From: Professor WHO?
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Law problem
Summary: Favoritism exists for popular experts only....
Keywords: mis-information, committee, ruling, appeal
Date: 10 Sep 92 10:54:45 GMT
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
X-Subliminal-Message: Speak Softly and Carry a Big Club!

[Rob Buchner replying to the Am'z'n' Asya....]
>>This is totally wrong.  If you misbid the hand, the opponents are NOT
>>entitled to that information.  As long as they were property alerted
>>to what your partnership agreements are, then they should stay as much
>>in the dark as to the actual contents of your hand as your partner was.
>Once upon a time I would have agreed. Matter-in-fact, thats the way I think
>it should be. 

Note that the Bridge World Standard of Tournament Ethics dictates that you
_DO_NOT_ disclose that a misunderstanding has occurred.

>But wrong is a matter of perspective. Witness the two following
>experiences. Story number one: St Louis Nationals a good number of years ago.
>I'm playing with a new partner. The night before he pulls out his system
>notes from playing with Jeff Meckstroth

Just curious, was this St. Louis '73 where the Precision Team had its last
triumph and when jeff was barely a teenager?

>[...]. We're playing in a flight A regional swiss event.
>It's the last round, we are leading with 6 and 3/4 wins. We draw the
>second place team at 6 and 1/2 wins. They are four lady world champions
>who I won't name since I still find their actions to be despicable.

Well, you SHOULD definitely name them as the rest of the world should know
about despicable acts done by ANYONE.

>[...confusion, where Rob showed a control he did not have and the opp's
>misdefended 3N.]  She made her natural long suit lead which I feel she
>would have made regardless. No director was called.

This by itself should have given you the appeal.  To get anything more than
a split ruling one needs to register a protest AS SOON AS an (alleged)
infraction has been recognised.

>[...] We are celebrating our 
>victory when the director informs us the opponents are appealing that
>board. So we end up in a committee and I listen to these world champions
>explaining how this is unacceptable and the board must be thrown
>out because the opening leader might have made a short suit heart
>lead if I had corrected the explanation and said I didn't hold a heart
>control as advertised. Not that this would have set the contract, but 
>perhaps they would have then defended more accurately and not allowed
>us to make the contract. In addition, they insisted a procedural
>penalty must be assessed against us because partnerships must be
>responsible for the conventions they are playing and this infraction
>robbed them of an opportunity to play the board. 

Yes, if the facts were as presented this is despicable behaviour.

>They basically used their clout and power to influence the committee into
>doing exactly what they wanted as if the law supported them and that they
>were in the right. 

On the face of the facts as you presented them  you are quite correct.

>I tried to explain that I simply forgot the system and I obviously misbid
>the hand and that such information as I understand the laws need not be
>corrected since the explanation was accurate.  We are not an established
>partnership and have never played together.  .... The board was thrown
>out. We were assessed a three IMP penalty. We ended up losing the match by
>one IMP.  We ended up losing the event by a 1/4 win.

You were robbed, no doubt about it... again subject to your story being
truthful and all that.  Normally the comnvention written-up is enough of a
proof that you did forget the system and the case will be thrown out.

>I was pissed to say the least.  I wrote in this entire story to
>"Ruling the Game" and Julie Greenberg from the ACBL bulletin ....
>[story of replies deleted]

I honestly would not place too much trust in Julie Greenberg's or the ACBL
Bulletin's expertise in law.  After all, they publish a ruling that defined
a relay system as a structure in which one makes a series of bids that
forces partner to make the next step bid!

>Story number two: [opposite story deleted] Maybe I am wrong, but this is
>the way committees rule and that makes it right.

It is not the way that Northeastern directors and committees rule....

>See above. Or is it maybe the law only protects world champions?
>Actually, I wouldn't argue if you concur with that question...

As I have heard many people explain it, it really is simple-- directors and
committees, despite their best efforts, can't help ruling slightly biased
toward friends and against persona-non-grata.  There are experts who are
better at interpersonal relations and they usually get the better end of
the deal.  There are also experts who people dislike (e.g. Tobias Stone)
who tend to get the short end of the stick.

>You decide what is right and wrong, but I'm going to be safe and
>explain what I thought my bids actually meant when I am to be dummy.

As I commented above, there is a school of ethics in bridge, represented by
the Bridge World and Edgar Kaplan, which holds that it is improper to
afford your opponents and advantages as such.  I happen to be one of them.
I agree with Edgar that giving your opponents that they are  not entitled
to is unsportsmanlike and improper, so you see you can't please everyone.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge