[blml] EBL 2005 disciplinary hearing 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

In the thread "welcome back", Herman De Wael advised:

>Warszawa saw us holding 13 appeals, that is one more than 2
>years ago in Malmö.
>
>And we've put the 2005 appeals in a booklet on-line at :
>
>http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2005.pdf
>
>No doubt that will keep you busy!

EBL 2005 disciplinary hearing 1:

Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman
De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Jens Auken (Denmark), Grattan
Endicott (England)

[2NT partscore hand snipped]

The Facts: North had shown/played the H5 and wanted to play a
diamond instead. The Director was called, who heard both
versions. According to East/West, the H5 had been played,
according to North the two cards had stuck together. After
getting the facts, the Director ruled that the H5 was the
played card. Play proceeded, and declarer made his contract.
After the play, West turned to North (under the screen) and
asked "Why did you lie?". North demanded an apology, which
West refused to give. North then refused to continue to play.

The Director: First asked West to apologise, which he did not
do. Then the Director asked North to continue to play, which
he too refused. Finally the Chief Tournament Director gave
the table two options, either to stop play and face the
Appeal Committee immediately, or to continue and meet the
Appeal Committee later in the day. North accepted to play on,
still demanding the apology he believed was his due.

Ruling: matter to be referred to the Appeal Committee.

Relevant Laws: Law 74A1, 74A2

Present: All players

The Players:
West confirmed that he had asked North "Why did you lie?".
West believed North would need to have played the heart at
some point, so there was no reason not to play it at
this time.

West told the Committee he had known North for thirty years.
The Chairman reminded him that since that fact was quite well
known, there was no use in uttering such a phrase.

West refused to apologise because he thought he was right.

East confirmed that North had told the Director that the
cards had stuck together.

North wondered why there was any talk about bridge, but he
still explained why he had wanted to play the diamonds
first: so as not to go four down. He had explained the facts
to the Director, who had made his ruling. North had accepted
the ruling, but he had not lied. He considered West's
behaviour to be the worst possible.

The Committee:
Reminded the players that this is a very serious matter. The
Committee could understand harsh words being spoken in the
heat of the moment, but not several hours after the facts.
The Chairman asked West once again to apologise. West
continued to maintain that he knew what had happened, and
finally said "I apologise, but...".

The Committee's decision:
West receives an Official warning.

The team of East/West are fined 4VP.

Verdict to be published (anonymously) in the Daily Bulletin.

Official Warning to player West:
West has said to North, at the very least, "Why did you
lie?".

This is a serious breach of Law 74A of the Laws of Duplicate
Contract Bridge:

LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE
A. Proper Attitude
1. Courtesy
A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.
2. Etiquette of Word and Action
A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that
might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or
might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

Player West, at the request of the Chairman of the Appeals
Committee, eventually apologised to his opponent. The
apology has been taken into account in the Appeals
Committee's decision. Without it the sanction would have
been more severe.

Under Law 90 the Appeals Committee imposes a 4VP procedural
penalty on player West's team.

In addition player West is:
1) reprimanded
2) warned that a recurrence of such a breach of the Laws
will result in a more severe sanction.

Deposit: not applicable


Best wishes

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