[szgyula]

This is an old story that I just want to understand. The issue reached the national Law and Ethics Committee which found everything normal. There were two issues raised, I start with the simple one:

In a team event, in the open room, the TD is called after a board is completed. After a long deliberation, the TD awards adjusted artificial score (+/- 3 IMP). The intention to appeal is announced. The TD goes over to the closed room, where the teams are playing the exact same board. The auction phase is over, they are just preparing for the opening lead. There is no irregularity, they are not late, everything is normal. The TD aborts the play and takes away the board and does not allow them to finish it.

Is this allowed? My interpretation of law 87D is that the TD can not do this, no matter what happens in the open room. If the party is started, they can finish it. The national Law and Ethics committee did not find this TD action problematic. I approached all three members personally but they simply recited the original ruling (every TD action was within the framework of the Laws) and refused to support their ruling. Is my interpretation of the Laws blatantly false?

The other issue, which is more complicated: This happened in the open room, where screens were used. The auction was 1H-3C-3D-P-P-P. My partner alerted his 3C and described it as "weak, preemptive". I also alerted his bid, gave the same explanation, but added that it could be a Ghestem bid, which shows D and S. I explained that I did not think we agreed to play Ghestem and I also explained that I will treat the 3C bid as weak preempt in C (whcih it actually was). After the opponents played 3D+2, they called the TD. The TD ruled that they received incorrect information. I accepted this, as just mentioning the remote possibility of a Ghestem is confusing and damaged the opponents. When asked, the opponents claimed that they would have played 5D= normally. I also agreed to this. Later I reviewed the board (which the TD also did before the ruling) and there are 2 realistic outcomes: 5D= and 4S, either = or +1. I was expecting a ruling of 5D= on the spot and 4S+1 when reviewing the board at home. Instead, the TD awarded an artificial adjusted score (3IMP). The TD gave no explanation. The national Law and Ethics Committee ruled that Law 12 allows this. In my argument to them I pointed out that the party was complete (TD was called after the 3D was played with +2) and the outcomes were easy to determine (most teams played 4S= or +1, it is impossible to make a slam). Thus, in my opinion, rule 12 only allows an adjusted score, which the TD should have awarded. Am I missing something here?

The story is over practically as the issue reached the highest forum (national Law and Ethics Committee) that has jurisdiction over it. It is also an old story, but it took over a year to at least figure out who the 3 members were. I just want to understand what happened here. Clearly the "Law 12 allows these two actions" is not enough for me. What am I missing?

[blackshoe]

On the first issue: On the face of it, the TD was wrong, the National Law and Ethics Committee was wrong. Did the TD offer a justification for this action?

On the second issue: "Law 12 allows this" isn't good enough. How does Law 12 allow it? And what, precisely, is "it"? If they're talking about awarding an artificial adjusted score when a result was obtained at the table, they're wrong.

[pran]

szgyula, on 2011-May-04, 15:43, said:

This is an old story that I just want to understand. The issue reached the national Law and Ethics Committee which found everything normal. There were two issues raised, I start with the simple one:

In a team event, in the open room, the TD is called after a board is completed. After a long deliberation, the TD awards adjusted artificial score (+/- 3 IMP). The intention to appeal is announced. The TD goes over to the closed room, where the teams are playing the exact same board. The auction phase is over, they are just preparing for the opening lead. There is no irregularity, they are not late, everything is normal. The TD aborts the play and takes away the board and does not allow them to finish it.

Is this allowed? My interpretation of law 87D is that the TD can not do this, no matter what happens in the open room. If the party is started, they can finish it. The national Law and Ethics committee did not find this TD action problematic. I approached all three members personally but they simply recited the original ruling (every TD action was within the framework of the Laws) and refused to support their ruling. Is my interpretation of the Laws blatantly false?

