[Rossoneri]

This hand is taken from the APBF Championships Bulletin: Page 12
-------------------

---

(No auction was given, but West was declaring 3NT)

Tournament Director's statement of facts and ruling
"I was called to the table at trick 11, West was the declarer in 3NT and she had taken 7 tricks from hand. She lead a diamond, North played D10, dummy’s diamonds were AQ and another CQ which was good. So if she played DA and CQ, contract would be made at this moment. South pulled a card out of his hand and the declarer saw this was D7. So the declarer played the
diamond queen, South then played DK and cashed a side suit trick and contract went one down. When I was at the table, I have confirmed from all plays that the D7 was detached from hand but not a position that his partner could see.

Therefore according to Law 45A, it was not a card played and also Law 45C could not apply. I ruled that he could change that D and so the contract was one down. Also I have thought about Law 74B3, But this is a matter of courtesy and should apply to changing this result. And Law 73F, should not apply as from the seating position, I ruled that the detached card seen by the
declarer was accidental rather than on purpose."

Decision of the Appeals Committee
Declarer on lead with 7 tricks needing 2 more for the contract of 3NT. Lead small diamond towards AQ. The South player took out the D7 before the play from dummy which was placed in such position that declarer could not fail to see it. Declarer then called for the Q upon which the next player retracted the 7D and played the K!!! South cashed a side suit winner and 3NT – 1.

Determined that the D7 was not a played card, however determined that the declarer failed to make the contract through inferior play thus causing his own bad score. The committee determined that the action of taking the 7D prematurely influenced the declarer into taking the finesse, as in a previous trick a Diamond had been finessed, holding the trick.
There was therefore a strong probability almost a certainty that the finesse would be successful again; especially when South took a card from his hand in anticipation rather than waiting for his turn to play.

Law 74B3 and 23 (Authority to adjust) applied.
Decision: 3NT, 9 tricks.
Deposit: Returned.
-------------------

Comments? Incidentally, one of those involved at the table reads this forums so he/she might have something to add/correct!

[mgoetze]

Rossoneri, on 2011-June-26, 09:51, said:

Law 74B3 and 23 (Authority to adjust) applied.

Law 74B is just about politeness, I would call this one under 74C3. You then don't need to whack it with the catch-all Law 23, but rather get to adjust thanks to Law 82B1. That's just technicalities though and I agree with the result of the committee's ruling. I don't care whether the TD thought it was accidental, at this level people ought to know that you don't detach cards from your hand unless you are about to play them, period.

[RMB1]

Did anyone ask the player why she/he prematurely detached ♦7?
If she says she assumed declarer was going to cash out for his contract then I will not assess a procedural penalty; some other answers and I might decide this was a willful attempt to mislead and assess a penalty.

I would adjust under Law 73F: prematurely exposing the card is a guesture (Law 73D2) so is in the scope of Law 73F. It misled, there was no (bridge) reason to "flash" ♦7, and offender could know it would work to his benefit.

It might be right to award declarer a proportion of going off: it sounds as if she was considering finessing anyway.

[peachy]

I like the ruling. Surely the premature detaching of a card in a way that declarer can see it, might have been innocent but also might have been a ploy. To avoid any speculations which it was, the player should have waited for his turn before taking out a card; which also is the correct procedure.

[axman]

Rossoneri, on 2011-June-26, 09:51, said:

This hand is taken from the APBF Championships Bulletin: Page 12
-------------------

---

(No auction was given, but West was declaring 3NT)

Tournament Director's statement of facts and ruling
"I was called to the table at trick 11, West was the declarer in 3NT and she had taken 7 tricks from hand. She lead a diamond, North played D10, dummy’s diamonds were AQ and another CQ which was good. So if she played DA and CQ, contract would be made at this moment. South pulled a card out of his hand and the declarer saw this was D7. So the declarer played the
diamond queen, South then played DK and cashed a side suit trick and contract went one down. When I was at the table, I have confirmed from all plays that the D7 was detached from hand but not a position that his partner could see.

