Vancouver Appeals
Tim Goodwin
events which I thought were being handled by the directing staff this
time around. Does anyone know how the trial of having directors
handle some appeals went? What events were the directors responsible
for?
I also noticed that most of the appeals panels used expert advisers
for matters of bridge judgment. If this improves the quality of
appeals, great, but I thought one of the ideas behind forming appeals
committees was to find a player's peers. I seem to recall experts
(perhaps Eddie Wold) giving an opinion on the bidding choice of a
player with around 100 masterpoints. Is this the way it should be?
Why separate the duties of expert opinion from the appeal committee?
I thought the committees were made up of experts, anyway. Perhaps
outside opinions would be appropriate for late rounds of the
Vanderbilt, or similar, but is there really a need for advisors of
this sort when the committee is considering actions taken by non-world
class players?
Tim
Georgiana Gates
> Look at Appeal Case 5 in the Friday March 26 Daily Bulletin,
> viewable on the ACBL website (nice job, Chyah!).
>
> Please do look at Case 5! It's very interesting! The text
> version can be easily downloaded for use in RGB or BLML
> discussions, and I hope someone will take the trouble to start a
> thread on this case. My computer is crashing regularly, and the
> hard disk FAT is damaged beyond repair, so I must go off-line
> until the San Diego regional is over.
>
OK, I'll comment. It's a case where declarer called the wrong card
from dummy and didn't notice her mistake until after RHO had played
a card (in tempo). Then she wanted to change her call and was allowed
to do so. It seems to me that the usual practice is not to allow a
change of call after the next hand has played. This was a situation
when the card declarer called was clearly irrational - she could
have claimed.
There were two dissenters on the committee.
David desJardins
> OK, I'll comment. It's a case where declarer called the wrong card
> from dummy and didn't notice her mistake until after RHO had played
> a card (in tempo).
This doesn't seem an impartial summary of the facts: it supposes the
conclusion. The whole question on the hand was whether it was
unambiguously clear that declarer called the wrong card by accident,
since declarer paused and then made a rather ambiguous statement. It's
clear that declarer erred, but two of the committee members thought the
evidence not sufficiently clear that it was a mechanical error (calling
the wrong card) as opposed to some other type of mistake for which the
rules don't allow a correction (a "brain disconnect"). If declarer had
immediately said, "Oops, I meant to play a club", so that the
circumstances were unambiguous, then everyone on the committee would
supported the correction.
David desJardins
Marvin L. French
> I read some appeals in the Daily Bulletins. Some were from
regional
> events which I thought were being handled by the directing
staff this
> time around.
They were. Those committee members you see are TDs: Ron
Johnston, Olin Hubert, Charlie MacCracken, Roger Putnam and Matt
Smith. If one of them was the TD at the table, he doesn't serve
on the AC for that appeal. Hmmm, no women.
> Does anyone know how the trial of having directors
> handle some appeals went? What events were the directors
responsible
> for?
Non-NABC+ events, I believe, with the big events having access
to the standard AC. Note that the players involved do not get
invited to the appeal hearing when the TDs are handling an
appeal. This seems like lack of due process to me. As usual,
this follows the policy of demeaning the lesser players, who
don't deserve good appeals processes, or good movements. The
morning Continuous Pairs didn't even get hand records. Shuffle
and deal. Many pairs were quite upset with this. The reason
given to me (not to the players who came to me about it) was
that there wasn't enough time to duplicate boards and finish on
time. So, why not use the preduplicating machine or play just 12
rounds? Players want hand records!
Only big events or strat A games were matchpointed ATF, and only
the NAOP finals had a one-winner movement. District 22 Director
Jim Kirkham has told me that stratified games will have ATF in
the San Diego regional (he's the co-Tournament Manager) this
week. Section awards for those not in the overalls will ensure
that the players get the same number of total masterpoints that
they get in non-ATF games.
>
> I also noticed that most of the appeals panels used expert
advisers
> for matters of bridge judgment.
