[sasioc]

I've just been reading the EBU Appeals booklets (what else would I do on a Friday night??) and wondered if players are permitted to appeal a ruling that they believe is correct if they think that their opponent should have been given a PP but was not. This could crop up if an opponent has taken blatant advantage of UI and been ruled against but a PP had not been issued or, as in a case in the 2009 book, it was ruled that the final contract should have been the same but reached by a different route so table result stands.

Obviously you're not really appealing the ruling directly but if it was clear that a PP should have been applied it would not be an appeal without merit and it is easy to construct scenarios in which the non-offending side would overtake the offending side in a competition if a PP was applied...

[Vampyr]

This question puts me in mind of an experience I had a few years ago...

At some national Swiss Pairs event, we were assessed a .5 VP PP for having some of the footnotes on our CC off by one. A few months later we played in the regional final of the National Pairs, and came in second by less than .5. When we played the winners, they had displayed a CC that listed a 2NT opener as a minor preempt, when it was in fact both minors. I don't remember the details, as it was my partner's actions that were affected. Anyway they were ruled against, but not assessed the same PP we had received, and thus won the trophy.

If this kind of appeal is considered valid, then appeals lodged (perhaps only) for the sake of consistency might improve the, well, consistency of our appeal rulings.

[blackshoe]

As I read the law, you can appeal any part of a director's ruling. You can appeal any part of an AC's ruling, but only if the RA has established procedures for such an appeal. In North America, the ACBL has declined to establish such procedures except on a point of law or an allegation of bias on the part of a committee member. On a point of law, the ACBLLC has discretion to hear the appeal or decline to hear it. In all other cases, the AC is the court of last resort.

[aguahombre]

I don't think we have answered the OP's real question.

[RMB1]

I think the answer to the OP's question is yes - becauase there have been such appeals.

I think it was a match played privately, a player mistakenly showed two suits he didn't have and (after hearing partner's explanation) doubled the opponents in an attempt to stop partner competing. The TD adjusted to a result without the double and with the offenders competing and going for more than the doubled contract making.

But the non-offenders needed more - they appealed (to a referee) on the basis that the double had been a gross use of UI, deserving of a PP, and the offenders might have gome more off. The referee gave them both and this was enough to win the match.

So they did not appeal just to get a PP applied, but that was an explicit part of their reason for appeal.

[dcrc2]

I would be surprised if it is not technically appealable. Still, I can't imagine anyone appealing solely on the basis of trying to get a PP applied. If nothing else it would mark you out as a really bad loser. Personally I would regard it as unsporting behaviour, likely to cause upset to opponents for no good reason, and therefore arguably illegal under our regulations on behaviour.

[aguahombre]

My answer is: I don't know ---never having been in Manchester on any night.

[FrancesHinden]

It's not an easy question to answer in a non-KO match, because what you are asking for in fact has no affect on your own score.
I once asked for a ruling requesting that opponents be given a PP for gross use of UI, and was told that 'wasn't the done thing' and wouldn't be considered (this wasn't in an EBU event). We coudn't be bothered to try and appeal this.

[FrancesHinden]

dcrc2, on 2013-January-19, 09:18, said:

I would be surprised if it is not technically appealable. Still, I can't imagine anyone appealing solely on the basis of trying to get a PP applied. If nothing else it would mark you out as a really bad loser. Personally I would regard it as unsporting behaviour, likely to cause upset to opponents for no good reason, and therefore arguably illegal under our regulations on behaviour.

Why? Some of the offences that merit a PP are grossly unsporting behaviour, cause upset to opponents for no good reason and definitely _are_ illegal. If they don't get penalised for such actions, they will never learn that they are wrong and will never improve.

There was a wonderful example of this sort of position in an elderly ACBL casebook: something like (3D) 3NT (P) 4H* (P) 4S (P) 5H all pass
4H was alerted and described as a transfer to 4S. The 5H bidder had 4-card spade support and a huge hand: whatever 4S meant over a (natural) 4H bid, it was clearly blatantly wrong to try and sign off in 5H. However, there was no damage because 7H, 7S and 7NT were all cold.

