[bluejak]

Speaking for myself, I really do not think the interest in this case is particularly different dependent whether this was real or created, and I strongly suggest that attacking lamford on this point does nothing constructive. I should prefer that people either comment on matters of bridge Laws etc raised by this thread or refrain, whichever they prefer. But do note this is a personal opinion not official.

The reason for stating the jurisdiction is that many things are different in different jurisdictions. In effect a hand that purports to come from England may have the same points of interest dependent on whether it actually comes from England or has been constructed to make a point under English regulations and interpretations.

The OP says “at a local club of mixed standard” which, in view of the fact that lamford is a Londoner sounds as though it is from England. Also, from reading the OP, I cannot see anything that is actually jurisdiction-dependent, so none of this probably matters.

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

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.

"an appeals report (in format and detail at least) worthy of a Bermuda Bowl final has emerged"??? We have not seen a report, and the format could be the worst ever seen. Where is the description of the hand, the players, what happened, and so forth?

I am not sure whether appeals reports are awful in your neck of the woods, mrdct, but all you know about his one is that the AC Chairman took the trouble to explain their thinking. I am not sure what that proves, but I have seen appeals reports with careful explanations from side games in minor English congresses.

[mrdct]

I reiterate that I have no problem with people making up hypothetical situations so that we can have an interesting discussion about the related ruling, but the forum rules should require that such posting be identified as such; particularly where there is a cross-over situation of a real hand but an imaginary appeals committee which may be what we are seeing here.

The way I look at this case is the OP posted an interesting ruling hand which arose at "a local club of mixed standard" that dealt with several interesting issues and with the general consensus being to allow the claim of 13 tricks for reasons well outlined earlier in the thread. The OP is on record as being of the minority view that the claim should be denied and subsequently posted a very similar hand (but with a more dramatic illustration of the concept of a suit "breaking" where slightly greater attention to the pips would be required) to reinforce his opinion on the first hand. The second posting was described as being "at a local club last night" but with a tongue-in-cheek rider of "had a surprisingly familiar ring to it" which very much makes it look like a made-up hand. No big deal, as I think it was pretty obvious to the forum users what was going on.

The matter that I do find concerning is that the OP went a step further in reporting on the subsequent "appeal" on the hand, including a very well worded summary of the AC's deliberations which was represented by the OP as being a verbatim quote from what the AC wrote on the form. I've called shenanigans on that as I just find it too hard to believe that a hand from "a local club of mixed standard" involving a player of "intermediate" skill would go to appeal after the player in question had already flagged his intention to "not be coming to the club again". I'm not sure what goes on the UK, but in 25 years of playing bridge in Australia I think I've only ever seen one appeal coming from a club duplicate. If the OP can produce some evidence that this hand did in fact go to appeal and the reported judgement is factual, I will gladly donate US$100 to a charity of his choice (provided it has deductible gift recipient status in Australia so it will need to be a mainstream international charity such as the Red Cross, World Vision, etc.).

[lamford]

 mrdct, on 2011-September-12, 20:30, said:

I reiterate that I have ... <yawn>

I reiterate that I have no further comment to make on whether the hand was genuine or constructed. As Catherine Tate would say "am I bovvered." And I shall not comment any further on this thread, other than the following correction:

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2011-September-12, 01:10, said:

Not able to?

Unwilling is correct; apologies for misusing "not able to" in the slang way it seems to be used by politicians.

[mrdct]

 lamford, on 2011-September-13, 05:03, said:

I reiterate that I have no further comment to make on whether the hand was genuine or constructed.

I'm only interested in whether or not the "appeal" was constructed.

[lamford]

 mrdct, on 2011-September-13, 07:36, said:

I'm only interested in whether or not the "appeal" was constructed.

I reiterate that I have no further comment to make on whether [any aspect of] the hand was genuine or constructed.

