Help
Note: it seems many of them are going to revolve more around the writeups than the rulings or the reviews. The way of all flesh, I guess.
- VC/RR covered in that other thread. Not going to second-guess the Table director, and if their opinion and the video evidence is "wasn't obvious to declarer at the time", so be it. Given what I read there, I'd probably make the same judgement, and answer the "but she was flustered and took a minute to get her head back into the play after 'it was over', not 'could have done something careless until it was made clear that she should think'" argument with "well, if it was so obvious, she could have said it and now I don't have to judge."
- BB/RR #1 Like D.Burn, I can't believe the poll. But unlike D.Burn, I'm not (even close to) BB-calibre. To me, there isn't a hesitation-3NT that doesn't say "I think we have more." This could be the first, I'm willing to believe the TDs when they say that's what the experts said. But it would be the first. Given the poll, though, the ruling and review result is clear.
- BB/RR #2 Nice try, East. The way to get out of this is to make your invite and hope partner gives you a minimum. Not this time (not only a max for the 0-5, but it's an Ace and the trump A at that), but you won't be saying to the next table that you don't want to get too high opposite a 5-0 or 5-1 [could it be a 5-card suit? If so, then even more maximum opener] break.
And to appeal it because the poll was on a 3-5 HCP Multi when it could be 963 T75432 instead of J96 Q75432? You can still make game opposite a reasonable maximum, the maximum hasn't changed, and the ultra-minimum hands are so rare...
I don't like the concept of deposits for appeals; especially at this level, it's "cost of doing business" for USA1, Switzerland, and the rest of the pro-client teams, and "barrier to justice" to the teams that were fundraising for the flights. But if they're to be taken, I'm happy to give them back if the process was wrong, even in a minor wrong like this. World championship directors should be held to very high polling standards. And I know how hard it is to get all the right information for a poll, and how many times I've got it wrong and I'm still saying this. - d'Orsi Trophy/RR Okay, now we get into "WTF, writers?" That last paragraph is *ludicrous*; "the poll was clear, and we shouldn't have had to have this appeal. But the auction given in the poll was wrong (how? Seems like important information?), and when the right auction was given, the action chosen at the table was unanimous. This is "enough reason to return the deposit". I [-]ing hope that "directors screwed up, ruling reversed" is enough reason to return the deposit, I don't see why we should be mentioning it?
As far as the ruling goes, again, I'll accept the (correct) poll. Can't see why my opinion matters. - VC/QF This whole case is "is this double Alertable under screens in the WBF?" The "but it would have been different by an unpassed hand" (and how do N/S know that? and why do they care? Okay, so it could have happened before in the match and they asked then. Still, why is it not in the writeup?), "whose job is it to interpret the laws and regulations", and all the rest is beside the point. If it's Alertable by regulation, then South was misinformed and we determine if it makes a difference. If it's not Alertable, South should know that and know to ask (surely, people who play transfer responses to 1♣ check Alerting regulations to know what they have to ask, or at least their coach does? It's only the world championships, not really important, I guess) or even know that the opponents don't 100% know what's Alertable and ask anyway. This attitude of "they need to Alert anything that would surprise me/I wouldn't play" is endemic.
So, what's the thing missing from the writeup? How about the [-]ing regulation? I know WBF system regulations are effectively "we know it when we see it", but again, still. But I guess if the regulation was:- Artificial calls should be alerted, natural bids should not.
- Those calls (...doubles...)which have special meanings or which are [...] special understandings [should be Alerted].
- Artificial calls should be alerted, natural bids should not.
- WC/QF Also done to death elsewhere. But also, I can't actually work out 100% what the end ruling was. Seems like a high priority for a writeup, one would think. I *think* it was "penalty waived, both sides partly at fault. On review, this side isn't at fault, but the request to review was too late to change it". As a Canadian, I am reminded that this is not the first time a "completely innocent" contestant was denied continued play in the WC by a "too late protest". Interpretation of what my opinion is or should be about changes to this policy are welcome: "Written on a 3x5 card and sent to 'Anybody but us'."
- Transnational Swiss, 10th and final round I'm surprised this didn't get hit by "too late to change anything" (/s). But seriously, good ruling, good argument for review, reasonable review, reasonable ruling on appeal [Note: not rating "reasonable" lower than "good"; again I'm not going to judge based on the meagre information and my bad bridge skills]; pretty decent writeup. "The deposit was returned" again should be redundant, when the score changed in favour of the appealers.
- BB/SF Okay, can we find this writer and hire them to do all the writeups? I mean, we could have had a little more clarity on the actual auctions we needed to look at, or whether they all started with South's (replaced) 2♦, or whether we're looking at whether 12C1e "errors" were being investigated, or whether they went down the Reveley path in violation of 12C1c "legal manner" (or whether they decided that South might have done something other than 2♦ with the correct explanation, like 2♥). But a very complicated situation (which most "different explanations on each side of the screen" appeals are) explained well enough to be understandable, if not solid, at first reading; a different result on review (unstated as to whether there was a change in IMPs, but it seems obvious that replacing 70% of -800 with 60% of -300 is going to be good for E/W) should lead to a returned deposit.
- BB/Final This got really long, I think I'll post it separately. Short review: So, N/S or their NPC is the only one in the room that's read the FLB? Pros really do think that where the Laws conflict with Real Bridge or Natural Justice, we should ignore the Laws, I guess.
- d'Orsi Trophy/SF Labelled "almost a review". I think on review, I agree with D.Burn, and shall leave it at that. "Unwell all day" - that's what your third pair is for. "Unaware of slow play to the first trick" - from dummy? sure. I don't even think 15 seconds is "slow". From hand, after the deliberate play from dummy? It doth have bells on, mate. Is it worth a penalty that, given how KOs work, must by regulation accrue at least partially to the NOS? I'll trust the TD there, but again, I wouldn't mind a regulation that states "if, due to penalties, both teams lose a KO match, there shall be a playoff".