From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Procedural Penalties
Organization: St Barts
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:13:34 GMT
Keywords: example hands


I have no incentive to spend any more time on proving
what has been happening at nearby regionals. Rather
than giving me abuse, how about somebody giving me 
some constructive feedback on how to stop the policy
in our district if it is contrary to bridge laws.
I don't understand what insulting me will accomplish,
it won't change what is. Oh yeah, I keep forgetting,
people get a perverse pleasure out of random flaming.

I called a number of people and asked them for specific
first hand examples of procedural penalties they were 
recently assessed. Judge appropriateness for yourself.
I am just the middle man reporting events as they have 
occurred. I really don't need to hear how crazy I am.
I've got plenty of better things to do with my time.
The feedback I'm reading says you don't want to
waste bandwidth reading this drivel. So be it.
If we don't like the truth, we'll just bury it.

First, let me qualify that these people are all well
respected players with a few thousand masterpoints each.

EX1)	1C(1)	2C(2)	P	2S
	2NT	P	3NT	P
	P	P

	(1) Precision, strong club
	(2) Alerted as Michaels, was meant to be natural

Two people sat down before game time and filled out a card.
When they reached the box for direct cue-bids, one asked
to play Michaels, and the other agreed. Unfortunately one
assumed this meant over natural bids, the other all the time.
The best contract was reached, with the optimum result.
Director was summoned anyway after the hand was over.
There was no adjustment since there weren't any damages.
However the director deemed to assess a procedural penalty.

EX2)	1H	dbl	4C(1)	P
	4H	P	P	P

	(1) Alerted as splinter, was meant to be weak jump shift

Long time partnership. Result was a near bottom. Director
was summoned when dummy hit the table. Both cards are marked 
splinter bids, and weak jump shifts in competition. There
was no injury to the opponents. The explanation was qualified
saying I think it is a splinter bid but I'm not really sure.
Once again the director assessed a procedural penalty.
Partnerships are responsible for the system they play.

EX3)	2C	P	2D	dbl(1)

	(1) Alerted as major suit takeout, was meant as diamonds.

In addition to the adjusted board, a procedural penalty was assessed.
Obviously there's no way to ascertain what the partnership agreement is.
Each thought they were right, convention cards aren't that detailed.

EX4)	2D(1)	2H	4H(2)	dbl
	4S	5H	dbl	P
	P	P

	(1) artificial 18-21 balanced
	(2) not alerted, but described as spade transfer when asked,
		however, it was meant as a minor suit takeout.

No damages were proven since everyone made their normal bids, but
the committee assessed a procedural penalty for the misexplanation.

EX5)	1H	P	1NT(1)	P
	2C	P	2S(2)	P
	3C	P	P	P

	(1) one round force
	(2) no alert, when asked, the explanation was no agreement.

Director assessed a procedural penalty for not having an agreement.
It was meant as a good club raise. Systematic bids must be explained.

What is bridge coming to if you have to worry about every bid and
explanation you make? It isn't much fun worrying about procedural
penalties for just about everything that may happen at the table.
Needless to say there are a lot of unhappy players around here.
And yes we do have a board of directors in our district, and
yes they do form committees to investigate and set policies.
So we inquired from our head director who is also a national
director to clarify what's going on here. If anyone wishes
to independently confirm what I'm repeating here, I encourage
you to contact her, her name is Bobbie Shipley. Her response:

There are three possibilities to consider. The first is an inaccurate
explanation of partner's bid. This is an automatic procedural penalty.
This assumes partner's bid was correct according to agreement.
The second is a correct explanation of partner's bid according
to partnership agreement, but a misbid by partner. Unless both
convention cards are in agreement or system notes are able to
prove the agreement, it is assumed to be case 1 and a procedural
penalty is given. If its proven as a misbid, ie partner forgot, 
then there is no procedural penalty, but it must be so proven.
These are discussed quite clearly in the recent ACBL bulletin.
The third and last case is when a partnership claims not to
have an agreement, or no understanding, etc. At the directors
discretion, or committees discretion, if they feel a partnership
should have discussed the given auction sequence, or they are
good enough players to know what the auction should mean, in
other words they judge the partnership should have an agreement,
they will be assessed a procedural penalty. In other words you are
discouraged from avoiding the possibility of a mis-explanation by
saying we haven't discussed the auction, so we have no agreement.
They will expect partnerships and good players to have explicit
agreements on anything which isn't an obscure/isoteric auction.
In other words, anything under the realm of a systematic bid.

This is of particular concern to me since I don't play tournament
bridge very frequently and I also have numerous partnerships.
I unfortunately am very prone to forgetting agreements which
were maybe discussed once two years ago. I don't have a
photographic memory, one forgets through lack of usage.
I often say we have no agreement, or I just don't know.
I have been given specific advice by my partners who have
discussed these policies with the directors that this will
now result in procedural penalties for me in the future.

It will feel real satisfying to know that when I receive
these procedural penalties, the directors are full of BS :-)
I can see myself now, in a committee, restrained at the arms,
as I try to argue they can't do this to me, the net says so.
I suspect my odds of winning aren't very good. Near zilch.

I have nothing further to say on this matter, if someone wishes
the courtesy of a reply or further info, please send me email.
If my previous postings inaccurately conveyed the above policies,
rules, descriptions, examples, etc, I sincerely apologize.