[joemanjo]

India, Played with bidding boxes and screens. N and E are Indian international players or with international exposure. South and West are experienced players (10+ years of regional and national play), West is a non-regular these days. Both partnerships are new. All know each other well.

The final league of a regional tourney (after qualification of top six teams). All pairs have been told to carry filled convention cards.

---

South turns to West to confirm that 4S distributional after placing 5D bid on the tray. West says that this is strong Micheals, so 16+ hcp. South informs West that he should have alerted the same. West apologises for the same. South indicates to West that he wishes to withdraw his bid and places Pass on the tray. The auction goes all pass.

---

After dummy comes down ...

South calls the TD and informs about what transpired. TD verifies the facts and asks for play to go on. EW are 1 down. TD is called back again and told the result. South informs that 5D makes and that he had bid the same but for the changed information. East informs her that he had other bids like 4C/4D to indicate stronger hands. EW dont have any convention card filled in on both sides of the screen as they played together due to non-availabilty of a player for that session. Facts as transpired are not disputed by any of the players. TD informs players to go ahead with the next deal while she consults for a ruling.

TD comes back and gives the ruling as 4S-1.

NS appeals giving all the explanation. Appeals committee meets while the next round is in progress, does not call either side and gives the signed verdict that "North-South did not protect their rights at the appropriate moment. The result stands. Procedural Penalty for EW of -3 IMPs for not carrying the convention card. Appeal money to be refunded." This while the next match was in progress. TD had very few players of similar experience to consult outside those in contention in the league. Even AC would have been constituted without availability of players of similar experience.

Your comments are sought on the same.

Firstly, what is the established practice for the A/C - It is necessary to call all players for a hearing in this case? Is it so evident that they can deliver a verdit as they did without meeting NS and EW in this case?

Secondly, what is the right time for South to call the TD in this deal? Is the A/C contention that NS did not protect their rights at the right time correct?

Thirdly, what do you think of the ruling of TD and A.C.

Thanks in advance.
Manoj Kumar K

[bluejak]

ACs can basically do what they see fit. So if they decide to hear case without speaking to the players then that is legal.

However, I consider it dreadful. Since the players are there not hearing their views is very poor practice indeed. Whether they would have come to the same view or not, failure to listen to the players:

• means that they may have missed some vital piece of evidence, and
  
• means their final judgement is less credible because of this.

The player changed 5♦ to pass. What right does he have to do so? Sure, there is a Law that you may change a call after MI but that is a right the TD offers. Not calling the TD means that both South and West were at fault. Attention was drawn to an irregularity so the TD should be summoned. [See note $$$ below].

I notice the comment:

Quote

TD had very few players of similar experience to consult outside those in contention in the league.

Nothing wrong with consulting other players in contention in the league.



Let us consider what would have happened if the TD had been called after the 5♦ bid. West would have told the TD about 4♠ showing the stronger hand, the TD would have allowed the change.

So in fact the failure to call the TD at the time has not made any difference therefore there is no reason not to give the correct appeal decision. In my view the AC was at fault in denying the appeal for the reason:

Quote

North-South did not protect their rights at the appropriate moment.

So, what of the ruling and appeal anyway?

First, was there MI? This was a scratch partnership. I would investigate, but I would guess that while they had agreed to play Michaels as weak/strong, they did not have an actual agreement for the actual sequence. So I expect the correct explanation was "We have agreed Michaels is weak/strong. We have no agreement as to whether 4♠ shows the strong hand."

If that is what the correct agreement is, and South had been told that my guess is that he might have bid 5♦ but quite likely would not have. Next question: does 5♦ make? I know South says so, but ... Deep says it does, so I tried a few lines: some quite sensible ones fail! So I would rule as TD or AC:

For both sides:
.. 20% of 5♦/N =, NS +600
+ 70% of 4♠/W -1, NS +50
+ 10% of 5♦/N -1, NS -100

My guess is that this will give N/S an imp.

How about the PP? If this was a last minute scratch partnership because of a problem, I would have thought a warning suffices.



$$$ We have noted that in the new Law book the 'must' in Law 9B1A has been replaced by 'should'. It is my considered opinion that this does not mean that failure to do so is no longer an infraction. What it means is that giving a PP for it is not routine. But if failure to call the TD leads to damage it is routine even with the new wording to adjust.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-February-23, 08:29, said:

$$$ We have noted that in the new Law book the 'must' in Law 9B1A has been replaced by 'should'. It is my considered opinion that this does not mean that failure to do so is no longer an infraction. What it means is that giving a PP for it is not routine. But if failure to call the TD leads to damage it is routine even with the new wording to adjust.

I'm afraid I'm responsible for that change, as I pointed out to Grattan before the laws were changed that "must" in this law implied that PPs should frequently be given. The LC apparently decided they didn't want that (not that anyone was actually doing it) so they changed it to "should". As it happens, my opinion concurs with David's as to failure to call the TD still being an infraction. Not surprising, considering that the law explicitly says it is.

Quote

“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)