[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2012-February-03, 08:53, said:

I have made representations to the L&E over the PP, as I did not regard it as intentional or careless. "And that is the end of it." as you say. I am not sure why I regard this as more important than completely merited PPs for careless things I have done in the past, such as playing the wrong board, or sitting at the wrong table, but it seems that way.

FWiiW I do not think a PP was appropriate in this case either.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2012-February-03, 07:40, said:

Paul's quite right about the meaning of the PP. A score adjustment implies merely that your judgement is poor (as whose is not?). A PP implies that your breach of the rules was intentional or careless.

I think this post might be lost in the thread but it has wide application to a lot of things. There is often a dislike of giving or receiving PPs because people often believe they mean that someone has breached the rules intentionally. But that is not the case. As gnasher says, PPs are often given [and often not given when they should be] because of a lack of care where the rules are concerned.

People will then argue that if you make a simple mistake you should not receive a PP, except perhaps a warning, for example if you put a board on the table wrong. But PPs are subject, as so many things that TDs do, to judgement, and if you make a habit of putting the board on the table wrong, the TD will eventually start fining you [an English term meaning issuing PPs or DPs as points rather than warnings].

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2012-January-30, 15:39, said:

If Double is going to end the auction, then it is likely that it is suggested over Pass and choosing Pass over Double would damage the non-offending side.

Could you possibly clarify this sentence, please, Robin? If Double ends the auction, it scores +300, while Pass scores +100. Did you mean "choosing Double over Pass would damage the non-offending side"?

And, more generally, rather than for this case, do people think that an LA is demonstrably suggested just because it is likely to score better, when one has UI? I recall someone arguing, in a choice between Five Clubs and Six Clubs, after a Ghestem mixup, that Six Clubs had to be chosen because it would go one more off.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2012-February-03, 11:01, said:

Quote

If Double is going to end the auction, then it is likely that it is suggested over Pass and choosing Pass over Double would damage the non-offending side.

Could you possibly clarify this sentence, please, Robin? If Double ends the auction, it scores +300, while Pass scores +100. Did you mean "choosing Double over Pass would damage the non-offending side".

Sorry, nothing deep here: I think there is a "not" missing. (... would NOT damage the non-offending side)

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2012-February-03, 11:43, said:

Sorry, nothing deep here: I think there is a "not" missing. (... would NOT damage the non-offending side)

Does it therefore follow that if South thinks that Double will end the auction it would be an infraction, as it is suggested over Pass? From South's point of view, he would expect Double to do so, even more so if partner's Pass were forcing.

[Pig Trader]

Ok, so, so far we have heard from two of the players, two of the AC as well as the DIC. All it needs now is for the original TD to come wading in to this thread to give his tuppence-worth! Oh, heck, here he comes now! Aarg!

[Pig Trader]

jallerton, on 2012-January-29, 04:54, said:

Certainly an AC should make use of any valid poll performed by the TD. Here though it seems that something has gone seriously wrong with the poll. Where did the TD find these people who apparently opted to defend 3♥undoubled non-vulnerable when partner had forced to game from strength? More likely, I suspect, the TD gave them a wrong auction or told the people asked about about the unauthorised information when conducting the poll. Judging from his comments, the Chief TD can to the same conclusion.

There have been many comments about my poll. I made it clear at the Appeal and on the Appeal Form that I started by polling players (and I also polled and consulted the DIC). It was immediately clear to me that I was very likely to need to poll many more players before being able to decide whether doubling was a LA to passing. It was also a complicated poll as there were two calls by South that were in question.

I therefore switched my approach to the ruling to the other direction and considered how I would adjust were there LAs that may have been less suggested by the UI. 3♥ doubled, and partscores and games in either black suit and various numbers of tricks, all came to mind and it was immediately clear to me that my weighting would result in a no-damage ruling.

Therefore, I stated that even on a LA ruling, there was no damage to the NOS. I didn’t need to resume polling players as it had become unnecessary for the outcome of the ruling. I gave no further details of my poll as it was so limited that I didn’t feel that it would be helpful.

I have no problems with the AC producing a weighting that became favourable enough for the NOS that a score adjustment became due. I do remain a little surprised that the AC imposed a PP as I asked Paul why he chose his actual calls and I received coherent reasons, but it seems that the AC were less persuaded than I was, but again, I have no problem with that.

jallerton, on 2012-January-28, 01:56, said:

The TD ruled that the table result should stand. The basis of the TD's ruling was that although South's Pass over 3♥ may have been an infraction, there was no damage from the infraction as (according to Deep Finesse) ten tricks are available for North/South in both clubs and spades.

I am a little bewildered by the reference to Deep Finesse. I can’t believe that any EBU TD would give any weight to the output of Deep Finesse. Sure, I might look in passing – it’s difficult to miss on the hand record sheets – but who would want to take any notice without analysing why it claims what it claims?

Barrie