[bluejak]

 mrdct, on 2011-September-12, 20:30, said:

I'm not sure what goes on the UK, but in 25 years of playing bridge in Australia I think I've only ever seen one appeal coming from a club duplicate.

I have sat on several over the years in England, and taken matters to appeal occasionally.

 lamford, on 2011-September-13, 07:41, said:

I reiterate that I have no further comment to make on whether [any aspect of] the hand was genuine or constructed.

I don't think reiteration is necessary: I should keep any future posts on that specific subject to follow the following interesting post, which I have repeated in its entirety:

 lamford, on 2011-September-10, 19:36, said:

.

[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2011-September-13, 10:17, said:

I don't think reiteration is necessary: I should keep any future posts on that specific subject to follow the following interesting post, which I have repeated in its entirety:

Indeed, reiterating that one has no further comments to make is worse than unnecessary; it is a contradiction.

I agree with Bluejak that the purpose of threads like this is for all of us to think and maybe even learn something; the source of the data is not very important.

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2011-September-13, 13:02, said:

Indeed, reiterating that one has no further comments to make is worse than unnecessary; it is a contradiction.

Surely it only tells us that Paul's previous statement turned out to be incorrect? For it to be a contradiction, he would have had to say something like "I reiterate that I had no further comment to make."

[mrdct]

 Vampyr, on 2011-September-13, 13:02, said:

I agree with Bluejak that the purpose of threads like this is for all of us to think and maybe even learn something; the source of the data is not very important.

I would agree that the source of hands is generally not very important, unless there is some NBO or tournament specific regulation in play. However, my gripe here is completely different. It is nothing short of academic fraud to make up what purports to be an authoritative source or reference to support your own argument.

An analogous situation would be if were take a recent ruling posting that I made such as Possible UI from a non-alert where the TD ruled against me and the general sentiment of the forum was that the TD was right, but I then represent to the forum that when I took the hand to appeal the appeals committee found in my favour and I back-up that representation with a detailed dissertation from the appeals committee presented as a direct quote filled with lots of well-expressed arguments in support of my position. The only problem is that the hand never went to appeal and the detailed dissertation was a figment of my imagination.

Whilst bridge rulings and appeals don't strictly adhere to the principle of legal precedence, they are to varying degrees influenced by precedent; particularly in jurisdictions with well structured appeals processes and reporting on appeals. If people can freely run around making-up appeals committee decisions and posting them in well-respected and moderated forums such as this, there is a danger that forum users will treat such "decisions" as being in some way authoritative and will be influenced to rule in line with such decisions in similar situations.

The quoting of imaginary appeals committee decisions, unless properly disclaimed as such, has no place in a discussion forum about Laws and Rulings. I appeal (excuse the pun) to the moderators to make it clear in the forum rules that it is not acceptable to insert purportedly authoritative references in support of an argument where such references have been made-up.

[rduran1216]

making 7, wtf is the problem here. Obvious intent here. Asking him to hope the diamonds are 7-1 with the K falling versus the 3-3 clubs or J falling is retarded. score it, and then penalize any jackass who disputed the claim.

[Trinidad]

I fully agree with mrdct. Making up cases is perfectly fine. Making up cases and presenting them as if they are real is fraud.

However, in this case there is no real reason to be upset. It is so blatantly obvious that the appeal is a product of lamford's imagination. We shouldn't come down too hard on him for merely forgetting to mention the obvious.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Perhaps I should issue Paul a PP(Warning), stating that further such forgets will result in a PP in Forum Points - whatever the Hell they are.

[mrdct]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-14, 10:28, said:

Perhaps I should issue Paul a PP(Warning), stating that further such forgets will result in a PP in Forum Points - whatever the Hell they are.

That sounds sensible to me.

[Zelandakh]

 rduran1216, on 2011-September-13, 18:48, said:

score it, and then penalize any jackass who disputed the claim.

I am mildly surprised noone here has focused on the actions of East. The assertion that clubs do not break, presumably without showing cards, is dubious at best.