Just those appeals handled by the TD staff, I believe, when they
felt a need for expert advice (or confirmation of their opinion)
on matters of fact. They may also ask for fellow TD advice on
matters of law. The standard ACs consulted with TDs when they
felt a need for expert advice on matters of law, but I don't
think they feel a need for "expert advice" on matters of fact.
Look at Appeal Case 5 in the Friday March 26 Daily Bulletin,
viewable on the ACBL website (nice job, Chyah!).
Please do look at Case 5! It's very interesting! The text
version can be easily downloaded for use in RGB or BLML
discussions, and I hope someone will take the trouble to start a
thread on this case. My computer is crashing regularly, and the
hard disk FAT is damaged beyond repair, so I must go off-line
until the San Diego regional is over.
> If this improves the quality of
> appeals, great, but I thought one of the ideas behind forming
appeals
> committees was to find a player's peers. I seem to recall
experts
> (perhaps Eddie Wold) giving an opinion on the bidding choice
of a
> player with around 100 masterpoints. Is this the way it
should be?
> Why separate the duties of expert opinion from the appeal
committee?
> I thought the committees were made up of experts, anyway.
Perhaps
> outside opinions would be appropriate for late rounds of the
> Vanderbilt, or similar, but is there really a need for
advisors of
> this sort when the committee is considering actions taken by
non-world
> class players?
Player-advisors should indeed be knowledgeable peers of the
players involved. Some of the AC members are not all that
expert, because experts generally don't volunteer for AC
service. With the regular NABC acting on appeals for high-level
games only, the need for opinions of lesser players is not
needed so much.
--
Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfr...@writeme.com
alan d frank
defended 2H for -110. There was an issue (UI or MI, I don't remember) and
we appealed; the flight A committee set the contract to 2x by us, -50.
Now the AC members might well have defended to set the contract, but if
the defenders lead their suit at every opportunity (and this would not
have involved leading away from tenaces or giving a ruff-sluff) rather
than knock out a stopper/entry, we would have made it. Heck, I probably
would have defended that way at the time. Maybe what they really need are
newbie advisers.
--Alan Frank
t...@maine.rr.com (Tim Goodwin) writes:
[snip]
>I also noticed that most of the appeals panels used expert advisers
>for matters of bridge judgment. If this improves the quality of
>appeals, great, but I thought one of the ideas behind forming appeals
>committees was to find a player's peers. I seem to recall experts
>(perhaps Eddie Wold) giving an opinion on the bidding choice of a
>player with around 100 masterpoints. Is this the way it should be?
[snip]
Michael Shuster
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> Georgiana Gates <ram...@hal-pc.org> writes:
> > OK, I'll comment. It's a case where declarer called the wrong card
> > from dummy and didn't notice her mistake until after RHO had played
> > a card (in tempo).
>
> This doesn't seem an impartial summary of the facts: it supposes the
> conclusion.
Actually, as far as the facts go, the director gave his summary, then Dan
Morse told the committee what happened. The committee asked us what happened
and we said something like, "What Dan said is just what happened." The facts
were not in dispute between the players. The writeup claims that JoAnna
called for a "Low Spade" when in fact the call was for "Spade." Morse had
discarded a spade on the first club and JoAnna started thinking about the
heart/spade squeeze for seven and accidentally vocalized the word "Spade."
FWIW, I think the law needs to be re-worded.... perhaps the statement "An
incorrect designation may not be corrected after the next hand has played if
the incorrect designation could possibly have generated an extra trick."
That would have disallowed our case, as it is possible that RHO could duck
the spade king allowing the spade queen to score.
> The whole question on the hand was whether it was
> unambiguously clear that declarer called the wrong card by accident,
> since declarer paused and then made a rather ambiguous statement. It's
> clear that declarer erred, but two of the committee members thought the
> evidence not sufficiently clear that it was a mechanical error (calling
> the wrong card) as opposed to some other type of mistake for which the
> rules don't allow a correction (a "brain disconnect"). If declarer had
> immediately said, "Oops, I meant to play a club", so that the
> circumstances were unambiguous, then everyone on the committee would
> supported the correction.