The other issue, which is more complicated: This happened in the open room, where screens were used. The auction was 1H-3C-3D-P-P-P. My partner alerted his 3C and described it as "weak, preemptive". I also alerted his bid, gave the same explanation, but added that it could be a Ghestem bid, which shows D and S. I explained that I did not think we agreed to play Ghestem and I also explained that I will treat the 3C bid as weak preempt in C (whcih it actually was). After the opponents played 3D+2, they called the TD. The TD ruled that they received incorrect information. I accepted this, as just mentioning the remote possibility of a Ghestem is confusing and damaged the opponents. When asked, the opponents claimed that they would have played 5D= normally. I also agreed to this. Later I reviewed the board (which the TD also did before the ruling) and there are 2 realistic outcomes: 5D= and 4S, either = or +1. I was expecting a ruling of 5D= on the spot and 4S+1 when reviewing the board at home. Instead, the TD awarded an artificial adjusted score (3IMP). The TD gave no explanation. The national Law and Ethics Committee ruled that Law 12 allows this. In my argument to them I pointed out that the party was complete (TD was called after the 3D was played with +2) and the outcomes were easy to determine (most teams played 4S= or +1, it is impossible to make a slam). Thus, in my opinion, rule 12 only allows an adjusted score, which the TD should have awarded. Am I missing something here?

The story is over practically as the issue reached the highest forum (national Law and Ethics Committee) that has jurisdiction over it. It is also an old story, but it took over a year to at least figure out who the 3 members were. I just want to understand what happened here. Clearly the "Law 12 allows these two actions" is not enough for me. What am I missing?

I am not going to argue with foreign national authorities, so the following are my personal opinions. And you state that it is an old story without specifying which edition of the Bridge Laws was in force. However, I believe that unless the story is from before 1997 I shall stand by my opinions given below.

Case 1:
First of all: I consider it illegal for a Director to award an artificial adjusted score when a result has been obtained on a board except when he is unable to award an assigned adjusted score ( Law 12C1{a} ).

And further: I consider it illegal for a Director to abort play of a board in one room solely on the ground that he has awarded an artificial adjusted score in the other room.

This is obviously important when his ruling can be appealed, because if the appeals committee overrules the Director's ruling and lets the table result stand then there will be no result with which to calculate an IMP result on the board.

It is, however, also important whenever Law 86D is appliccable: In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been obtained* between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side).

* if commenced between the same two contestants at another table the board may be completed.

Case 2: Same comment as my "First of all" comment above.

So the way your cases are presented I consider both cases to reveal severe misunderstandings and abuses of Law 12.

[barmar]

How old is this story? Neither the 1997 nor 2007 editions of the Laws have an 87D.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2011-May-04, 23:58, said:

Neither the 1997 nor 2007 editions of the Laws have an 87D.

It sounds as if Law 86D may be relevant.

I do not understand why the TD did not (as a first priority) prevent the board from being started in the other room.

[szgyula]

To clarify: Laws of 2007 were in force. The contest specific rules add that artificial adjusted score can be awarded if players play slower than permitted. This was not the case in the closed room. The TD only announced "I am going to award +3IMP" without any justification. He did not even state what the facts were that he based his decision on. The TD took over an hour to reach this decision, which allowed the closed room to get to this board. The rule I refered to was indeed 86D, not 87D.

The appeal was rejected on a technicality: I submitted the appeal properly and within the time frame allowed (next day), but I failed to pay to appeals fee (which was due by midnight in a national championship game that finished at 10:30PM). It was partly my fault as the rules were available in the room. Of course the TD could have also informed me about these rules, which he did not.

The Law and Ethics Committee ruled that "Law 12 allows the actions of the TD". Even when approaching all three members personally, no further explanation was given. The "it" was never specified by the committee. One of them suggested that "if I want to continue playing bridge, I should drop the matter". A different member said that "they may not have ruled the same but the ruling was within the limits permitted by the Law" and he also invited me to become a TD and show how it should be done. A third member stated that my case reached them through a different committee and I have no rights whatsoever to the actual ruling and I have no right to inquire about the ruling.

As for the detailed analysis of 86D: The closed room wanted to play 4S (our team). They can take 10 or 11 tricks. If in the closed room the opponents are awarded 4S+1 adjusted score, the end result is 0 or 1 IMP, depending on how they play. Thus, "appears favourable" in 86D does not apply since the result is neutral.

Well, the case is over and it is good to know that my case had at least some merit.

[pran]

szgyula, on 2011-May-05, 01:07, said:

To clarify: Laws of 2007 were in force. The contest specific rules add that artificial adjusted score can be awarded if players play slower than permitted. This was not the case in the closed room. The TD only announced "I am going to award +3IMP" without any justification. He did not even state what the facts were that he based his decision on. The TD took over an hour to reach this decision, which allowed the closed room to get to this board. The rule I refered to was indeed 86D, not 87D.

