saying "oh, I wasn't paying attention and didn't notice" is not off the hook. Ignorance is not a defense.

And inattention is a violation of Law 74B1

[barmar]

Obviously you cannot expect people to pause when a Stop card is not displayed.

Why not?

[gordontd]

Why not?

Well you can expect it, but I think you'll very often be disappointed. Even more often than if the stop card had been used.

[blackshoe]

Well you can expect it, but I think you'll very often be disappointed. Even more often than if the stop card had been used.

Heh. When I was in the Navy, we used to say "want in one hand, crap in the other. See which one fills up first." Sometimes reality sucks. B-)

[RMB1]

Why not poll to see what responder would do over 4♠ - just explaining the 2♣ opening?

[barmar]

Well you can expect it, but I think you'll very often be disappointed. Even more often than if the stop card had been used.

As I've mentioned in all the other threads related the Stop card, my experience is that the Stop card makes absolutely no difference. There are players who know they're supposed to pause, and there are players who don't. The ones who know still pause, even though the Stop card is gone. The ones who don't ignored the Stop card -- if they thought anything about it at all, they thought it was just a reminder that the bid was a jump (the actual word "Stop" on the card didn't enter into their mind).

 

That was the basis of my question. Vampyr implied that even the players who know the rule cannot be expected to pause when there's no Stop card.

[pescetom]

That was the basis of my question. Vampyr implied that even the players who know the rule cannot be expected to pause when there's no Stop card.

 

Players who know the rule can be expected to protest when the Stop card is not shown, at very least to the player who committed the infraction.

[barmar]

Players who know the rule can be expected to protest when the Stop card is not shown, at very least to the player who committed the infraction.

The Stop card is no longer used in the ACBL, so there would be no basis for that protest here.

[gordontd]

As I've mentioned in all the other threads related the Stop card, my experience is that the Stop card makes absolutely no difference.

My knowledge of this is based entirely on what I read on newsgroups and forums, but since I have noted a few who think that the stop procedure has been abandoned by the ACBL, as opposed to just the stop card itself, I find it hard to imagine that this will have made no difference in practice.

[pescetom]

The Stop card is no longer used in the ACBL, so there would be no basis for that protest here.

 

I took the post of vampyr as referring to the case where a player omits to show the Stop card in violation of regulations, but you are probably right that it refers instead to the case where the RA has abandoned the Stop card.

[captyogi]

Whatever Limited Information I had I had mentioned in the Opening Post and then Followed with Another Post.

 

Tournament was Selection Trial to Represent State 2 Teams , So ^ out of 7 Teams were Expert level.

 

When TD is Called and If the Ruling to be given is Not Straightforward Routine like Lead out of turn etc, then TD Takes Opinion of Few Knowledgeable Players and Gives the Ruling and then There is No Appeals Comm.

 

I am 100 % the Pairs Involved is Not Cheater.

[nielsbio]

I wonder what you meen by "TD Takes Opinion of Few Knowledgeable Players and Gives the Ruling and then There is No Appeals Comm."

 

 

Have you chosen to ignore any players right to appeal ANY ruling given by the TD?

 

Ie. violating Law 92A:

 

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director

[barmar]

My knowledge of this is based entirely on what I read on newsgroups and forums, but since I have noted a few who think that the stop procedure has been abandoned by the ACBL, as opposed to just the stop card itself, I find it hard to imagine that this will have made no difference in practice.

Anyone who thought that was wrong. But so were all the people who either ignored or misused the Stop card in the past, which was the reason we got rid of it.

 

It's been almost a year and a half since we got rid of the Stop card, and I haven't seen any significant change in practice. I have many years of experience playing with and against the same players, so I think I'd be able to notice changes in habits. When we had the Stop card, most people ignored it, and they still insta-bid. There were a small fraction of players who obeyed it, and from what I can tell most of them still hesitate as required.

 

Don't forget that the majority of players didn't even use the Stop card when making skip bids. But the players who understood the hesitation rule knew that they should hesitate regardless of whether it was used. And those players still understand their responsibility.

[nige1]

I enjoy reading the legal threads on BridgeWinners although some of the opinions of top-players seem weird. For example...

• ACBL stop regulations are inadequate, misunderstood, unpopular, and widely ignored.
• Many regard director-calls as sharp-practice (especially for faulty claims and use of UI). Calling the TD is routinely condemned as "attempting to recover, at committee, what they lost by mistakes at the table".
• Views on UI rulings are usually split 50-50 at best, even when its profitable use seems blatant.
• Top-players defend inadequate system-card completion and alert-disclosure.
• Fellow professionals defend World-class players, who fail to report their infraction to the director, when made aware of their profitable transgression. Authorities share this expert assessment: international careers seem unaffected and victims get no redress.

[pran]

Anyone who thought that was wrong. But so were all the people who either ignored or misused the Stop card in the past, which was the reason we got rid of it.

 

It's been almost a year and a half since we got rid of the Stop card, and I haven't seen any significant change in practice. I have many years of experience playing with and against the same players, so I think I'd be able to notice changes in habits. When we had the Stop card, most people ignored it, and they still insta-bid. There were a small fraction of players who obeyed it, and from what I can tell most of them still hesitate as required.

 

Don't forget that the majority of players didn't even use the Stop card when making skip bids. But the players who understood the hesitation rule knew that they should hesitate regardless of whether it was used. And those players still understand their responsibility.

For the record:

In Norway the STOP regulation is still in force, and

A player making a call for which STOP is required essentially waives all his rights for rectification because of BIT by his LHO if he violates this regulation.

 

Works fine here.

[pescetom]

I enjoy reading the legal threads on BridgeWinners although some of the opinions of top-players seem weird. For example...

• ACBL stop regulations are inadequate, misunderstood, unpopular, and widely ignored.
• Many regard director-calls as sharp-practice (especially for faulty claims and use of UI). Calling the TD is routinely condemned as "attempting to recover, at committee, what they lost by mistakes at the table".
• Views on UI rulings are usually split 50-50 at best, even when its profitable use seems blatant.
• Top-players defend inadequate system-card completion and alert-disclosure.
• Fellow professionals defend World-class players, who fail to report their infraction to the director, when made aware of their profitable transgression. Authorities share this expert assessment: international careers seem unaffected and victims get no redress.

 

I don't think you are fair about "attempting to recover, at committee, what they lost by mistakes at the table" which has been (IMO) legitimately contested on several occasions, often when a committee overturned an apparently valid judgement by TD.

You also omitted to mention that the weird opinions of top-players include near unanimous opposition to drug testing.

For the rest, I agree whole heartedly.