[blackshoe]

I would not have considered moving just one post. the thought would probably not even have crossed my mind.

[bluejak]

"Speak with forked tongue" as I understand it, means being untrustworthy in what you say. There is a reasonable chance that your comments will include lies. But it does not mean the same as "tell a lie".

"Tongue tied" means you are unable to express yourself, often due to embarrassment or lack of understanding of the language or similar.

But the different interpretations in this thread are interesting, and show the danger of using names or other designations when explaining matters.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2011-September-11, 01:44, said:

I hope you mean he has given up the game that the TD and AC are playing, because this has little to do with bridge.

I think he was playing the game that a large number of players want to play, one that has the rules applied rigidly, without some people bleating the usual "surely the director could have used common sense here". The golfer who concedes a penalty shot because a sudden gust of wind moves his ball about one millimetre further from the hole after he addressed it will say "surely the referee could use common sense here". The snooker player, potting the penultimate ball (the pink) to win the frame after his tie lightly brushed the black without moving it, causing him to lose the frame, will say "surely the referee could use common sense here." The bridge player who inadvertently transposes two suits when making a claim will say "surely the TD could use common sense here." I think they are wrong, and only whinging because they have suffered from their own error. They are the hypocrites, not the TDs, ACs and referees. They are correctly penalised and should just get on with the game. The Phils and Riks of the world can go and play another form - called social or kitchen bridge.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-10, 19:23, said:

O.K., so the appeals committee <snip> didn't even consider the obvious intent to test clubs as first priority.

Yes, they did; they decided that "test the clubs as first priority" was not permitted as it was not embraced by the original clarification statement, under Law 70D1.

[alphatango]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-10, 19:25, said:

I think it's a bit much for the AC to hold the claimer to what the AC itself admitted was a clear slip of the tongue. They are within their rights, though.

(Expressing no opinion on the merits, but...) Are they? It sounds as though the TD ruled (point of law) that he was allowed to consider declarer's second statement. It seems to me that for technical correctness, the AC (who clearly disagreed with the director on this point) should have firstly recommended that the TD reconsider that part of his ruling, and secondly ruled itself on the validity of the revised claim. But perhaps all that is too much to ask of a committee?

[blackshoe]

Hm, that's a good point, AT. As for "too much to ask of a committee", no, it's not.

[pran]

lamford, on 2011-September-11, 08:45, said:

Yes, they did; they decided that "test the clubs as first priority" was not permitted as it was not embraced by the original clarification statement, under Law 70D1.

I am just anxious to hear from all those who agree with the AC how they would have ruled if the claim statement had been: "I cash the Ace, King and Queen of Diamonds and then try the finessee in clubs if Diamonds do not break"?

We may agree or disagree, but one of the principles since the birth of Bridge is that a player may correct an obvious misnomer without any penalty when his real intention is clear (and auction or play has not subsequently progressed to a point where such correction is no longer possible without damaging the game).

[lamford]

pran, on 2011-September-11, 10:19, said:

one of the principles since the birth of Bridge is that a player may correct an obvious misnomer without any penalty when his real intention is clear

You are usually right when it is a card named in dummy (until declarer has played), usually when it is a bid (if one's partner has not called), and sometimes when it is claim (if there is no other normal line to the intended one). So it is not the case that a misnomer always suffers no penalty. It usually has restrictions on when it can be changed. This is no different.

[lamford]

alphatango, on 2011-September-11, 10:12, said:

It sounds as though the TD ruled (point of law) that he was allowed to consider declarer's second statement. It seems to me that for technical correctness, the AC (who clearly disagreed with the director on this point) should have firstly recommended that the TD reconsider that part of his ruling, and secondly ruled itself on the validity of the revised claim.

The TD decision to allow the revised statement, although still rejecting the claim of 13 tricks, was a possible misuse of his power under Law 70D1. Under Law 83, if the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power could well be in order, he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee. So, I think that the club handled the appeal correctly, and the AC did have the authority to make the decision it did.

[pran]

lamford, on 2011-September-11, 12:41, said:

You are usually right when it is a card named in dummy (until declarer has played), usually when it is a bid (if one's partner has not called), and sometimes when it is claim (if there is no other normal line to the intended one). So it is not the case that a misnomer always suffers no penalty. It usually has restrictions on when it can be changed. This is no different.

I am still interested in how you (and others) would rule when the (initial) claiom swtatement was:

"I cash the Ace, King and Queen of Diamonds and then try the finessee in clubs if Diamonds do not break"?

In other words when the claim statement makes no sense unless there is a misnomer.

[lamford]

pran, on 2011-September-11, 15:39, said:

"I cash the Ace, King and Queen of Diamonds and then try the finessee in clubs if Diamonds do not break"?

In this example, the statement is still just as impossible as his original one. If he changed that to "sorry, I meant, the ace, king, queen of clubs", and that was not part of his original clarification statement, then it is just tough. There is still an alternative normal line, the diamond finesse.

The Law seems quite clear here. If he makes an impossible claim, then it does not matter whether he corrects it or not. If there are only successful normal lines, he makes his contract. If there is an unsuccesful normal line he does not.

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-September-04, 07:58, said:

South was very upset (the TD ruled against him) and he said he would not be coming to the club again.

lamford, on 2011-September-10, 19:02, said:

I am told that South did appeal, unsuccessfully,

I'm having a little bit of difficulty reconciling the emerging facts in this case; muddied further by a strikingly similar hand by the same poster a few days after the original post. I'm not a great believer in lightning striking twice and have a strong feeling that the second hand may well have been contrived by Lamford to reinforce his position on the first hand; although I'm happy to stand corrected if Lamford can produce a hand record or some other corroborating evidence that the second hand did in fact occur.

