[blml] Clubbed Queen [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Law 81C8:

>>>The Director's duties and powers normally include the following:
>>>...
>>>8.  Waiver of Penalties
>>>to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the
>>>request of the non-offending side.

Ed Reppert asked:

>>Are there penalties in the laws which are not "for cause"?

Richard Hills replies:

Maybe Law 81C8 is poorly drafted, but the intent of the WBF LC was
that the _waive_ of the penalties should be "for cause", not that
the penalty itself lacked a cause.

Ed Reppert asked:

>>IAC, it would seem that in many if not most cases TD should
>>explain this option to the NOS, yet I have never seen it done.
>>
>>Why is that?

Bob Geller asserted:

>Because in a KO event you're giving away your own team's points
>only, but in any other event (pairs, round robin or swiss teams,
>etc.) you are giving your points to the opponents (fair enough if
>you think it warrants it) but you are at the same time helping
>out your opponents at the expense of the rest of the field, who
>have no say in the matter.  The provision for waiving of
>penalties dates back to rubber bridge or whist (fair enough there,
>it's your own money you're giving away) but isn't really
>appropriate for a tourney.

Richard Hills replies:

In my opinion, Bob's answer is not quite correct.  In general Bob's
philosophy is correct, and indeed Bob's philosophy is embodied in
the six clauses of Law 72A.

Law 72A3:

>>>Waiving of Penalties
>>>
>>>In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on his own initiative,
>>>waive a penalty for an opponent’s infraction, even if he feels
>>>that he has not been damaged (but he may ask the Director to do
>>>so - see Law 81C8).

Richard Hills:

The key difference between a rubber bridge waiving of penalties and
a duplicate bridge waiving of penalties are the two caveats "for
cause" and "at his [the TD's] discretion".

Although some blmlers such as Tim West-Meads disagree, the general
interpretation is that the TD needs more of a cause than "I like my
opponents, so please waive the penalty" for the TD to exercise their
discretion.

Kaplan had the hard line interpretation that the non-offending side
should have partly caused the offending side's infraction before a
penalty is waived by the director.

My personal wetter interpretation is that a cause could be a little
old lady with Parkinson's disease accidentally knocking over her
card holder and exposing 13 cards.  In that case, as TD, I would
also exercise my discretion to waive the 13 penalty cards upon
request of the non-offending declarer.

There was a notorious ACBL appeal, previously discussed on blml,
when an over-competitive declarer refused to request a waiver in
the above circumstances.  Only a creative interpretation of the
Lawbook by the ACBL TD stymied declarer's unsporting behaviour.

(Which is another reason I suggest that "upon the request of the
non-offending side" be deleted from the 2008 Law 81C8.  Such a
deletion would help eliminate the bad habit of some TDs to rule by
the maxim, "If you do not like what a Law says, search for another
Law".)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285