[blml] San Diego Lightfoot Sue [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Committee Decision (continued):

The Committee unanimously restored the original
table result, +100 for North-South. The Committee
voted to impose a procedural penalty against
East-West to restore equity for a conventional
mix-up resulting directly in damage to the
innocent side. The Committee voted three to two
to impose a five IMP procedural penalty,
Weinstein and Ross dissented (they were in favour
of a three IMP penalty).

The laws are clear that when the offenders can
*prove* they misbid, rather than misexplained, no
adjustment is given. Thus, restoring the original
result was mandated by the laws.

The laws and other Committee guidelines are less
clear about the imposition of procedural
penalties. The Committee discussed this issue at
length. The majority felt that the principle of
"restoration of equity" was of primary
importance. (A National Co-Chairman of the NABC
Appeals Committee provided, at the request of the
Committee, a directive from the ACBL Board of
Directors that the Committee's primary
responsibility was to *restore equity*.) They
felt that the "rub of the green" concept was
invalid because the East-West mix-up *directly
caused North-South to lose a trick*. They also
felt the fluke of the screen alignment should not
damage the innocent side.

Some members felt North-South were disadvantaged
because only South was told of a "possible
misunderstanding". Others argued that since West
was under no (legal) obligation to say
*anything*, he should not be penalized for
helping only one opponent. The rebuttal was that
this was contrary to the concept of "active
ethics".

The minority (who will comment separately) agreed
that a procedural penalty was in order, but
wanted to impose the "standard" three IMP penalty
for a damaging conventional mix-up. They felt a
larger penalty would subvert the laws as written.

Additional comments from the Committee chairman,
Bart Bramley:

I have always disliked the legal distinction
between a misbid and a misexplanation. The result
in either case is a "partnership bidding error",
regardless of which partner is "right". The
effect on the innocent side is identical; they
usually don't care who is "right".

I understand the law is necessary to protect
certain occurrences at the table, including
intentional misbids (psyches) and mechanical
errors (e.g., pulling the wrong bid from the
bidding box). I don't understand why conventional
mix-ups should fall under the umbrella of
protection afforded by this part of the law.

Damage is often svere when, as in this case, one
partner thinks "natural" and the other
"artificial". (A disproportionate number of these
mix-ups seem to happen after an opening bid of
1NT.) Frequently, a normal bridge result becomes
impossible to obtain. This is not how we were
intended to play. I believe the offending side
deserves the worst of it when such accidents
occur.

The screen alignment was relevant in this case.
More often, the screen protects the players, but
here it damaged them. Just as we sometimes ask:
"What would have happened with screens?", here we
could ask: "What would have happened *without*
screens?" The answer is obvious. North would have
been told about the misunderstanding before he
led. (Of course, East-West might have a hard time
justifying their auction after unauthorized
information from the Alert. But that's a
different problem.)

Perhaps we can devise a simple mechanical
solution to allow a player to interrogate each
opponent independently behind screens. This would
be useful in long constructive sequences
involving relays or fancy versions of Blackwood.
The fact that your opponents (or your partner)
know that you are asking questions would not
generally help any of them, but the answers could
definitely help you. You could interrogate in
this way anytime you suspected a mix-up.

Dissenting opinion by Hugh Ross:

West forgot a convention (which is legal). His
partner bid impeccably subsequent to the misbid.
West Alerted South that there was a possible
misunderstanding before South bid 2S
(unnecessarily in my opinion). West did not say
anything to North prior to the opening lead,
since the law specifically states that he does
not have to. I do not believe any offense was
committed by West. The Committee attempted to
find out if a misbid is an offense but got no
help on this point from anyone.

Misbids have the identical effect as uncontrolled
psyches. Why should a deliberate misbid carry no
penalty, whereas an inadvertent should be
penalized? The game itself provides penalties in
the long run for psyching or misbidding; why
should the police be adding additional penalties?

Although the Committee believed an offense was
committed, they made no effort to determine its
effect on the subsequent auction. A good case can
be made that the misbid allowed South an easier
entry into the auction than he would have had if
West had bid correctly. No attempt was made to
find out what West would have bid if he had
remembered his conventions. In this sense, North-
South were not necessarily damaged to the extent
of five IMPs.

Sensing the mood of the majority of the
Committee, and not knowing for sure whether an
offense had been committed or not, I voted for a
three IMP penalty as the best I could expect to
get. I believe no penalty was justified.
Miscarriages of justice like this ruling will
continue to occur until Committees get proper
guidelines on how to deal with common situations
like this.

Minority response by Howard Weinstein:

As opposed to Hugh Ross' minority report, I agree
in principle with the Committee's decision. As
much as I dislike the legal differentiation
between a misbid and a misexplanation (Bart and I
are in almost complete agreement on this point),
assessing a procedural penalty to match the
likely IMP difference caused by the misbid is too
heavy handed a method to produce equity.

Though the Committee decision had no bearing on
the match result, there has been considerable
"feedback" on the Committee decision. Several
questions on policy posed by the Committee
received differing responses from various
authorities after the Committee was held.  The
fact we had these questions on policy and
differing responses needs to be discussed.

As long as the laws apparently cannot be written
to provide equity when an unintentional misbid is
made (i.e. forgetting or not knowing what
conventions/treatments you're playing), should we
try to provide equity through other means such as
procedural penalties? This should be a stated
goal or non-goal given to all Committees. The
Committee should not have to try to determine
policy, only to produce the equitable ruling
under the current policy. In order to provide
consistent rulings there must be a published
reference of guidelines covering both the
objectives and ranges of remedies in situations
where the laws do not explicitly express such
remedies. The Laws Commission, Co-Chairmen of
NABC Appeals, and the top directors must agree on
whether equity is our ultimate objective and when
the laws fail to provide equity, specify the
Committee's range of legal options.

Another question that might be addressed is
whether active ethics does now (or should)
provide that a player correct a conventional mix-
up or differing explanation to the opponents
after the auction is complete, regardless of who
screwed up.

One other area also relating to this Committee is
the apparent legal distinction between being able
to assess a procedural penalty against a
partnership for not knowing their agreements, and
not being able to assess a procedural penalty if
a player just forgets a convention. This legal
distinction seems specious at best.

The Committee spent the majority of its time
trying to determine "policy" from knowledgeable
sources and a smaller part of its time on the
actual bridge situation. The answers given in
Committee to our questions on current policy were
apparently very nebulous. The Committee shouldn't
be in this position.

Chairperson - Bart Bramley
Members - Bob Lipsitz, Howard Weinstein, Hugh
Ross, George Steiner


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