All I can say to this is that I have chosen some amazingly ethical partners
in my time. Jeff Goldsmith and JoAnna Stansby are at the top. Neither would
hesitate to tell the truth in a situation where they knew it would hurt them.
Neither Wolff nor Morse believed that JoAnna intended to call for a spade.
...
Some days the gales are howling, Some days the sea is still as glass.
Oh raise the mainsail, oh lash the mast. You're a lost sailor,
Been away too long at sea, Now the shorelines beckon...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David Grabiner
> I agree with Tim. Several years ago, playing in a flight C knockout, we
> defended 2H for -110. There was an issue (UI or MI, I don't remember) and
> we appealed; the flight A committee set the contract to 2x by us, -50.
> Now the AC members might well have defended to set the contract, but if
> the defenders lead their suit at every opportunity (and this would not
> have involved leading away from tenaces or giving a ruff-sluff) rather
> than knock out a stopper/entry, we would have made it. Heck, I probably
> would have defended that way at the time.
The proper standard is whether it was "likely" (for the non-offenders)
or "at all probable" (for the offenders) that the contract would go
down. If 1/3 of Flight C players would beat the contract, then the
score of -50 is correct.
The AC would also prefer to err on the side of assuming players are too
good rather than too bad. It is an insult to a player if the AC
effectively says, "without the infraction, you would have been in 4S
which makes five on a squeeze, but we do not believe you would have set
up the squeeze, and thus we award you only +420."
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
David desJardins
> All I can say to this is that I have chosen some amazingly ethical
> partners in my time. Jeff Goldsmith and JoAnna Stansby are at the
> top. Neither would hesitate to tell the truth in a situation where
> they knew it would hurt them. Neither Wolff nor Morse believed that
> JoAnna intended to call for a spade.
If JoAnna said that she called for a spade by accident, I'm sure that's
true. But I also think that the rules have to be applied equally to
everyone; to me it doesn't seem right to give the benefit of the doubt
to one person and not to another based on their reputations. So I think
the ruling should be based only on the circumstances (was a correction
in fact made "without pause for thought", as the laws require), not on
the people involved (a subjective decision of "is this person an honest
one"). I know JoAnna well enough to say that if the question were
instead about the honesty or integrity of the player, then the decision
would certainly go in her favor.
David desJardins
Robb Gordon
of course, this ruling stirred more than a bit of controversy.
While it is true that we are to apply rules "equally", the interpretation of
this particular law necessitates getting into declarer's head a bit and
doing some mind reading. In the process of doing this, it is easy to
receive self serving answers.
At that point, first (of course) we have to see that declarer's statement
is supported by the evidence of the hand, that is, that declarer's play
is not a legitimate (even if inferior) alternative.
Having passed that test, we have to see how believable we think the
circumstances are. No matter how much I discuss this ruling, there will
always be people who believe declarer miscounted her tricks or some such.
To them I say, you had to hear the evidence in person, and now you have to
get the law changed. Committees should not be put in this position.
If declarer plays the wrong card, even if immediately, it may not be
retracted.
Make the rule the same for dummy. It will be painful, but nobody will doubt
the
fairness of it.
Robb Gordon
David desJardins <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:voh90ce...@yuban.berkeley.edu...
David desJardins
> I think it is time to check in here, as I was a member of the
> committee, and of course, this ruling stirred more than a bit of
> controversy.
I'm glad to hear your thoughts.
> While it is true that we are to apply rules "equally", the
> interpretation of this particular law necessitates getting into
> declarer's head a bit and doing some mind reading.
I think it's possible to apply the plain language of the Laws ("A player
may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he [sic] does
so without pause for thought") without any need to investigate the
mental state of the player. If the player does in fact make the
correction without pause for thought, then the play must have been
inadvertent. If not, then the law does not apply.
