[mjk43]

I’d be grateful for some advice as I frame my submission for an Appeals Committee – in particular around Law 93B3. The background is a match played in the first division of a County league. No director present. A hand on which the following happened:
I pick up my cards and see a very standard 3rd in hand, green, 3C opening. Partner passes, RHO bids 1S but I don’t initially register that and pull out both Stop and 3C cards. Our system (as I play in all three of my regular partnerships is Ghestem). Almost as soon as I have put the 3C card on the table, I realise that RHO has opened and I know that my bid is Ghestem and that partner knows that this is Ghestem. Partner is a very measured player and it is still another couple of seconds before her Alert card hits the table. I don’t think that I have any UI from the alert or the explanation – neither is unexpected in the least. Partner bids 3H and all pass and, distracted by events, she misplays to go 3 off (it should be 2 off). Opponents claim at the end of the match that the score should be adjusted to 4Hx-4 (the minimum needed for an extra VP).


The hand was sent to the League who gave it to a TD to rule. The TD ruled “The alert of the 3C bid (by S) does give UI to North. As such Laws 16 and 73C apply” and after stating that 4H is an LA, adjusted the score to 4Hx-4 as requested by the opponents.


I am writing our appeal which will be heard by a committee of 3 very experienced players. The TD has emailed the county official organising the committee stating in very strong terms that the committee may not overturn the decision on whether there is UI, insisting that this is a point of law and protected by 93B3. In both a covering note to the ruling and his email to the County official, the TD refers to my having “remembered the system” and broadly states that everyone would claim to do that and in any case doing so does not avoid UI. In saying this, I would contend that the TD is misunderstanding and ruling incorrectly on a point of fact, not law. I did not “remember” the system – I never forgot it. It is inconceivable that I would as I play competitive bridge once or twice a week always and only with Ghestem. I just didn’t register the 1S bid and pulled out my card to “open” 3C. This explanation was accepted as honest at the table at the time by the opponents (but they still reserved their rights, as is their entitlement, believing nonetheless that I should have raised 3H). Surely, I would argue, in those circumstances, there can be no Extraneous Information and that too must be a matter of fact.


I had not previously realised how important it was to classify the TD’s decision making process in reaching a ruling. As I would analyse it, in this situation it goes
• What happened ? – fact
• Did what happened convey extraneous information ? – fact
• Was that extraneous information UI ? – law
• What are the consequences in principle of UI ? – law
• What adjusted score should be awarded ? – judgement


So, the advice I’m seeking is primarily on the application of Law 93B3 in these circumstances. Do you agree with the above analysis and what is the remit of the committee as to ruling on whether there is UI ?


Secondarily, if there were UI, given the stringent test in the new White Book, I accept that 4H is an LA. But it is not clear that opponents would double what appears to be a freely bid game based on a distributional hand and 4H should really go 3 off so should the TD not have given a weighted score based on 4H-4, 4H-3, 4Hx-4 and 4Hx-3 ?

With many thanks

[RMB1]

Of course an appeals committee can overturn a UI ruling. The EBU appeals form invites the committee to says at which point in a UI ruling it disagrees with the original ruling.

BUT the laws, the TD, and the AC will all assume that you (or your peers) thought 3♣ was natural when you bid it and will rule against you.

[mjk43]

RMB1, on 2011-March-25, 04:59, said:

Of course an appeals committee can overturn a UI ruling. The EBU appeals form invites the committee to says at which point in a UI ruling it disagrees with the original ruling.

BUT the laws, the TD, and the AC will all assume that you (or your peers) thought 3♣ was natural when you bid it and will rule against you.

Thank you - how can I access a copy of the form please ?
(I don't think that is a reasonable assumption but that's up to the committee to decide)

[gnasher]

I agree with Robin that you're not going to win your ruling, but from the sound of it someone should do something about the TD's knowledge of the rules and, more important, his attitude.

[gnasher]

mjk43, on 2011-March-25, 05:15, said:

Thank you - how can I access a copy of the form please ?

Did you try Googling "EBU appeals form"?

[RMB1]

mjk43, on 2011-March-25, 05:15, said:

Thank you - how can I access a copy of the form please ?

EBU Appeal form
The second half of page 2 deals with unauthorised information rulings and has "steps" A,B,C,D,E; then on page 4, there is box "The Committee disagrees with the following on page two (please tick and give details) B C D E"

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2011-March-25, 05:20, said:

I agree with Robin that you're not going to win your ruling, but from the sound of it someone should do something about the TD's knowledge of the rules and, more important, his attitude.

Depending on the hands, and the way the play went, an AC might give him some proportion of 4Hx-3 or 4H-4. From my reading of the original post that would be enough to make a difference.

[Trinidad]

I agree with Robin and Gordon: It is unlikely that the AC will change the TD's decision.

But I think the TD is way out of line.

In general the TD will be the one who establishes the facts. The AC will -in general- not do anything about the facts that the TD found. However, there is a very good reason for that: In general, the TD is right there and he is best positioned to observe the cards that are lying on the table, the statements that the players and even their body language. It would be unwise for an AC to think that they are better placed than the TD to establish the facts.

