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

[Nigel]

[Appeal quoted by Richard Hills]
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.


[nige1]
Obviously, I agree with the director and committee. IMO:
[a] The director should void the actual result because he can't know 
what might have happened had North-South been given the opportunity to 
prepare a defence to the conventional notrump overcall.
[b] The director acted correctly in trying to compensate previous victims.

Two small quibbles with the ruling:
[i] 3 Imps may be OK as redress but the direcotor should also consider a 
disciplinary penalty.
[ii] The conventional meaning of the 1N overcall would have implications 
for other overcalls. Previous opponents may have suffered damage because 
they were unaware of those negative inferences; hence they, too, may 
deserve compensation.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070428/3c1247e9/attachment.htm