[Poky]

One pair made a potential infraction (MI).
The director rules in their favor (misbid, no MI) without apparent evidences.
An appeal committee is summoned.
One of the three members is a mother of one player from the "offending" pair.

What do you think about that?
What should be done with the appeal?
What should be done with the director?

[TimG]

I would think it inappropriate to have an appeal committee member be related to one of the involved parties. Though I am sure there are plenty of cases where the individual could be impartial, I would not want the potential appearance of impropriety.

The bridge community is small; you will seldom be able to arrange a committee such that no member of the committee knows, has played with, etc. any of the parties. But, there ought to be a pool of potential committee members to choose from such that the relationships between committee members and parties could be minimized.

[ggwhiz]

It sucks that a committee may have to be formed like this but you give no information as to possible other options.

I once played in a poker game for reasonably high stakes where my lho and rho announced they were brothers as an ethical FYI and proceeded to carve each other up at every opportunity.

I can't think of anyone that would be a suspect member of such a committee without acting as if they were under the microscope.

If you have a foul to declare, you need much more backup info than this.

Give the full hand, the MI (or mis-bid) and you will get a LOT of good opinion as to which it is from my experience here.

[bluejak]

There was a hand that went to appeal in a World Championship. One of the pairs involved was from New York. They had difficulty finding a Committee. A top class player from San Francisco asked why they did not use him and was told they did not people from the same country.

"What!" he said, incredulously, "you are suggesting someone from San Francisco would either agree with or support someone from New York?"

[Poky]

ggwhiz, on 2010-November-09, 22:54, said:

Give the full hand, the MI (or mis-bid) and you will get a LOT of good opinion as to which it is from my experience here.

Ok. Let's try.

The bidding went:

---

2NT was alerted. It was some kind of Good-Bad 2NT convention explained (from declarer's side of the screen) as "6♦ or 5♦5♣, minimum".
Declarer (having 4-3 diamonds and seeing a lead of ♦J) took the only legitimate line that caters against 5-5 minors (and went down one).
Opener had 1444 and was trying to bid a weak sign-off in hearts.
Knowing that diamonds could be 4-2 declarer has another (winning) line available (having an extra entry to the hand, which he hasn't if diamonds are 1-5, as expected).
The offending pair doesn't have a supplementary sheet with GoodBad developments explained, just a CC that says "Good-Bad 2NT". They suggest that the opener misbid (claiming that the sequence "...2NT-3♣-3♥" in their system doesn't even exist).
They suggested to ask the other pair (in open room) what their agreements are (apparently, they all are playing the identical system).

The main question (apart the AC formation cause) is - is it appropriate to use their teammates (playing the same match of 20 boards, but in other room), as a kind of "living supplementary sheeets" that would verbally give a convinceable evidence (directly after the match, not knowing what has happened in closed room) as a proof of their partnership agreement? Or this is a method that should be avoided?

Anyway. The director didn't ask them anything. He just ruled that no MI was present (misbid from opener) without any evidence and the whole thing went to the appeal.

[ggwhiz]

Hmmm, This looks like a tough one, beyond my capabilities other than guessing but with the lack of system note backup you seem to have a good point.

In ACBL land, "undiscussed" is a legit explanation (which you didn't get)depending on the level of competition and partnership history.

Opinion from the pro's on this forum will be much more valid than mine.

[bluejak]

Poky, on 2010-November-10, 08:00, said:

The main question (apart the AC formation cause) is - is it appropriate to use their teammates (playing the same match of 20 boards, but in other room), as a kind of "living supplementary sheeets" that would verbally give a convinceable evidence (directly after the match, not knowing what has happened in closed room) as a proof of their partnership agreement? Or this is a method that should be avoided?

Interesting. I might have given the same answer to the question - I play Good-Bad - and I would not have thought of a 1444 minimum hand. But maybe I should.

As to the question above I am a great believer in getting all the evidence but weighting it dependent on various factors, thus written evidence is stronger and so on. Thus I believe it appropriate to speak to the other pair and to use that as evidence but it certainly is not proof.

[Bbradley62]

Poky, on 2010-November-10, 08:00, said:

The main question (apart the AC formation cause) is - is it appropriate to use their teammates (playing the same match of 20 boards, but in other room), as a kind of "living supplementary sheeets" that would verbally give a convinceable evidence (directly after the match, not knowing what has happened in closed room) as a proof of their partnership agreement? Or this is a method that should be avoided?

I wouldn't know about the legalities of this, but it sounds like a terrific idea to me. When I was in college, three friends and I regularly played team games with interchangeable partnerships all using the same agreements; we would have made the same suggestion. If the other two, separately, both agree with East's explanation, then West misbid. If they both allow the possibility of 1444, then East gave misinformation. Anything else, and the committee can rule based on lack of agreement.

[TimG]

In my opinion, use of the method (2NT) with the 1=4=4=4 hand is evidence that an agreement existed. This is not a case of opener forgetting that good/bad 2NT applied, but rather a misunderstanding in its application. I would err on the side of the non-offenders and rule incorrect explanation.

I would not put much weight into a claim that 2N-3♣-3♥ does not exist unless there are system notes which not only omit the sequence, but explicitly state what opener is to do with a 1=4=4=4 minimum.

[nige1]

Poky, on 2010-November-08, 15:07, said:

One pair made a potential infraction (MI). The director rules in their favor (misbid, no MI) without apparent evidences. An appeal committee is summoned. One of the three members is a mother of one player from the "offending" pair.

Poky, on 2010-November-10, 08:00, said:

2NT was alerted. It was some kind of Good-Bad 2NT convention explained (from declarer's side of the screen) as "6♦ or 5♦5♣, minimum".
Declarer (having 4-3 diamonds and seeing a lead of ♦J) took the only legitimate line that caters against 5-5 minors (and went down one).
Opener had 1444 and was trying to bid a weak sign-off in hearts.
Knowing that diamonds could be 4-2 declarer has another (winning) line available (having an extra entry to the hand, which he hasn't if diamonds are 1-5, as expected).
The offending pair doesn't have a supplementary sheet with GoodBad developments explained, just a CC that says "Good-Bad 2NT". They suggest that the opener misbid (claiming that the sequence "...2NT-3♣-3♥" in their system doesn't even exist).
They suggested to ask the other pair (in open room) what their agreements are (apparently, they all are playing the identical system).
The main question (apart the AC formation cause) is - is it appropriate to use their teammates (playing the same match of 20 boards, but in other room), as a kind of "living supplementary sheeets" that would verbally give a convinceable evidence (directly after the match, not knowing what has happened in closed room) as a proof of their partnership agreement? Or this is a method that should be avoided?
Anyway. The director didn't ask them anything. He just ruled that no MI was present (misbid from opener) without any evidence and the whole thing went to the appeal.

---

IMO ...
In the course of his investigation, the director should ask the offender's partner what he said on the other side of the screen. He should also ask the offender's team-mates to confirm the true explanation.

If 2N really was a misbid, this case is another argument for some provision (in future law) for safeguards against "convention disruption" because it does seem tough that here is another case where a pair's' confusion did them no harm but damaged the other side.

If possible, close blood-relatives of appellants shouldn't serve on committees. Anyway, why didn't the player's mother recuse herself?

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2010-November-10, 12:43, said:

If 2N really was a misbid, this case is another argument for some provision (in future law) for safeguards against "convention disruption" because it does seem tough that here is another case where a pair's' confusion did them no harm but damaged the other side.

It may be another case, but there are a vast array of cases where a pair have a misunderstanding and the opponents get a good board as a result. But they are never seen here because why should the opponents complain?