[blml] Failure to see alert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Konrad Ciborowski:

>this one
>
>http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/bridge/laws/appeals/generali99/appeal9&10.html

>
>and this one
>
>http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2005.pdf
>(please check appeal #10).
>
>
>These rulings are vastly inconsistent. In the first case North-South
>were guilty of not alerting their opening bid in a proper way and
>putting information about Namyats in the right section of their CC.
>And yet
>
>1. They were penalized (ie. they received the most unfavorable
>adjusted score possible).
>2. The deposit was forfeited.
>3. They were suspended for one match.
>
>In the second ruling the AC ruled that South had not done enough to
>protect himself, case closed. Even if one agrees with this rather
>curious assumption why was the OS allowed to keep its good score?
>Their gain was a direct result of their infraction so at least a
>split score would be in order.
>
>Not to mention that these two rulings are wildly inconsistent.

Richard Hills:

Not inconsistent, rather circumstances alter cases (horses for
courses).

In the first case a 4C opening bid was not alerted _and_ the CC was
incorrectly filled out.  Given that a significant proportion of
bridge players still use a 4C opening as a natural preempt, the AC
considered that "protecting yourself" was not quite applicable.

In the second case a 2C opening bid was not alerted _but_ the CC was
correctly filled out.  South tried "pull the other one, it's got
bells on" by arguing that an unalerted 2C opening bid must be weak
with long clubs.  Given that the vast majority of 2C openings are not
natural, and given that this South held long and strong clubs:

Q8
KT4
62
KJT752

the Director and the Appeals Committee applied "horses for courses" in
ruling that this South had not done enough to protect himself.

The offending side kept their score in the second case because their
failure to alert caused no damage; rather the damage was caused by an
apparent attempt at a double-shot by the so-called non-offending South.


Best wishes

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

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