[dcrc2]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-January-22, 15:54, said:

Why? Some of the offences that merit a PP are grossly unsporting behaviour, cause upset to opponents for no good reason and definitely _are_ illegal. If they don't get penalised for such actions, they will never learn that they are wrong and will never improve.

The players ought to be told when they have done something wrong, but I see this as being solely the job of the director. If he fails to explain properly, or to give a PP when it might be appropriate, then that's too bad. I don't feel an appeal is a good way to try to put this right.

[blackshoe]

dcrc2, on 2013-January-22, 17:06, said:

The players ought to be told when they have done something wrong, but I see this as being solely the job of the director. If he fails to explain properly, or to give a PP when it might be appropriate, then that's too bad. I don't feel an appeal is a good way to try to put this right.

How would you put it right, then?

We had a case today (I was playing, not directing, and this didn't happen at my table). The auction went 1♣-X-1♥-2♠. Opener asked the meaning of 2♠ and was told "weak". The auction continued 3♥-P, and now the 1♥ bidder reached over to pick up LHO's system card. She never got it. LHO said "he's right, it's weak". The auction continued P-4♦-P-4♠-X-all pass At some point the 1♥ bidder called the director, who saw no problem with all this. Later, when we discussed it, I suggested that a PP was appropriate for the comment*, but that I was not sure that a score adjustment was warranted, although if it were I would probably just remove the double. The 2♠ bidder had 6 spades and 6 diamonds and the ♠QJ as his only HCP. It turned out that (after his ruling) the director asked two good players for their opinions, and they did not feel an adjustment was warranted. When the point about the comment was brought up, the other director said "yes, he should not have made the comment", but there was no indication that either of them would have issued a PP. 4♠X just made, btw.

I don't know if the player who made the comment has been warned before by a director to avoid such things, but if he hasn't he should have been, and today he should have got a PP(Warning), or a PP in matchpoints if he has already received a warning.

*This player is gaining a reputation for doing this kind of thing, and not surprisingly his partner (not always the same partner, but not a pickup either) usually manages to find the right call.

[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-January-22, 15:51, said:

It's not an easy question to answer in a non-KO match, because what you are asking for in fact has no affect on your own score.

But it might have an effect on your ranking in the event.

[paua]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 19:24, said:

How would you put it right, then?

We had a case today (I was playing, not directing, and this didn't happen at my table). The auction went 1♣-X-1♥-2♠. Opener asked the meaning of 2♠ and was told "weak". The auction continued 3♥-P, and now the 1♥ bidder reached over to pick up LHO's system card. She never got it. LHO said "he's right, it's weak". The auction continued P-4♦-P-4♠-X-all pass At some point the 1♥ bidder called the director, who saw no problem with all this. Later, when we discussed it, I suggested that a PP was appropriate for the comment*, but that I was not sure that a score adjustment was warranted, although if it were I would probably just remove the double. The 2♠ bidder had 6 spades and 6 diamonds and the ♠QJ as his only HCP. It turned out that (after his ruling) the director asked two good players for their opinions, and they did not feel an adjustment was warranted. When the point about the comment was brought up, the other director said "yes, he should not have made the comment", but there was no indication that either of them would have issued a PP. 4♠X just made, btw.

I don't know if the player who made the comment has been warned before by a director to avoid such things, but if he hasn't he should have been, and today he should have got a PP(Warning), or a PP in matchpoints if he has already received a warning.

*This player is gaining a reputation for doing this kind of thing, and not surprisingly his partner (not always the same partner, but not a pickup either) usually manages to find the right call.

I think this sort of thing should be handled via the Recorder.

It gets reported by the Director and the incident goes in a book. If a pattern emerges of certain minor misdemeanours by a certain player, then they get a formal warning. Could be at club or regional level. Once they're on a formal warning then the next instance is an immediate PP. Could be weeks later. Should be only for the same type of misdemeanour.

A formal complaint from another player may or may not be recorded.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 19:24, said:

now the 1♥ bidder reached over to pick up LHO's system card. She never got it.

