[bd71]

Final match of Flight C District GNT final. I don't have hand details, but I want to ask about the general principle rather than the hand specifics.

West deals, I am North. Bidding goes:

1H-(1S)-3H-(P*)-
AP

*My partner asks about 3H; West says limit raise with 4-card heart support. She tanks for a while, then passes.

Dummy comes down with 8 hcp and 4432 shape (so call it a 9-pointer with the doubleton). They make 3H exactly. When asked after the hand, it turns out that opponents agreements here are actually 8-9 and 4-card support. I am pretty sure we can make 3S, but never looked at the hands again to verify (but let's assume it's true for the discussion).

We call director. He takes board away and comes back later. Despite my partner's claim that she had a borderline decision with the given information, he says no adjustment because there was only a 1-2 point difference between the explanation given and the dummy's hand.

My questions are:

1. Is there any basis in the law for the director's "only 1-2 point" difference argument?

2. What is the right standard here when considering what my partner might have done with accurate information?

For what it's worth, we didn't push the issue (not even sure what our appeal rights were), and it didn't matter in the end as we lost by 50 IMPs.

[blackshoe]

1. No.
2. The standard is "preponderance of the evidence". If the preponderance of the evidence indicates that MI led to damage, then the TD adjusts the score (Law 21B3, Law 84D). The relevant evidence in this case is your partner's statement and the cards he held.

I would have called the TD when dummy came down, which is the point at which it became apparent that there may have been MI. Waiting until the hand is over runs the danger that the TD will discount any statement by your partner that he would have bid 3♠ as self-serving.

It seems one or the other opponent was aware of the correct agreement. As they are the declaring side, they should have called the TD before the opening lead was chosen and explained the problem. It's too late for partner to change his call, so 21B3 will apply.

Appeals.

Law 92A said:

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the director. Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation.

You have a right to appeal any ruling by the director. You have a right to know if there is a regulation regarding appeals without merit, and what it says.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on May 24 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

The relevant evidence in this case is your partner's statement and the cards he held.

Waiting until the hand is over runs the danger that the TD will discount any statement by your partner that he would have bid 3♠ as self-serving.

You have a right to know if there is a regulation regarding appeals without merit, and what it says.

I have taken these 3 items out of the context of the full quote, because they seem to imply how it should have gone --if carried further.

He might also have mentioned the part about the NOS causing their own damage (in this case not bidding 3S regardless of what RHO's bid meant).

[bd71]

blackshoe, on May 24 2010, 01:55 PM, said:

You have a right to appeal any ruling by the director.

So there were two directors at this combined sectional tournament/GNT event, and the one who gave the ruling was clearly the more experienced and senior of the two. Combined between the sectional and the GNT event, there were probably no more than 40 tables in play at the peak part of the weekend.

In this context, who does an appeal go to? I'm not aware that there is an appeals committee or anything like that...or would there have to be? Who would be on it?

[RMB1]

bd71, on May 24 2010, 08:52 PM, said:

Who would be on it?

Players?

[blackshoe]

The Tournament Organizer establishes procedures for appeals (within the context of the laws and ACBL regulations) and appoints an appeals committee. In theory, anyway.

If there's no committee, the DIC handles appeals. In your case, that's the same guy who gave the table ruling. With luck, he'll reconsider. If not, well, he has a district supervisor.

In theory you can carry an appeal to the ACBL, after your appeal is heard locally. In practice, the ACBL will probably decline to hear it.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on May 24 2010, 03:43 PM, said:

He might also have mentioned the part about the NOS causing their own damage (in this case not bidding 3S regardless of what RHO's bid meant).

Did someone suggest that? If so, I missed it. And I haven't seen the hand in question. So while perhaps passing instead of bidding 3♠ may have been a serious error, I haven't yet seen any evidence to that effect.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on May 24 2010, 02:33 PM, said:

aguahombre, on May 24 2010, 03:43 PM, said:

He might also have mentioned the part about the NOS causing their own damage (in this case not bidding 3S regardless of what RHO's bid meant).

Did someone suggest that? If so, I missed it. And I haven't seen the hand in question. So while perhaps passing instead of bidding 3♠ may have been a serious error, I haven't yet seen any evidence to that effect.

neither have I. I was referring to the applicable provisions, not making a ruling. I should have said "maybe causing their own....."

[blackshoe]

Fair enough.