It seems to me that Law 45C4b only applies when declarer does in fact
change the inadvertent designation without pause for thought. Applying
the law when declarer makes no such change, on the basis that "Declarer
would have made such a change if declarer had known it was permitted"
stretches the language of the Law too much for me. I don't read the
Laws to say that, if a player fails to exercise a right under the Laws
through ignorance of those Laws, then the player should be entitled to
the same result as if the player had exercised the right.
David desJardins
David Stevenson
It is considered a normal interpretation that an attempt to change is
good enough. The legalities of the hand in question were whether the
Term "Oh shit" was effectively an attempt to change, ie that declarer
would have followed up with "Let's get the Director" if aware that such
a change was possible.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.demon.co.uk> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm ~
David Stevenson
>a...@world.std.com (alan d frank) writes:
>
>> I agree with Tim. Several years ago, playing in a flight C knockout, we
>> defended 2H for -110. There was an issue (UI or MI, I don't remember) and
>> we appealed; the flight A committee set the contract to 2x by us, -50.
>> Now the AC members might well have defended to set the contract, but if
>> the defenders lead their suit at every opportunity (and this would not
>> have involved leading away from tenaces or giving a ruff-sluff) rather
>> than knock out a stopper/entry, we would have made it. Heck, I probably
>> would have defended that way at the time.
>
>The proper standard is whether it was "likely" (for the non-offenders)
>or "at all probable" (for the offenders) that the contract would go
>down. If 1/3 of Flight C players would beat the contract, then the
>score of -50 is correct.
>
>The AC would also prefer to err on the side of assuming players are too
>good rather than too bad. It is an insult to a player if the AC
>effectively says, "without the infraction, you would have been in 4S
>which makes five on a squeeze, but we do not believe you would have set
>up the squeeze, and thus we award you only +420."
If AC members are not prepared to do their job then they should not be
on an AC. An AC decides what is the correct result under the Laws.
Whether a player feels insulted by their decision does not come into it
with a competent AC.
Ashok
>
>I think it's possible to apply the plain language of the Laws ("A player
>may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he [sic] does
>so without pause for thought") without any need to investigate the
>mental state of the player.
> David desJardins
I have no argument with David. I am using an extract from his post as
a convenient take-off point for my query.
What exactly is meant by "without pause for thought"? It is not a
rhetorical question; it has come up often in the local club. The
question is, why does not the rule say "...without pause"? Is it
alright if there is a pause when no thought takes place, a "thoughtless"
pause, as it were?! And how is anyone else to know?
In some informal bridge clubs (I don't remember if they were ACBL
franchises or not), I had come across the expression "in the same
breath". Does sound to me more helpul operationally! By definition,
there has to be "some thought", otherwise why do I want to change
an action? :)
Getting back to the current case, let us take an equivalent bidding
situation. I have an opening hand with 6 spades and a singleton
heart. I open. After some more action, I feel the bidding is
going strangely and I ask for a review. To my consternation, it
appears that I opened 1 heart! Without any further pause for thought
I summon the director and suggest that we restart the bidding with
1S as my opening bid. It doesn't matter whether I am on honest
person; my hand is proof enough that even a beginner who knows the
names of the four suits won't make the 1H bid.
Upto what stage in the proceedings will I be allowed to make the
correction? At one extreme, "1H, oops, 1S" I suppose is okay.
What about after n seconds, if my LHO has not yet made a call?
After the LHO has made a call in tempo is certainly too late for
correction. We have to live with the consequences of some of our
"brain disconnects".
Ashok
DavJFlower
>>
>>I think it's possible to apply the plain language of the Laws ("A player
>>may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he [sic] does
>>so without pause for thought"
In the ACBL bulletin (Dec.1975) Edgar Kaplan wrote a commentary on the revised
laws), when a change of call, previously allowed "without pause" became "if he
does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought".
He suggested "1H...Oh! Oh!...this is awful...I'm terribly sorry, really I am...
what I meant...do you mind?...I mean 1S" was a valid change of call, whereas if
a sharp-witted player playing a strong club bids '1S...1C', with barely a
perceptible break, would not.
