[blml] Misbids, infractions, and Wolffs, oh my... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

On a Bridge Base Forum, Rik wrote:

>The most horrible ruling by the Dutch national AC was in a high
>level match with screens. One player makes a two suited bid. As
>the tray is passed under the screen, he realizes that he has
>misbid. He writes on the paper that his bid shows suits A and
>B, but that it is not the hand that he has since he misbid.
>(IIRC he had another two suiter.) At the same time, at the
>other side of the screen the bid is alerted and explained as
>showing suits A and B.
>
>As a consequence of this mishap the opponents are talked out of
>their best contract. TD comes, etc and the TD rules this a
>misbid. The opponents know how the AC thinks about these cases
>and appeal.
>
>The Dutch AC ruled that there was misinformation. Their
>reasoning is that if a pair forgets a convention then they
>cannot claim that they have an agreement. If they don't have an
>agreement then the explanation was wrong. If the explanation was
>wrong, it was an infraction.
>
>The weak link in the reasoning of the Dutch AC is the statement:
>"If a pair forgets a convention then they cannot claim that they
>have an agreement.". They automatically assume that this
>statement is correct, without backing it up with any evidence.
>To me, it is obvious that this reasoning is nonsense. It
>basically says that if my date stood me up that there has never
>been an agreement to meet in the first place.
>
>I myself think that the lawbook has this exactly right. A TD is
>supposed to look for evidence to find out whether there was an
>agreement, what the agreement was and whether the explanation
>was correct. If there is no evidence (system book, convention
>card, support from independent witnesses (e.g. earlier
>opponents), depending on the level of the event) the TD will
>assume misinformation rather than a misbid. In other words, the
>burden of proof lies with the alleged offending side. They claim
>to have a certain agreement. Make me believe it.
>
>In the above case, as in many other cases that the AC has ruled
>on, the AC has ignored any evidence of an agreement. By doing so,
>they have ignored the lawbook.
>
>As far as I can see, some members of the AC have their own agenda.
>Prominent members of the AC have also spoken out against the use
>of BSCs (these are allowed at the highest level in The
>Netherlands).
>
>In my opinion, this AC is doing the bridge community in The
>Netherlands a great disservice. It should be relieved of its duty
>and a new AC should be installed.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

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