But in this case, the TD wasn't there. He was just as far away as the AC. The TD doesn't know the facts any better than the AC. The AC can establish themselves, just as good as the TD can, whether there was any UI or not.

As I said, it is unlikely that you will win this appeal. The only way to win it is to get one of the opponents to state that he saw that you showed somehow that you had missed the 1♠ opening and that you showed this reaction before the alert. I would say that an appeal is futile if you don't get any of the opponents to state something like that, naturally with the provision that everything always depends on the full deal.

Rik

[bluejak]

I agree with everyone else on the main point, but not necessarily on the subsidiary point. The decision whether there was UI is a matter of judgement not Law and as such is appealable. But you will lose.

However, the question of a weighted score is interesting. Despite the fact that weighted scores have been around for a long time in England, far too few TDs and ACs consider them. I believe the correct approach is to consider them in every case once the decision has been made to adjust, and only give a single score if it is decided than one result has a very high likelihood, say over 85%. In practice most TDs and ACs often fail to consider a weighted score at all.

If th double of 4♥ is not automatic, then I disagree that you will win your appeal, but please make sure you concentrate on the logic behind the weighted scores, not on whether you have UI.

[FrancesHinden]

You might find this useful reading: Link

As others have said, you will lose on the main point of appeal, basically because the TD and the AC have no way of distinguishing between "The alert told me we play Ghestem" and "I remembered before I see the alert". The way the UI Laws work, you are effectively Guilty unless you can prove you are Innocent. If it weren't this way round, it would be absurdly easy to cheat; this way round you get punished for not noticing an opening bid - but that's a pretty silly thing to do, so why shouldn't you be punished?

You might have a case that the ruling should be a range of weighted results, hard to know without seeing the full hands (and without knowing if it was obvious at the table that you were 'unhappy' which might prompt a double).

[FrancesHinden]

mjk43, on 2011-March-25, 04:41, said:

I
I had not previously realised how important it was to classify the TD’s decision making process in reaching a ruling. As I would analyse it, in this situation it goes
• What happened ? – fact
• Did what happened convey extraneous information ? – fact
• Was that extraneous information UI ? – law
• What are the consequences in principle of UI ? – law
• What adjusted score should be awarded ? – judgement

One could quibble slightly with this list, but the set of questions is broadly right, however

"Did what happened convey extraneous information?" (or "What EI was conveyed?") is a matter of judgement

and in any case matters of fact can be appealed; it's just that an AC would rarely have any evidence on which to over-rule a TD's ruling of fact.

[blackshoe]

Note also that a ruling on a matter of law can be appealed to the Regulating Authority, and that the committee procedure is a pre-requisite to that. So no TD can deny an appeal on the grounds that the AC cannot overturn his ruling.

[bluejak]

The last time I was involved in an appeal on a matter of Law Max Bavin was quite chuffed. I told him I needed him for an appeal, told him the legal point, got his agreement that my advice was correct, and that was the appeal to the DIC dealt with. Then we could get on with the real appeal! Naturally, the AC was told that the matter of Law had been appealed and upheld.

[mjk43]

Thank you all for your very helpful responses, with the aid of which I have now submitted my submission to accompany the appeal.
I shall reply again to let you know the outcome.

Many thanks !

[mjk43]

Had ruling which I paste below (exactly as received).
If I'm right in thinking that all rulings where deposit is kept go to Law & Ethics people at EBU for review, then I wish they'd kept the deposit. At least then the director's astonishing outburst would have been considered by those who should see it !

"Misbids are ot treated differently because of the cause. It is presumed that, without overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that an alert or non-alert causes a realisation of the misbid. There is therefore UI.
4H may not be well judged, but everyone polled made it or considered it. It is therefore a logical alternative. (but this argument saved the deposit)
A double by East would be extremely likely by all players of div standard.
There is no reason to adjust the play. Sometimes declarers play doubled contracts better, sometimes worse, so we wouldn’t make an adjustment for that reason. As an aside DF plays double dummy not best line, so please ask players not to cite it as evidence."

[gnasher]

The director is, I assume, appointed by the organisers of the league. If you're unhappy with his behaviour, why not complain to them?

[bluejak]

mjk43, on 2011-April-08, 00:56, said:

If I'm right in thinking that all rulings where deposit is kept go to Law & Ethics people at EBU for review, then I wish they'd kept the deposit. At least then the director's astonishing outburst would have been considered by those who should see it !

All appeals from EBU tournaments go to the EBU L&EC's screeners, both of whom have posted in this thread, and if either of them sees an interesting point the full Committee will see it. A kept deposit is usually an interesting point.

But an appeal in an event not run by the EBU [with very occasional exceptions] will not go the EBU whatever happens.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

But an appeal in an event not run by the EBU [with very occasional exceptions] will not go the EBU whatever happens.

True but it has been known for an appeal form to be forwarded to the Secretary of the L&E which has not come from an EBU tournament and if it is interesting it might makes its way to screeners and meeting (not that he will thank me for saying so)