David Stevenson
>What exactly is meant by "without pause for thought"? It is not a
>rhetorical question; it has come up often in the local club. The
>question is, why does not the rule say "...without pause"? Is it
>alright if there is a pause when no thought takes place, a "thoughtless"
>pause, as it were?!
It is all a part of an overall rule. As soon as anyone thinks about
the situation it becomes unchangeable. However, sitting blankly looking
into space with your mouth open does not mean you cannot change an
inadvertent designation.
> And how is anyone else to know?
If I need to know, I ask the player. I do not expect players to lie
to me, and anyway I make overall judgements when I get all the facts.
>In some informal bridge clubs (I don't remember if they were ACBL
>franchises or not), I had come across the expression "in the same
>breath". Does sound to me more helpul operationally! By definition,
>there has to be "some thought", otherwise why do I want to change
>an action? :)
You are not expecting to "change" an action, but to do what you
intended. If you intend to bid 1S, you take a 1S bid out of the box,
then realise you are playing 5-card majors and should bid 1C instead,
then you may not change it. That is not an inadvertent designation. If
you intend to bid 1S, and accidentally take the 1NT card out of the box,
that is inadvertent, and may usually be changed.
So, to change an action, it must be inadvertent, ie not the action
that you had decided on: you must attempt to change it immediately you
realise the error, though this is interpreted elastically: if in doubt a
director will allow a change he believes to be inadvertent.
In the same breath suffers from two big disadvantages: first, it seems
an unsuitable term using bidding boxes [which don't breath!]: it also is
unsuitable using written bidding as in Australia. The second problem is
that the "without pause for thought" applies from the realisation of the
error, which may be many breaths later.
>Getting back to the current case, let us take an equivalent bidding
>situation. I have an opening hand with 6 spades and a singleton
>heart. I open. After some more action, I feel the bidding is
>going strangely and I ask for a review. To my consternation, it
>appears that I opened 1 heart! Without any further pause for thought
>I summon the director and suggest that we restart the bidding with
>1S as my opening bid. It doesn't matter whether I am on honest
>person; my hand is proof enough that even a beginner who knows the
>names of the four suits won't make the 1H bid.
Your hand is irrelevant: no competent director will ever look at it.
>Upto what stage in the proceedings will I be allowed to make the
>correction? At one extreme, "1H, oops, 1S" I suppose is okay.
>What about after n seconds, if my LHO has not yet made a call?
>After the LHO has made a call in tempo is certainly too late for
>correction. We have to live with the consequences of some of our
>"brain disconnects".
You may change an inadvertent designation during the bidding until
your partner next calls: whether LHO has called is irrelevant [although
if you do change your call, he may change his without penalty under
L21B2].
One of the problems that led to the original appeal is that while
there is a time limit set in L25A, the law that permits a call to be
changed, there is no equivalent time-limit set in L45C4B, the law that
permits a play to be changed.
John (MadDog) Probst
<davjf...@aol.com> writes
the test which I apply when I'm ruling "without pause for thought" is:
did the player genuinely make an effort to retract 'at the point he
became aware'. This may well include a significant pause in the case of
eg. the Wendy coup. (For those not following Young Chelsea folk-lore,
Wendy is our very pretty barmaid, and worth watching considerably more
than the bidding box)
It causes a problem in the sense that good players with an inate sense
of the proprieties of the game will make an inadvertent call, and then
following the Wendy coup will not try to retract as they know that there
has been a pause. They are unaware that the relevant passage is
'without pause for thought'. It is an area where I believe TDs have a
degree of re-education to undertake.
As for the examples above I would rule the same way for spoken calls.
Bidding box accidents one learns to use a 'spiel' to try to determine
what happened. I currently say 'Is the bid which is on the table the
one that you had in mind when you made the call?' Like DWS I believe
that one gets an honest answer to this type of question. ... and one
will quickly pick up a dishonest trend from a regular abuser.