As for the appeals report, despite disagreeing with the TD ruling and the AC decision, I am impressed that an appeals committee at club game would produce such a comprehensive written judgement; but I must say that I'm tempted to call shenanigans here given that there was no mention of the appeal in the earlier posts, an apparently contrived claims ruling was then posted and now an appeals report (in format and detail at least) worthy of a Bermuda Bowl final has emerged. Again, I'm more than happy to stand corrected, but can Lamford let us know exactly where this appeal took place and whether or not appeal reports in that jurisdiction go on the public record as I'd like to see a copy of it. Perhaps Lamford could let us know at least who the chair of the appeals committee was so he or she could be contacted independently to verify the accuracy of the transcription of the appeals report.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-September-11, 17:48, said:

Perhaps Lamford could let us know at least who the chair of the appeals committee was so he or she could be contacted independently to verify the accuracy of the transcription of the appeals report.

I promised confidentiality to my correspondent, sorry, but why would it be in the slightest bit relevant whether either hand was genuine or not? The purpose of this forum is to consider what the correct ruling is for any set of facts. And why do you still disagree with the AC ruling?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-September-11, 12:49, said:

The TD decision to allow the revised statement, although still rejecting the claim of 13 tricks, was a possible misuse of his power under Law 70D1. Under Law 83, if the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power could well be in order, he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee. So, I think that the club handled the appeal correctly, and the AC did have the authority to make the decision it did.

If the TD's decision was one on a point of law, and he believes a review of that decision may be appropriate, then referring the case to the AC is the correct action. However, that doesn't give the AC the authority to overrule the TD on that point of law.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-11, 18:13, said:

If the TD's decision was one on a point of law, and he believes a review of that decision may be appropriate, then referring the case to the AC is the correct action. However, that doesn't give the AC the authority to overrule the TD on that point of law.

That is what I understood too, but the Law seems to contradict itself:

If a committee is available:
1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal
as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed
to the committee.
2. The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the committee for
adjudication.
3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned
by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not
overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on
exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may
recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)

So, under 1, the TD states how he interprets the law, and his ruling may be appealed, but then under 3, it says that they cannot overrule him, which makes one wonder what the purpose is of appealing a ruling that deals solely with the Law.

I guess the AC should therefore say: "we don't agree with you considering the second statement." And the TD will then accept or reject that decision; I wonder if the TD has ever ignored the AC recommendation?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-September-11, 18:24, said:

So, under 1, the TD states how he interprets the law, and his ruling may be appealed, but then under 3, it says that they cannot overrule him, which makes one wonder what the purpose is of appealing a ruling that deals solely with the Law.

The purpose is to fulfill the prerequisite for further appeals. See Law 93C.

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-September-11, 18:05, said:

I promised confidentiality to my correspondent, sorry, but why would it be in the slightest bit relevant whether either hand was genuine or not? The purpose of this forum is to consider what the correct ruling is for any set of facts. And why do you still disagree with the AC ruling?

If you are going to post hypothetical situations they should be indicated as such and not described as "this occured at the club last night" or similar.

So just to be clear, are you confirming that the appeals report you posted was in fact an actual appeals report and not something you made up to illustrate your point?

Can you at least identify the jurisdiction in which this hand arose, as I'd be interested to have a look at the local regulations governing appeals and the publishing of same?

As for the AC ruling, aside from being nicely laid-out and well referenced, it is even worse than the the TD ruling in several ways:

• not allowing the obvious dyslectic adjustment of the initial claim statement which I think has been universally accepted by posters here; and
  
• once adopting the inflexible position of the claim is "see if diamands are breaking and, if not, take a club finese" the only possible outcome is 7♠-2 as declarer will lose tricks to the ♦K and ♣J.

At the risk of being accused again of being an extremist, this is one of the worst appeals committee decisions I've ever seen.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-September-11, 19:32, said:

[list=1]
[*]not allowing the obvious dyslectic adjustment of the initial claim statement which I think has been universally accepted by posters here; and
[*]once adopting the inflexible position of the claim is "see if diamands are breaking and, if not, take a club finese" the only possible outcome is 7♠-2 as declarer will lose tricks to the ♦K and ♣J.

Nobody disputes that the declarer intended clubs when he said diamonds and vice versa. The AC stated that, despite that, he cannot substitute an alternative successful line, unless there is no normal alternative. I think that this is the correct decision; allowing the substitution is a breach of Law 70D1.

The AC did not force the player to see if diamonds are breaking. They indicated that the original claim statement was invalid, and they did not allow the declarer to test clubs first as there was an alternative line, the immediate diamond finesse that was a normal alternative and this was imposed.

I responded that I am not able to give any further information on the appeal, nor even to confirm whether it is genuine or created. Bluejak has already indicated on here that there is no requirement for hands to be played at the table.

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-September-11, 20:24, said:

I responded that I am not able to give any further information on the appeal, nor even to confirm whether it is genuine or created. Bluejak has already indicated on here that there is no requirement for hands to be played at the table.

I'll take that as "created" then as if it was "genuine" you surely would've said so.

It's one thing to make up a hand to illustrate an interesting ruling situation, but it's quite a different thing to make up an appeals committee judgement that purports to be from a properly constituted appeals committee when in actual fact it may have been made-up.

The forum rules do require that you state the jurisdiction where the matter arose. If the hand, ruling and/or appeal arose in Imaginationland, you should indicate as such. I have absolutely no problem with people posting hypothetical situations, but they should disclose that fact. I would very much like some clarity on this point from the moderators.

bluejak said:

We ask people who start threads to say where the query is from, which country, or put online if suitable. It is often suitable to use the "Topic Description" entry for the jurisdiction.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-September-11, 20:24, said:

I am not able to give any further information on the appeal, nor even to confirm whether it is genuine or created.

Not able to?