Commentary on Appeals from Sorrento 2001
Last Laws Home Local Next

Appeals from European Championships, Sorrento 2001

Commentary by David Stevenson (England)


Editor's note:

Full details of the Appeals have been published by the European Bridge League. If you want a copy then write to Anna Gudge.
They are also available on the Swiss Federation site.


Appeal 1:
Was it his own fault?
The Appeals Committee have quoted the international standard for denying redress. Poor defence is not enough: the defence must be "irrational, wild or gambling". Note that North America uses different standards, and the Director's ruling might have been upheld there.

It is interesting that the Director did not split the score, which is normal in "irrational, wild or gambling" cases: why did he not adjust for East/West only? Furthermore, the Appeals Committee might have given a weighted score on the basis that finding the right switch was not 100% even without the misinformation.

Appeal 2:
No redress
The Appeals Committee decided East-West did not deserve redress. However, they correctly adjusted the North-South score anyway.

Appeal 3:
Calculating a weighting
It is surprising that neither Director nor Appeals Committee was prepared to decide on a weighting. It does not take much to look at the hand and say that since it appears he would have made it at least half the time we shall give him 55% of the contract making. The actual method of giving a percentage score rather than a percentage weighting cannot be more accurate.

Appeal 4:
No agreement
Both sides should be making deductions from the bidding. West should have known what was going on.

Appeal 5:
What is Michaels?
There is always a danger in using convention names, and extra care is always needed with two-suited defences, which lead to a lot of Director calls. Since North-South did not exhibit that care it might have been suitable to issue a Procedural Penalty.

Appeal 6:
What would have happened?
Law 12C3 which allows weighted scores really comes into its own after misinformation when there are various possible outcomes.

Appeal 7:
Write it down!
Behind screens a lot of explanations are requested and given verbally. Players must realise that if they are not prepared to follow the regulations and write these down that misunderstandings will occur and it will be their fault.

Appeal 8:
Where's the alert card?
It is a basic rule of alerting that an alert is only given correctly when the other player has seen it, or at least where it is reasonable to assume he has. If an alert card is missing it is better to ask for another, or borrow one from the opponent, but anyway the player should take more care than usual to make sure the alert is seen.

The Appeals Committee commented on the lack of a weighted score: Artificial Scores are considered illegal when a score needs to be assigned. In the past some Directors sometimes gave an Artificial score when they thought it seemed to do equity: that is no longer necessary now that the Directors can use Law 12C3.

Appeal 9:
Correct explanations do not always help
No infraction means no redress. There will always be occasions where a hand is not as expected: that does not automatically mean something is wrong.

Appeal 10:
Double of a splinter
Since the Directors were very busy the Appeals Committee did not blame them for not applying a weighted core. However, it seems so obvious that I wonder whether it may not be partly lack of familiarity with the procedure. It is important that Directors do make acceptable weighted score rulings rather than Artificial scores, which are both illegal and not favoured by the players.


Editor's note:

Last Laws Home top Local Next
Top of