--
John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947
451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou
London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m jo...@probst.demon.co.uk
+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk
Marvin L. French
David Stevenson wrote
> One of the problems that led to the original appeal is that while
>there is a time limit set in L25A, the law that permits a call to be
>changed, there is no equivalent time-limit set in L45C4B, the law that
>permits a play to be changed.
>
L45C4(b) permits an inadvertent play to be changed. But the play wasn't
changed. The law doesn't permit a play that wasn't changed to be changed
later. Declarer presumably could have changed the play from dummy, had she
called the TD. Since she didn't, result stands.
Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfr...@writeme.com)
Who is not a TD, and whose words are always IMO
Malcolm Boyack
Swiss pairs at Buxton the bidding went
1H from me 1S from partner.
AT this point I then mistakenly pulled a PASS card from the bidding box
(instead of the STOP card) placed it on the table in front of me (NOT neatly
aligned with my previous bid). Then drew the 4S bid from the table and
placed it on the table in the appropriate position. And then I noticed the
pass card, apologised, withdrew it and replaced it with the STOP card.
There was not even a murmur of dissent from anybody.
BUT should we have called the director?
Ashok wrote in message <7duere$9...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>In article <vohzp4u...@yuban.berkeley.edu>, de...@math.berkeley.edu
says...
>>
>>I think it's possible to apply the plain language of the Laws ("A player
>>may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he [sic] does
>>so without pause for thought") without any need to investigate the
>>mental state of the player.
>
>> David desJardins
>
>
>I have no argument with David. I am using an extract from his post as
>a convenient take-off point for my query.
>
>What exactly is meant by "without pause for thought"? It is not a
>rhetorical question; it has come up often in the local club. The
>question is, why does not the rule say "...without pause"? Is it
>alright if there is a pause when no thought takes place, a "thoughtless"
>pause, as it were?! And how is anyone else to know?
>
>In some informal bridge clubs (I don't remember if they were ACBL
>franchises or not), I had come across the expression "in the same
>breath". Does sound to me more helpul operationally! By definition,
>there has to be "some thought", otherwise why do I want to change
>an action? :)
>
>Getting back to the current case, let us take an equivalent bidding
>situation. I have an opening hand with 6 spades and a singleton
>heart. I open. After some more action, I feel the bidding is
>going strangely and I ask for a review. To my consternation, it
>appears that I opened 1 heart! Without any further pause for thought
>I summon the director and suggest that we restart the bidding with
>1S as my opening bid. It doesn't matter whether I am on honest
>person; my hand is proof enough that even a beginner who knows the
>names of the four suits won't make the 1H bid.
>
>Upto what stage in the proceedings will I be allowed to make the
>correction? At one extreme, "1H, oops, 1S" I suppose is okay.
>What about after n seconds, if my LHO has not yet made a call?
>After the LHO has made a call in tempo is certainly too late for
>correction. We have to live with the consequences of some of our
>"brain disconnects".
>
>
>Ashok
>
John (MadDog) Probst
<Malcolm...@3sl.co.uk> writes
>As my contribution to this without pause for thought debate. In recent BBL
>Swiss pairs at Buxton the bidding went
>
>1H from me 1S from partner.
>
>AT this point I then mistakenly pulled a PASS card from the bidding box
>(instead of the STOP card) placed it on the table in front of me (NOT neatly
>aligned with my previous bid). Then drew the 4S bid from the table and
>placed it on the table in the appropriate position. And then I noticed the
>pass card, apologised, withdrew it and replaced it with the STOP card.
>
>There was not even a murmur of dissent from anybody.
>
>BUT should we have called the director?
>
trained directors. Most of these players are familiar with the
"mechanical error" bidding box problem and in this case would see no
problem.
Tonight at the YC a pair called me to tell me they believed a foreign
player, new in this country, their opponent had made such an error
against them. I asked him if he had intended the call he made and he
said he'd pulled the wrong card so I told him to change it. His
opponents then told him that they knew he could change it but weren't
sure that he did. He said he didn't know this and was appropriately both
grateful and gracious. I explained that at the YC at least all he needs
to do is say "Sorry, this bid is not the call I intended" and I wouldn't
even be summoned. Cheers John
DavJFlower
>>Swiss pairs at Buxton the bidding went
>>
>>1H from me 1S from partner.