LHO clearly doesn't understand some rules of the game. That means he needs to be educated properly first and told that the CC is for the opponents. On the other hand, as I understand it, LHO behaves like most club players in the ACBL: "My CC is mine. I don't want you to touch it, since you might see my private score card."

Everybody seems to be "just fine" with the CC culture at ACBL clubs. Nobody is doing anything about it. But when this player follows this culture, he is suddenly the bad guy? I don't get that. The bad guys are the ones who promote this culture, e.g. by printing a score card on the back of the CC and by designing a CC in such a way that it is clearly meant as a checklist for the partnership, rather than a glossary for the opponents.

As a TD, one of your tasks is to educate the players with respect to the rules of the game. Another task is to create the circumstances which promote players to play according to the rules. These tasks are far from easy. But you still have to do it. Now, we can all complain about how bad it is that there are score cards on the back of the ACBL CCs. But I think it is time to do some Ask not what your NBO can do for you, ask what you can do for your NBO.

It is easy to print ACBL convention cards without score sheets (just print two-sided and make them half the size) and score sheets without convention cards. Then it would be easy for players to give the CC to the opponents while keeping their private score card... private. One of the nice things of living in the land of the free is that you are allowed to take the initiative to try and improve things, thereby demonstrating that it also is the home of the brave.

Rik

[mr1303]

Isn't a procedural penalty a penalty for not following correct procedure?

Strikes me that they should be handed out a lot more than they currently are (and therefore not be considered such a slur when they are given).

[Trinidad]

mr1303, on 2013-January-23, 04:36, said:

Isn't a procedural penalty a penalty for not following correct procedure?

Strikes me that they should be handed out a lot more than they currently are (and therefore not be considered such a slur when they are given).

Yes, but we shouldn't forget the aim. The aim is to have players follow correct procedure. Handing out PPs is a way to reach that goal and not a goal in itself. Education is another -often, but not always, more effective- way to reach that goal. It is particularly ineffective to hand out PPs to players who don't know what they are doing wrong or who are not aware that they made a mistake.

Providing the right circumstances to follow correct procedure is another way. Personnally, I cannot understand how a TD can hand out a PP for not giving the opponents access to a CC as long as the private score card is printed on that same CC. After all, handing over your score card to the opponents should also lead to a PP.

Rik

[WellSpyder]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-23, 02:42, said:

It is easy to print ACBL convention cards without score sheets (just print two-sided and make them half the size) and score sheets without convention cards. Then it would be easy for players to give the CC to the opponents while keeping their private score card... private. One of the nice things of living in the land of the free is that you are allowed to take the initiative to try and improve things, thereby demonstrating that it also is the home of the brave.

Trinidad, on 2013-January-23, 05:33, said:

Personnally, I cannot understand how a TD can hand out a PP for not giving the opponents access to a CC as long as the private score card is printed on that same CC. After all, handing over your score card to the opponents should also lead to a PP.

It looks like you have, perhaps unintentionally, identified a good way to get to your preferred solution. If TDs routinely hand out PPs for failing to give the opponents access to a CC, but also hand out PPs for handing over your scorecard to the opponents, then it might encourage more people to print out separate CCs as you suggest.....

[barmar]

I'm confused, I thought the severe offense in this example was a player explaining his own call. Refusing to let you look at the CC seems like a lesser offense. If it's an ACBL CC, I don't think there's a place to describe this sequence (TOX followed by interference followed by jump), so he's just saving you from a wild goose chase. I've never used this as an excuse when an opponent has asked to see my CC, although after giving it to them I've occasionally muttered something like "you won't find this auction on there".

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-January-23, 10:03, said:

I'm confused, I thought the severe offense in this example was a player explaining his own call. Refusing to let you look at the CC seems like a lesser offense. If it's an ACBL CC, I don't think there's a place to describe this sequence (TOX followed by interference followed by jump), so he's just saving you from a wild goose chase. I've never used this as an excuse when an opponent has asked to see my CC, although after giving it to them I've occasionally muttered something like "you won't find this auction on there".

+1...Accurately confirming partner's accurate disclosure, was an offense worthy of suggestion that the player not do that during the auction any more ---then moving on.

[aguahombre]

redupe (tripe?)