[pclayton]

An excerpt from the Daily Bulletin:

Michael and Debbie Rosenberg were playing a close match in the Spingold Knockout Teams against the Ladyzhensky team.

The Rosenbergs were playing against Doug Simson and Walter Johnson. There was a failure to Alert by the Rosenbergs that resulted in a poor result for Simson-Johnson. The tournament director called to the table ruled in the Rosenbergs’ favor, but Michael didn’t agree with the decision, and the teams agreed that the score should be adjusted.

The opponents praised Rosenberg for his ethics in the case.

What do you think?

[blackshoe]

I think I would like to know more details before I express an opinion.

[Cascade]

I agree that we need more details.

Without knowing more details it would seem improper to me for players to change the result. Essentially they would be deliberately submitting an inaccurate score. On the surface this would seem highly unethical to me.

Did the director agree with the proposed new score? Or was this change done without reference to the director?

The proper process for overturning a director's ruling is to have an appeal or perhaps a chief director's review of the director's ruling.

Possibly not or at least less likely in a knockout match but in other form's of scoring agreeing a result not actually obtained at the table or but a proper director's ruling would be open to abuse. "I know we bid and made 6S here but lets change it to 4S because I think I hesitated (and we are not in contention and you are)" - I am not suggesting anything like this occurred but it sets a very dangerous precedent if things are not done properly and seen to be done properly.

[xcurt]

Some points

• It is not possible to comment on the propriety of Rosenberg's action without knowing the facts.
  
• MR is well known for a fairly strict approach to hesitation, MI, etc cases when he is a committee member (see any NABC appeals casebook commentary). WIth the implied facts, he is being consistent.
  
• The Bulletin edtor should publish the full details or not at all.

[ArtK78]

So, what did the Rosenbergs' teammates think of this decision to adjust the score in spite of the TD's ruling in their favor?

[matmat]

A glowing example of journalism, this one.
There is a correction in today's bulletin... they were wrong, initially, on about 4 counts.

[debrose]

Just to add one thing to the corrected version in today's bulletin, and to answer the point some of you are wondering about, there was never a director's ruling that we knew of. The deal occurred in the second quarter, the information was given to the director after the deal (they wrote down the hands, since it was shuffle and play), and we went to dinner not having heard any more about it. After the break, before the start of the third quarter, the opponents and I discussed what we thought was fair and then went to the directors (who happened to be looking at the hand at the time) and told them what we'd agreed to be fair. They changed the score to reflect this. If they had already made, or were inclined to make, a different ruling, I was not told of it.

[blackshoe]

As a director, I'm a bit non-plussed when players tell me what they think my ruling should be. OTOH, if all four players at the table (and the team captains, at teams) are happy with it, and it's a legal ruling, and it fits the facts (all of which, with the possible exception of the concurrence of the team captains, which has not, I think, been addressed, seem to be true) I have no problem with it.

Is it ethical to do what Debbie has done here? Most certainly! A good example of active ethics.

[FrancesHinden]

Debbie's update of what happened makes much more sense.

If you disagree with a TD's ruling, the correct procedure is to appeal it, not to agree on a different ruling between yourselves. It is admirable to appeal a ruling that was in your favour.

As a TD (or a referee), even if the two teams told me a suggested ruling that they were both agreed on, although it would be helpful input, I would not necessarily actually give that ruling. Here are three reasons why I might not (in descending order of how likely it is that I would not give the ruling they have agreed on):

1. It is wrong or misguided on a point of law or regulation (e.g. they have overlooked or misunderstood split and/or weighted adjusted scores)
2. It is wrong on a point of analysis: for example, there has been MI and declarer says "if I'd know that RHO had shown {this holding} I would have played differently and made the contract", and looking at the hands I see that playing differently would have gained one trick but not enough to make the contract
3. I disagree on what calls are demonstrably suggested by a piece of UI.

I admit that (2) is unlikely if Michael Rosenberg is involved, but that's the principle.

[nige1]

If you appeal a ruling in your favour can the committee keep your deposit (or impose an AWMW)?

[mycroft]

I must admit I read the story as if it were one of the ones in my book, where after giving my ruling, I was pulled aside by one of the "winners" of the ruling and had a piece of expert bridge analysis pointed out to me. With that (simple, after it's shown to you) analysis in hand, of course the ruling was incorrect, and should have been (and was) reversed.

Maybe it saved an appeal, maybe it didn't, maybe it just made his dinner more palatable, maybe he was being especially ethical. I appreciate it.

[jkdood]

I really don't know what the (probably secret) official rules are, but it seems in practice that there really is no such thing is a FINAL ruling. That's if the definition of final is that the TD or TDs cannot change it without the AC.

TD's have given rulings before, and many players have heard the ruling, the logic, and then said something like: "BUT did you KNOW the opps play Flannery?" or something else logically relevant to a particular deal not mentioned earlier...

...IF that or other comment might provide a new slant, I have seen TDs revise their ruling. Maybe FINAL is after dinner break commences, or time-related only?

That being said, i would think someone in MRosenbreg's position could tell the TD about something like a systemic alert issue, and the TD could revise (if appropriate) what might have seemed like their FINAL ruling. This would surely make more sense than accepting the ruling IN ONE'S FAVOR and taking it to AC to get it revised (to be ethical.)

[blackshoe]

Law 81C said:

The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying
irregularities and redressing damage. The Director’s duties and powers
normally include also the following:

1. to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game.

2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of
their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

3. to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any
manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law
79C.

Law 79C said:

...Unless the Tournament Organizer specifies a later* time, this Correction Period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection.

[jkdood]

So sure sounds like there is plenty time for the director to issue a ruling, go check your notes if you feel unsure you've been ethical, and then still get justice delivered without bothering an AC.

[blackshoe]

In the appeals process, the TD's table ruling is usually reviewed by a more senior TD, perhaps by the DIC. Should that review bring to light an error in the TD's ruling, the reviewer should (will, as I understand it) direct the table TD to correct his ruling. In some cases that will invoke Law 82C (Director's Error). In England, they have a reviewer (they call him the "cuddly") whose job is to advise the appellants whether they should continue with their appeal. Part of the reason for this is that in English tournaments, appellants are required to put up a substantial monetary deposit (50 pounds, I think) which will be forfeit if the AC decides the appeal was without merit. I'm not sure if the ACBL has an equivalent to the "cuddly".

Once the appeal gets to the committee, practice in the ACBL is to toss the table ruling and start over. Most (all?) of the rest of the world, including the WBF, disagrees with this, and says that the table ruling exists, and is to be reviewed by the committee, and upheld or revised as necessary. Although I'm in North America, I agree with the rest of the world.

An AC decision may itself be appealed, in theory, but the ACBL in particular reserves to the LC or C&C, as appropriate, the decision whether to hear the further appeal. So in practice, most of the time, the AC's decision is the final one.

[ArtK78]

I believe that, in North American Championship events, there is an Appeals Screener who will review a pending appeal prior to being submitted to the Appeals Committee. And there is also a required deposit (was $50 last time I was involved in one of these) for an appeal in a NA Championship event.

[JoAnneM]

Ethical is more in the mind of the person committing the act, than the perception of those seeing it. If they thought they were doing the "right" thing then I commend them. It doesn't really matter what the rest of us think.

However, I don't feel that the reverse should be true. Living with a director's ruling can never be construed as "unethical".

[jvage]

I have just returned from the Norwegian Bridge Festival, where we had a similar-sounding case. In Norway TD's always consult among themselves in judgement cases, in this case I was the consulted TD and the table TD was a very good player (he has represented Norway several times). I don't remember the exact hands or the bidding, so please accept the facts as correct.

The original issue was a hesitation double taken out to a making 3NT. We agreed that it was correct to adjust to 3♦X, the interesting part was how many tricks that would be taken. 3♦X would make on any other lead than a trump, but a trump-lead would take it 1 down. While a trump-lead was somehow marked we were not convinced the opening leader would always find it. This was also based partly on the fact that the opening leader was not a top expert (unlike the other defender) and that they were the offending side. We agreed on a §12C3 ruling of 50% of 3♦X making and 50% of 1 down (since there was an offending side this translates to expecting a trump-lead around 2 of 3 times). As an aside, in ACBL where 12C3 is not used, we would have adjusted to 100% of 3♦X making.

When this ruling was presented at the table, Thomas Charlsen (a very ethical player who has represented Norway on several occasions) refused to be given this adjustment. He said the opponents trump-lead was obvious and argued that his side should score only 100% of 3♦X down 1. The table TD accepted this and amended our original ruling (no discussion about appealing from any sides).

John