>>
>>AT this point I then mistakenly pulled a PASS card from the bidding box
>>(instead of the STOP card) placed it on the table in front of me (NOT neatly
>>aligned with my previous bid). Then drew the 4S bid from the table and
>>placed it on the table in the appropriate position. And then I noticed the
>>pass card, apologised, withdrew it and replaced it with the STOP card.
>>
>>There was not even a murmur of dissent from anybody.
>>
>>BUT should we have called the director?
I am not sure what the letter of the laws states in this case, but the spirit
of the laws is clear - there was no damage, so there was no need for any
redress; however, if the next player had bid on seeing the pass, the situation
would not be so simple.
David Stevenson
rec.games.bridge
The Bridge World
The Bridge Bulletin
cc Grattan Endicott
David Burn
Hans-Olof Hallen
Appeals Case 5
Subject: Played Card
Event: NABC Vanderbilt KO Teams,
22 March 99
Declarer is playing in 6C at teams. She reaches a position
where she has 12 tricks by drawing trumps. The official report
then continues:
'At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The
SK was played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned,
and said "oh shit." Play continued. East received his heart
ruff; down one.
'At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be
called, as North had meant to call low club, and there could be
some restitution. The Director was called, and after
consultation with the other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b)
that North misspoke (a slip of the tongue).'
L45C4B says:
A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent
designation if he does so without pause for thought; but
if an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was
legal before the change in designation, that opponent
may withdraw without penalty the card so played and
substitute another (see Law 47E).
Was the call for a spade inadvertent? The Director ruled so:
the Appeals Committee agreed, though with dissenting opinions.
I believe that it is a matter of judgement whether it was, and
see no reason to disagree with the decision made. Let us assume
it was inadvertent.
The official report then continues:
'The Committee asked the Screening Director for the Laws
Commission interpretation of Law 45C. He stated that "pause for
thought" means "change of mind."'
This is a very strange statement indeed, and I wonder what was
in the mind of the Screening Director when he said it [assuming
it has been accurately reported]. The word "inadvertent" is
interpreted to exclude a change of mind: if a player wishes the
director to allow her to play a club when she has asked for a
spade then either the call for a spade was "inadvertent", ie she
meant a club all the time, or she has changed he mind and
originally meant a spade but now wishes to play a club. The
wording of L45C2B does not permit a card to be changed because
of a change of mind so no change would be allowed in the latter
case. I believe that this statement as reported is wrong,
though it may not have affected the ruling.
The official report then continues:
'No time frame for the change of call is specified, other than
without significant time for thought. The key part of the
interpretation is that the time for thought begins only AFTER
the player realizes that an inadvertency has occurred. In this
case the "oh shit" was after a short pause after the SK was
played.
This is the normal interpretation of "without pause for
thought" as it appears in this Law and the more common Law 25A
concerning inadvertent calls. A player who realises she has
called for the wrong card or made the wrong call may change it
if inadvertent so long as there is no pause "for thought" from
the realisation that it was wrong. Generally, Directors and
appeals Committees interpret this generously.
The official report then continues:
'The Committee explored whether or not rights were forfeited by
waiting until the hand was over before calling the Director.
The Screening Director assured the Committee that failure to
know the law in this case did not cause forfeiture of rights and
therefore, although calling the Director earlier would have been
better, it did not cause loss of rights.'
This is the second statement in the report that concerns what
the Screening Director says, and it is not at all clear that it
is correct. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that it is not
clear whether it is relevant. Rulings may be sought and given
until the end of the Correction Period per L92B, but in some
cases they will not given because of other considerations.