The appeal was rejected on a technicality: I submitted the appeal properly and within the time frame allowed (next day), but I failed to pay to appeals fee (which was due by midnight in a national championship game that finished at 10:30PM). It was partly my fault as the rules were available in the room. Of course the TD could have also informed me about these rules, which he did not.

The Law and Ethics Committee ruled that "Law 12 allows the actions of the TD". Even when approaching all three members personally, no further explanation was given. The "it" was never specified by the committee. One of them suggested that "if I want to continue playing bridge, I should drop the matter". A different member said that "they may not have ruled the same but the ruling was within the limits permitted by the Law" and he also invited me to become a TD and show how it should be done. A third member stated that my case reached them through a different committee and I have no rights whatsoever to the actual ruling and I have no right to inquire about the ruling.

As for the detailed analysis of 86D: The closed room wanted to play 4S (our team). They can take 10 or 11 tricks. If in the closed room the opponents are awarded 4S+1 adjusted score, the end result is 0 or 1 IMP, depending on how they play. Thus, "appears favourable" in 86D does not apply since the result is neutral.

Well, the case is over and it is good to know that my case had at least some merit.

Are you stating that the appeals fee was payable latest at midnight while the appeal itself could be submitted next day (i.e. several hours later)?

Law 92B said:

The right to request or appeal a Director’s ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection unless the Tournament Organizer has specified a different time period.

I am very much surprised if the appeals fee should be payable before the time limit for the appeal itself.

And the fact that:

szgyula said:

As for the detailed analysis of 86D: The closed room wanted to play 4S (our team). They can take 10 or 11 tricks. If in the closed room the opponents are awarded 4S+1 adjusted score, the end result is 0 or 1 IMP, depending on how they play. Thus, "appears favourable" in 86D does not apply since the result is neutral.

Could not be anticipated by the Director when he aborted the play, nor should he be able to anticipate that no appeal would be submitted or in case that it would be dismissed.

[szgyula]

pran, on 2011-May-05, 01:52, said:

Are you stating that the appeals fee was payable latest at midnight while the appeal itself could be submitted next day (i.e. several hours later)?

I am very much surprised if the appeals fee should be payable before the time limit for the appeal itself.

This is even more complicated. The tournament specific rules stated the following: "The intention to appeal must be indicated to the TD and the appeals fee must be submitted. The appeal can be submitted in writing within 30 minutes after the end of play or in an e-mail, before 23:00 the day after.". The appeal was submitted the day after in the morning. I also asked for instructions for submitting the appeals fee. The organizers ruled that even though the appeal was submitted, the fee was not paid in time. It is hair splitting that leads to nowhere, but yes, literally speaking there is no deadline to inform the TD and to pay the fee. The deadline only applies to the appeal itself. I think this is secondary to the core of the issue, but yes, looking back on it, the organizers probably rejected the appeal creatively, too. They did not specify how to submit the fee and as a result it was never paid. Clever.

[mgoetze]

szgyula, on 2011-May-05, 01:07, said:

One of them suggested that "if I want to continue playing bridge, I should drop the matter".

Remarkable.

[blackshoe]

This just gets more and more bizarre.

[bluejak]

Having read the opening post but no others one thing immediately occurs to me, not just for this poster, but for everyone. If you have two basically unrelated queries, please please please start two separate threads. It confuses threads no end if there are two subjects and makes the responses in th long run less meaningful. So long as threads are on-topic and not rude or malicious we do not limit the number of threads started.

Second, there seems relevance yet again to which country we are talking about. Please please please please put the country to which you are referring, or online if that is the case. One way is to put it in 'Description (Optional)'. Some people start off by saying 'ACBL, club game' or similar. But please put something.

I shall answer the first post in two separate posts and then read the thread!

[bluejak]

szgyula, on 2011-May-04, 15:43, said:

In a team event, in the open room, the TD is called after a board is completed. After a long deliberation, the TD awards adjusted artificial score (+/- 3 IMP). The intention to appeal is announced. The TD goes over to the closed room, where the teams are playing the exact same board. The auction phase is over, they are just preparing for the opening lead. There is no irregularity, they are not late, everything is normal. The TD aborts the play and takes away the board and does not allow them to finish it.

