[blml] Complaints of ill-usage [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Tournament Director's statement of facts & ruling:

>NS called me as they felt that EW had reached a contract
>based of extraneous information (viz the previous table
>discussing the hand). N & S both overheard a player
>state that 'should have bid 6' and also '..shape was
>6/5'. N felt that the 6S contract was achieved as a
>result of that. Both E and W stated that they did not
>hear the detail of the conversation and ignored the
>conversation anyway.

[big snip]

>Table result stands.

Appeals Committee's decision:

>Committee were satisfied. Auction seemed consistent with
>no overheard conversation.

L&E comment:

>The committee were unhappy that North/South had not
>called the TD to report that they had overheard matters
>at the other table. Law 16B refers. The secretary was
>asked to write to North/South pointing this out.

Law 16B:

>>When a player accidentally receives unauthorised
>>information about a board he is playing or has yet to
>>play ..... by overhearing calls, results or remarks
>>..... the Director should be notified forthwith,
>>preferably by the recipient of the information .....

Ed Reppert (from "Live exam question" thread):

[snip]

>>>Ah, yes, you were writing about how the laws are
>>>flawed and should be changed. I didn't address that
>>>because I'm not interested in that - I want to
>>>understand how to apply the laws as they exist.

Richard Hills:

In this case it seems that Law 16B is not flawed and
need not be changed.  Rather, the TD and AC failed to
understand and apply Law 16B as it exists.  Otherwise,
the TD and AC would have realised that the only side
who certainly committed an infraction, by their own
self-incriminating admission, was the North-South pair
who complained of ill-usage.


Best wishes

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