It is suggested that declarer made an inadvertent designation,
and made this clear by saying "Oh shit": if so then she drew
attention to it under L9A2A. Why did no-one summon the
Director, as required by L9B1A? Presumably because the other
three players failed to realise that she was drawing attention
to an irregularity, but what of declarer herself? She continued
to play in defiance of L9B2. Possibly she did not think that
there was an irregularity. I am doubtful as to whether any
adjustment is due to declarer once attention is drawn but no
Director summoned.
However, the main point of the hand is that L45C4B allows a
player to "change an inadvertent designation if she does so
without pause for thought". The normal interpretation is that
an attempt to change is good enough. Is that what happened
here? No! If declarer had said "Oh shit! I did not mean to
play that card: let's get the Director" then she would be
allowed to change it. What she actually did was to indicate she
had made a mistake but she made no effort to change it. Thus no
change is allowed under L45C4B.
Dummy called the Director at the end of the hand. While he
has a perfect right to do so, there is no longer any question of
a change being made without pause for thought: that time has
passed. Declarer made no attempt to change the card without
pause for thought so it may not be changed.
It would be better if L45C4B contained a time limit as L25A
does: to be analogous, no change would be permitted after
partner has played a card, or the player herself has played to
the next trick, or made or acquiesced in a claim. However, the
actual wording of the Law precludes attempting to change the
card some time later: the lapse of time is significant, and the
words "without pause for thought" sufficient to make sure that
no adjustment may be made at the end of the hand.
It is my considered opinion that the Appeals Committee in
Vancouver was mis-directed on the Law, and that no change under
L45C4B may be made at a later stage.
--
David Stevenson la...@blakjak.demon.co.uk
Chief Tournament Director, Liverpool, England, UK
Welsh Bridge Union Fax: +44 870 055 7697
Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm
Chris Ryall
> It is my considered opinion that the Appeals Committee in
>Vancouver was mis-directed on the Law, and that no change under
>L45C4B may be made at a later stage.
While in practice I think it is wrong to try and wind back this
situation after trick 13, I feel declarer's coprolalia shouldn't
be used to differentiate too much between the change of mind and
inadvertancy. David didn't post the hand, but if 'low spade'
produced the king from dummy I think that may be fair evidence
of the latter. But in the end it will come down to opinion. c
--
Chris Ryall, Wirral-UK mailto:chris...@cavendish.demon.co.uk
Tim Goodwin
items have been forgotten (or at least brushed aside).
Michael Shuster who was dummy during the hand in question wrote:
>The committee asked us what happened
>and we said something like, "What Dan said is just what happened." The facts
>were not in dispute between the players. The writeup claims that JoAnna
>called for a "Low Spade" when in fact the call was for "Spade."
This may not change your opinion, but much of the discussion has
included a reference to "low spade." When trying to understand the
committee's reasoning, it may help to consider that declarer said
"spade" rather than "low spade."
>Morse had
>discarded a spade on the first club and JoAnna started thinking about the
>heart/spade squeeze for seven and accidentally vocalized the word "Spade."
>Neither Wolff nor Morse believed that JoAnna intended to call for a spade.
When I first read this statement, I wondered why there had been an
appeal. But, then I realized that the real issue seems to be whether
Mrs. Stansby attempted to correct her inadvertant designation. The
important part, in my opinion, is that everyone involved at the table,
including the director, believe the designation to have been
inadvertant, unintended. It does not seem to me to be of any use to
speculate as to whether the designation was intended or not -- the
facts aren't in dispute.
Tim
David Stevenson
>>Vancouver was mis-directed on the Law, and that no change under
>>L45C4B may be made at a later stage.
>
> situation after trick 13, I feel declarer's coprolalia shouldn't
> be used to differentiate too much between the change of mind and
> inadvertancy. David didn't post the hand, but if 'low spade'
> produced the king from dummy I think that may be fair evidence
> of the latter. But in the end it will come down to opinion. c
????????????????????????
My opinion was not decided on the test of inadvertency.
--
David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK
Nanki Poo's birthday was on 5th April ICQ 20039682
Emails to <nank...@blakjak.demon.co.uk> bluejak on OKB
Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm