[xcurt]

jdonn, on Feb 22 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

So summarizing:
1 - Terrible reasoning leading to terrible decision.
2 - Fair reasoning leading to correct decision.
3 - Terrible reasoning but impossible to know correct decision with given information.

Sounds like par for the course at most clubs I've been to...

Disagree very strongly with the prior two posters about the rulings on 2 and 3. 2 was an excellent ruling, and on 3 none of us can tell yet (well we can tell the ruling was bad, but the good ruling may have reached the exact same conclusion. You know what I mean...)

Disagree that 2 was an excellent ruling. Sounds like you got jobbed by your LHO who told you one thing about the 3♣ overcall even as he was looking at his hand planning to bid like 3♣ meant something else. I don't think you deserve an adjustment but I think the opponents deserve more than a PP for MI.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Feb 22 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

This has nothing to do with making a mistake. Miscounting trumps is a mistake. Thinking you are making a penalty double because you forgot your agreement is takeout is a mistake. Using the given explanation as justification to do something that doesn't make bridge sense is different. (You know this much better than I do, but don't the laws have something about 'failure to play bridge' or 'irrational for the class of player involved' or such? Or was that changed in the new laws? That's surely what the director meant with his comment "failed to act".)

Anyway my point is, can't wild/gambling/serious go both ways? In other words they don't have to be wild overbids. They could be underbids, or irrational bids, such as (IMO) passing on a 9xxxx Axx Axx xx or whatever the hand was over 3♣ due to a fear he has clubs and spades.

I'm not trying to be hard on the OP. 1 and 3 showed that this person is a terrible director, so it was probably not a fun day.

I think perhaps you have overlooked that Joanne is probably not as good a player as you are (I suspect few people are). What would be completely silly for you could well be something lesser players do frequently.

What the law actually says now is

Law 12C1{b} said:

if, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

So, was passing wild or gambling? I don't think so. Was it an error? Probably (I'm not as good a player as you are, either. ) Was the error serious enough to deny redress? You seem to think so - and I might agree with you, if you had made it. But let's leave that aside for a moment. Was the error unrelated to the infraction? I inferred that Joanne would not have passed if given a correct explanation. If that is in fact the case, then the error was related to the infraction, and so this particular caveat does not apply. Even if it did, the director should have determined the extent of the damage, and what part of it was "her fault", and adjusted accordingly — and the OS should have got the adjustment their infraction rated in either case. The table TD did none of that, so there is no way I would call his ruling "right", or even "reasonable". It's just wrong. Or perhaps "not even wrong".

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Feb 22 2009, 09:57 PM, said:

Even if it did, the director should have determined the extent of the damage, and what part of it was "her fault", and adjusted accordingly — and the OS should have got the adjustment their infraction rated in either case. The table TD did none of that, so there is no way I would call his ruling "right", or even "reasonable". It's just wrong. Or perhaps "not even wrong".

I don't know what makes you think that. It looks like the director did determine what part was her fault. He said she failed to act, which means he determined it was her fault. Other than that you may disagree with the bridge judgment, what is "just wrong" about that?

[JoAnneM]

First, yes the director confirmed that the 2D bid was CAPP.

Second, this is awkward. I am personal friends with the director called to the table and the other director who reviewed the hands, and lots of the players know that because of my postions in the district and in running tournaments. Why do I think they were going too far in trying not to show favoritism.

BTW several of you would be very surprised at who those directors were.

[jillybean]

If the director does not think he/she can make an unbiased decision surely they must defer the decision to another TD. Unless there was a need to make an immediate ruling the TD could even have made a telephone call to another TD.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Feb 22 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 22 2009, 09:57 PM, said:

Even if it did, the director should have determined the extent of the damage, and what part of it was "her fault", and adjusted accordingly — and the OS should have got the adjustment their infraction rated in either case. The table TD did none of that, so there is no way I would call his ruling "right", or even "reasonable". It's just wrong. Or perhaps "not even wrong".

I don't know what makes you think that. It looks like the director did determine what part was her fault. He said she failed to act, which means he determined it was her fault. Other than that you may disagree with the bridge judgment, what is "just wrong" about that?

The law requires the director to adjust the score for the OS when he determines that there was MI which caused damaged. It requires him to decline to compensate the NOS when some part of the damage was "their fault". This director did not determine damage or fault, as I read it. He simply said that because Joanne "took no action" after receiving MI, the fact that she received MI is irrelevant. I don't buy it. And IMO this isn't a matter of the TD's bridge judgement, it's a matter of how to apply the law. That's what makes it "just wrong".

[JoAnneM]

jillybean2, on Feb 23 2009, 03:58 AM, said:

If the director does not think he/she can make an unbiased decision surely they must defer the decision to another TD. Unless there was a need to make an immediate ruling the TD could even have made a telephone call to another TD.

This was a Regional, there were seven TD's on duty including three National's, one of which reviewed the first hand. I don't think a phone call to another director was necessary. On that hand I think the director should have taken me aside and asked me what I would have bid had I been given a proper explanation. He did not do this, and we called him before the opening lead was made. In fact, if I had been told the bid showed only clubs I would have bid 3S.

You are right, I am not as good as jdonn, I have 1500 points.

[blackshoe]

JoAnneM, on Feb 22 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

First, yes the director confirmed that the 2D bid was CAPP.

Second, this is awkward. I am personal friends with the director called to the table and the other director who reviewed the hands, and lots of the players know that because of my postions in the district and in running tournaments. Why do I think they were going too far in trying not to show favoritism.

BTW several of you would be very surprised at who those directors were.

Oh, goody. New information pertinent to the case. I just love it when that happens.

The fact there were two directors involved in these cases makes it less likely that sheer incompetence was behind the rulings. Your supposition that they may have gone to far in trying to avoid showing favoritism may well be true. That is not, however, an excuse for giving bad rulings. I agree with Jilly - they could and should have recused themselves if they felt there was a possible concern of bias in their rulings.

Save for this concern about possible bias, none of these ruling was especially difficult. I would have expected better from Regional level directors.

Was either of these friends of yours the DIC of the tournament, Joanne?

[Mbodell]

About 2, I also think there's a tendency to be much too harsh on players for making things their fault if they make a misjudgment after MI. And more information that might be relevant on the hand include was it MP or IMP, what were the colors, did JoAnne and her partner have well understood agreements over 3♣ clubs and/or 3♣ clubs+higher, what else did opponent who passed have (I.e., if they had another stiff or even two small then passing might be reasonable on the theory of no double no trouble)?

I can see a reasonable bridge argument for why it is easier to bid 3♠ over 3♣ clubs rather than 3♣ meaning ♣+higher. If 3♣ means just ♣ then: 1, this is likely to be our only time to act (whereas over ♣+higher we might get more information and be able to act later); 2, if 3♣ is just ♣ then with added ♣ length opponent is likely to have more of the ♣ honors and partner is likely to have less wastage in ♣ for a 4♠ game; 3, if 3♣ is just ♣ then I don't need to worry as much about the bidder having a second suit which is spades. Just because an expert might look at all of that and say "yeah but this is still 3♠ WTP over 3♣ meaning ♣+higher" doesn't mean the NOS should have to play like an expert (if they aren't one) to get the favorable ruling. While one does have to worry a little about self serving arguments from NOS, I don't think one should just ignore any arguments the NOS makes.

And the first ruling was clearly terrible, while the third ruling reasoning is obviously awful but would need more information to tell if the result was also awful (but based on the evidence so far I'd say probably).

I got a bunch of normal straightforward and good rulings today at a Sectional. Plus a weird situation that I hadn't seen before that was quite probably right too. My partner is in 5♦x. I'm dummy. The LHO is the doubler and has the stronger hand and longer trumps. The hand is played out and on trick 12, having already lost 3 tricks, my partner ruffs a spade. On trick 13 my partner leads the ♥T. LHO shows a club and says that's good, so off one. RHO never faces her card, just quits it face down pointing in our direction. We all agree off one -200. We shuffle our hands and put them back in the board. We draw our hands from the next board (last in the match), and as RHO is thinking about her opening bid (as dealer) she says "wait, what was the last card?" And then after a little discussion says "I should have won that, I had the ♥Q left". We call the director and no one else can remember for sure on what trick the ♥Q was played. I wasn't really paying attention, so it could have been played earlier, but it very well could not have. RHO had been forced to make a lot of pitches, and if she had ever pitched any heart then she would have also had to play the Q earlier than the last card. But if she never pitched any heart then her last card would have been the Q. The TD consulted with the rule book and other TD and eventually decided that it was the ♥Q and changed the board to down 2 for -500.

[jdonn]

Mbodell, on Feb 23 2009, 02:43 AM, said:

I can see a reasonable bridge argument for why it is easier to bid 3♠ over 3♣ clubs rather than 3♣ meaning ♣+higher. If 3♣ means just ♣ then: 1, this is likely to be our only time to act (whereas over ♣+higher we might get more information and be able to act later); 2, if 3♣ is just ♣ then with added ♣ length opponent is likely to have more of the ♣ honors and partner is likely to have less wastage in ♣ for a 4♠ game; 3, if 3♣ is just ♣ then I don't need to worry as much about the bidder having a second suit which is spades. Just because an expert might look at all of that and say "yeah but this is still 3♠ WTP over 3♣ meaning ♣+higher" doesn't mean the NOS should have to play like an expert (if they aren't one) to get the favorable ruling. While one does have to worry a little about self serving arguments from NOS, I don't think one should just ignore any arguments the NOS makes.

I think you are missing the point. It's not whether you can imagine a bunch of good arguments. The bidder has to make those arguments! Joanne is the one who said she passed in case spades was the bidder's second suit. I rule based on that reasoning. Obviously if there were other reasons and she just didn't feel like typing every little detail, that could change things.

[AlexOgan]

You should have appealed at least the first one -- that ruling is insanely bad.

[JoAnneM]

Blackshoe, I was sure I had said that the hands had been reviewed by at least one other director but maybe I didn't. In any event, they were, as are most decisions regarding hand analysis at Regionals in our District. Not by policy but just because that is the way our directors operate. I even see them in the office outside of the sessions talking over decisions that were made, using the hand records. And, of course, they always have the hand records during the game.

Well, I really only posted all of this because when I mentioned my Procedural Bonus to one of the involved directors she was not amused.

Our DIC is John Ashton, also one of the NABC DIC's (Spring). He is a family friend and I didn't even mention it to him for obvious reasons. Like most other sports and hobbies, bridge can be a pretty small world. That's why I vent here.

[matmat]

JoAnneM, on Feb 23 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

Our DIC is John Ashton, also one of the NABC DIC's (Spring). He is a family friend

there's your problem right there... you have too many friends! i never run into this issue.

[mtvesuvius]

matmat, on Feb 23 2009, 01:49 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Feb 23 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

Our DIC is John Ashton, also one of the NABC DIC's (Spring).  He is a family friend

there's your problem right there... you have too many friends! i never run into this issue.

Yes, friends are always a problem.

Devil's Dictionary said:

FRIENDSHIP, n. A ship big enough to carry two in fair weather, but only one in foul.

[MFA]

How can people comment on these cases with such strong words when we haven't even seen the distributions? And not to mention the opponents' version of the story.

[Fluffy]

xcurt, on Feb 23 2009, 02:03 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 22 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

So summarizing:
1 - Terrible reasoning leading to terrible decision.
2 - Fair reasoning leading to correct decision.
3 - Terrible reasoning but impossible to know correct decision with given information.

Sounds like par for the course at most clubs I've been to...

Disagree very strongly with the prior two posters about the rulings on 2 and 3. 2 was an excellent ruling, and on 3 none of us can tell yet (well we can tell the ruling was bad, but the good ruling may have reached the exact same conclusion. You know what I mean...)

Disagree that 2 was an excellent ruling. Sounds like you got jobbed by your LHO who told you one thing about the 3♣ overcall even as he was looking at his hand planning to bid like 3♣ meant something else. I don't think you deserve an adjustment but I think the opponents deserve more than a PP for MI.

Agree with this, alerting 3♣ that way then passing looks like an attempt to cheat.

[jdonn]

xcurt, on Feb 22 2009, 09:03 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 22 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

So summarizing:
1 - Terrible reasoning leading to terrible decision.
2 - Fair reasoning leading to correct decision.
3 - Terrible reasoning but impossible to know correct decision with given information.

Sounds like par for the course at most clubs I've been to...

Disagree very strongly with the prior two posters about the rulings on 2 and 3. 2 was an excellent ruling, and on 3 none of us can tell yet (well we can tell the ruling was bad, but the good ruling may have reached the exact same conclusion. You know what I mean...)

Disagree that 2 was an excellent ruling. Sounds like you got jobbed by your LHO who told you one thing about the 3♣ overcall even as he was looking at his hand planning to bid like 3♣ meant something else. I don't think you deserve an adjustment but I think the opponents deserve more than a PP for MI.

You state you disagree with the ruling, then state what you believe the ruling should be, which is the exact same as the one you disagree with except you want the penalty to be more severe for the offending side.

Ok....

[jillybean]

JoAnneM, on Feb 22 2009, 10:59 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 23 2009, 03:58 AM, said:

If the director does not think he/she can make an unbiased decision surely they must defer the decision to another TD. Unless there was a need to make an immediate ruling the TD could even have made a telephone call to another TD.

This was a Regional, there were seven TD's on duty including three National's, one of which reviewed the first hand. I don't think a phone call to another director was necessary. On that hand I think the director should have taken me aside and asked me what I would have bid had I been given a proper explanation. He did not do this, and we called him before the opening lead was made. In fact, if I had been told the bid showed only clubs I would have bid 3S.

I was not questioning the TD's competency. I was addressing the issue of favoritism raised by you and suggesting how the TD could have handled it (not knowing there were 7 TD's available.)

JoAnneM, on Feb 22 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

Second, this is awkward.  I am personal friends with the director called to the table and the other director who reviewed the hands, and lots of the players know that because of my postions in the district and in running tournaments.  Why do I think they were going too far in trying not to show favoritism.

Now, with more information I have to agree with Ed, “I would have expected better from Regional level directors.”

[blackshoe]

Joanne, you were sure you mentiond that there was more than one director involved in your three rulings. You didn't. Given the fact that new information keeps coming to light, I will say no more unless and until we hear from the directors involved their side of the story.

[pretzalz]

On the first one, how many would you have made in a minor? Perhaps the director meant with his statement that you likely would have gotten too high in a minor even if you had avoided NT after the strong NT.