[blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Herman De Wael:

>The second type of misinformation I was alluding to,
>and which I said did not exist, was the kind of
>ruling that goes like this:
>
>1C - what is that? - 17+. Ah, but we did not know
>that in advance! TD! yes? These people are playing
>strong clubs but they did not say so at the start of
>the round. Did you? No, sorry, we always do it, but
>we forgot this time. So, are you damaged? Yes, I
>feel we are, because I have not yet had the chance
>to agree on a defence against strong clubs with this
>partner. OK, I shall therefore rule that 1Cl is an
>illegal use of non-prior disclosed convention, and I
>shall award 40/60, since without a 1Cl opening, I
>have no way of knowing where the contract will go.
>
>That is IMO not a correct ruling, I need to stress!
>Yet, in a literal reading of L40, it might well be.
>What I am concerned about is if some of our readers
>continue to believe that this is what L40 says.
>
>BTW, I'm pretty certain that you don't think so,
>Richard.

Rosenblum Cup semi-final, Albuquerque 1994,
Third Quarter, Dealer: North, Vul: None

                    4
                    AQT9632
                    T5
                    A53
QJ962                                 K853
J7                                    54
6                                     AQJ987
KT876                                 2
                    AT7
                    K8
                    K432
                    QJ94

WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
---       1H        1NT       3NT
4S        5H        Pass      Pass
Pass

Result:  5H went down one, +50 for East-West.

Facts:  East-West were playing a convention (the 1NT
overcall) not shown on the convention card.  North-
South had no opportunity to prepare a defense.  The
players assured the Director that careful
explanations were given and referred to a different
convention card for that purpose.  Their approved
convention card did not show their methods
correctly.  The card had been made out in a hurry by
a third party.  They found when they arrived at the
tournament that the card sent by their National
Bridge Organization had not been received.

Director's Ruling:  When the Director (Schoder) was
called, he cancelled the result and awarded three
IMPs to North-South.  An earlier board against a
different pair in the same match was identified
during which the same unregistered convention was
used.  That board was also cancelled and three IMPs
awarded.  The Director asked the Appeals Committee
to review the facts.

Committee Decision:  The Committee noted that the
pair were extremely experienced and should have been
expected to know their responsibilities.  They
should not have been excused for the grave breach of
the conditions of contest.  This pair had to play
the methods on the convention card officially
registered.  They were barred from playing in the
final segment of the semi-final of the Rosenblum Cup
Teams.  The score of three IMPs to North-South on
each of the two boards was confirmed.

Chairman:  Jaime Ortiz-Patino
Members present:  Mazhar Jafri, Edgar Kaplan, Tommy
Sandsmark
Scribe:  Grattan Endicott

*     *     *

Ton Kooijman (appeals casebook commentator):

I do not agree with this decision at all.  The
question to be answered was whether North-South were
damaged by the use of this unknown convention (it
was not illegal in itself, but they did not announce
it properly).  Could and would North-South have done
better knowing the convention?  I do not believe it
and I would not have changed the score.  A
procedural penalty was obvious and a severe one was
understandable.  The Polish have caused too much
trouble with respect to their convention cards and
systems.

Michael Rosenberg (appeals casebook commentator):

I don't like anything about this case.  First, I
believe there was an extremely inflexible
interpretation of the rules.  Second, I think the
East-West pair involved was unfairly treated.  It
almost feels like the Committee was on a vendetta
against them.

Bobby Wolff (appeals casebook commentator):

I concur with the ruling.  I'm not privy to enough
information to comment further.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm