[aguahombre]

Well, as a layman, it seems to me that the word INTENDED, or INTENTIONAL is interpreted differently, sometimes by the same person.

Unless there was a pass card stuck precisely in front of the bid card wanted, it would be very hard to convince me that a pass was ever unintentionally made, as opposed to a genuine brain fart.

Maybe "brain fart" and "mechanical error" should be incorporated into the laws. People understand the two terms.

[blackshoe]

The player was deliberately not paying attention to which card he pulled from the box (he was looking over his shoulder). I see no reason he shouldn't have to live with his call.

You have a right to appeal a TD ruling. You also have a right to decide whether appealing is likely to cost more in the long run than not appealing. Having made the decision, though, it makes no sense to agonize over whether it was the right one. I do wonder, though, if you would necessarily have had to take time away from your next match(es) to fill out appeal paperwork. If that's the established procedure, perhaps it needs a look.

[bluejak]

I would have appealed, but not filled any paperwork in during the next two matches: why should I?



As for getting "very tired with inconsistent rulings from the EBU on such matters" I have no idea what this means. Vague comments about some undetailed ruling from some random TD hardly seems convincing.

[duschek]

jules101, on Aug 8 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

Partner and I discussed submitting an appeal, but with two more Swiss matches (the final two out of 12 overall) following immediately thereafter we felt it was impossible for us to put effort into an appeal as well as being able to focus on our final matches.

Personally I put much less effort into appeals than most players put into post mortems between sessions. My suggestion to you would be to file the appeal, turn up and present your case, and stick with the committee ruling.

I suspect you mentally prepare for a trial as in the Hollywood movies A bridge appeal is of far less importance. It is no more important than any other board played. However, I rarely hear of anybody deciding not to analyse the present deal with reference to the ability to focus on the remaining hands.

[pran]

I don't like this "the player obviously did not intend to pass" (for instance a cue bid).

Somewhere I have read that the now abandoned law 25B was entered into the laws after a player (member of WBFLC?????) became so disappointed with his partner's response to a Blackwood 4NT that he even forgot to adjust to 5 in the agreed trump denomination.

Now that we have gotten away with that unfortunate law i cannot understand why we should enter into another unfortunate principle that a call apparently intended when it was made, however irrational and really due to some sudden brain failure, should be treated under Law 25A.