Is this allowed? My interpretation of law 87D is that the TD can not do this, no matter what happens in the open room. If the party is started, they can finish it. The national Law and Ethics committee did not find this TD action problematic. I approached all three members personally but they simply recited the original ruling (every TD action was within the framework of the Laws) and refused to support their ruling. Is my interpretation of the Laws blatantly false?

When a result on a board has been obtained the TD can leave the score unchanged or adjust under Law 12C1C or 12C1E according to his jurisdiction. Either can be modified by Law 12C1B for the non-offending side. Law 12C2 which allows artificial adjusted scores does not apply once a board has been completed. However, if - for example - the board was played with some cards in different positions then the TD might legitimately rule that the correct board has not been played so no result has been obtained on it so Law 12C2 applies.

Under the latest Law book Law 12C1D has crept in. At first sight it looks a pretty pointless Law, probably put in because of people who do not realise how easy it is to rule under Law 12C1C. However, the EBU has long been of the opinion that where the whole auction is illegally based then artificial scores are the only answer. For example:

---

If the 1♠ is a psyche and the TD concludes that 2♦ fielded it then the Law says the 1♠ is illegal under Law 40A3. Most TDs would adjust as though the 2♦ was illegal but that is incorrect. Since you now have to adjust from the auction

---

and the EBU considers this too difficult. They thus have a regulation based on Law 12C1D.

My general advice is to ignore Law 12C1D completely unless it is a position where your National Authority has told you to use it. I do not believe in normal cases you will find it too difficult or possibilities too numerous. So while an artificial adjusted score is legal under Law 12C1D it should not be given. Mind you, whether it should or not, the play should never be stopped in the other room once the board is started, for two reasons.

First, Law 86D may apply and a further adjustment made. This possibility has been taken away by stopping the board.

Second, where there is any doubt over giving an artificial adjust score [and that certainly will apply where one is given under Law 12C1D] then an AC may reverse this. So the board should be completed in the other room so that a comparison is possible.

While not the case here what do I recommend with a board not yet played in the other room? If a board is definitely unambiguously unplayable then it is normal not to waste people's time by playing it in the other room. However this is arguable because of Law 86D.

If a score is given under Law 12C1D you should always allow the board to be played in the other room because of [a] an appeal and [b] there may be no damage if th non-offenders get a good enough score in the other room. To reduce their score to average plus is a no-no!

[bluejak]

szgyula, on 2011-May-04, 15:43, said:

The other issue, which is more complicated: This happened in the open room, where screens were used. The auction was 1H-3C-3D-P-P-P. My partner alerted his 3C and described it as "weak, preemptive". I also alerted his bid, gave the same explanation, but added that it could be a Ghestem bid, which shows D and S. I explained that I did not think we agreed to play Ghestem and I also explained that I will treat the 3C bid as weak preempt in C (whcih it actually was). After the opponents played 3D+2, they called the TD. The TD ruled that they received incorrect information. I accepted this, as just mentioning the remote possibility of a Ghestem is confusing and damaged the opponents. When asked, the opponents claimed that they would have played 5D= normally. I also agreed to this. Later I reviewed the board (which the TD also did before the ruling) and there are 2 realistic outcomes: 5D= and 4S, either = or +1. I was expecting a ruling of 5D= on the spot and 4S+1 when reviewing the board at home. Instead, the TD awarded an artificial adjusted score (3IMP). The TD gave no explanation. The national Law and Ethics Committee ruled that Law 12 allows this. In my argument to them I pointed out that the party was complete (TD was called after the 3D was played with +2) and the outcomes were easy to determine (most teams played 4S= or +1, it is impossible to make a slam). Thus, in my opinion, rule 12 only allows an adjusted score, which the TD should have awarded. Am I missing something here?

This ruling is just ridiculous. Either it is MI or it is not, which has to be decided by the TD and then AC. If it is MI then there should be an assigned score [if there is damage] under Law 12C1C or 12C1E.

[bluejak]

Having read the further comments in the thread I would add that if an appeal is allowed by email the idea that the payment must be made by an earlier time is absurd.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-May-10, 06:30, said:

Having read the further comments in the thread I would add that if an appeal is allowed by email the idea that the payment must be made by an earlier time is absurd.

Wow, I hadn't spotted that. Good point, Bluejak!