Therefore according to Law 45A, it was not a card played and also Law 45C could not apply. I ruled that he could change that D and so the contract was one down. Also I have thought about Law 74B3, But this is a matter of courtesy and should apply to changing this result. And Law 73F, should not apply as from the seating position, I ruled that the detached card seen by the
declarer was accidental rather than on purpose."

Decision of the Appeals Committee
Declarer on lead with 7 tricks needing 2 more for the contract of 3NT. Lead small diamond towards AQ. The South player took out the D7 before the play from dummy which was placed in such position that declarer could not fail to see it. Declarer then called for the Q upon which the next player retracted the 7D and played the K!!! South cashed a side suit winner and 3NT – 1.

Determined that the D7 was not a played card, however determined that the declarer failed to make the contract through inferior play thus causing his own bad score. The committee determined that the action of taking the 7D prematurely influenced the declarer into taking the finesse, as in a previous trick a Diamond had been finessed, holding the trick.
There was therefore a strong probability almost a certainty that the finesse would be successful again; especially when South took a card from his hand in anticipation rather than waiting for his turn to play.

Law 74B3 and 23 (Authority to adjust) applied.
Decision: 3NT, 9 tricks.
Deposit: Returned.
-------------------

Comments? Incidentally, one of those involved at the table reads this forums so he/she might have something to add/correct!

By L45 declarer knows that S can not be compelled to contribute the D7 to T11 until it has been exposed to his partner. As such, declarer has not been deceived, improperly or otherwise.

As for the purpose of L74B3, it speaks to the improper communication between partners; and as that is not an issue here it is improper to adjust the score based upon it.

It was the AC's own finding that ‘Determined that the D7 was not a played card, however determined that the declarer failed to make the contract through inferior play thus causing his own bad score.’ is in direct contravention as a basis for adjustment as provided by L23.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2011-June-26, 13:37, said:

By L45 declarer knows that S can not be compelled to contribute the D7 to T11 until it has been exposed to his partner. As such, declarer has not been deceived, improperly or otherwise.

I do not buy this argument at all. Declarer is not required to know the law.

[nige1]

RMB1, on 2011-June-26, 11:59, said:

Did anyone ask the player why she/he prematurely detached ♦7? If she says she assumed declarer was going to cash out for his contract then I will not assess a procedural penalty; some other answers and I might decide this was a willful attempt to mislead and assess a penalty. I would adjust under Law 73F: prematurely exposing the card is a guesture (Law 73D2) so is in the scope of Law 73F. It misled, there was no (bridge) reason to "flash" ♦7, and offender could know it would work to his benefit.
It might be right to award declarer a proportion of going off: it sounds as if she was considering finessing anyway.

IMO, this kind of ploy will usually succeed against a declarer, who is reluctant to lose face. The NOS should get full redress (here 3N=) to provide it with some incentive to call the director, in future. Consider the alternative: the average player is already put off by the hassle of calling a director. If the director is likely to embarrass declarer and deny her redress, why should she call him?
Such a ruling also reassures any other defender tempted by a similar ploy. It makes it more likely that the victim won't call the director. Even when an unusually obstinate and altruistic declarer persists in calling the director, the worst the offender can normally expect is "equity" (roughly -- the result he would have obtained without his infraction). Once again, a long term profit is guaranteed for the rule-breaker.

[pran]

Get hol.d of the book "Right through the pack" by Robertt Darvas and read the tale of the ♣2

South has violated Law 74B3 (and possibly also other laws) knowing that the way he committed this violation might lead to his advantage.

The director should have an easy task adjusting the score to 3NT=

One might just read this as a fact that I agree with the AC decision. I do not, I would have kept the deposit.

[mrdct]

I was at the event in question, but not the table. It's important to point out that screens were in use so only West and South really know exactly how, when and where the ♦7 was held. It does not appear to be in dispute, however, that the ♦7 was not a played card but was prematurely detached from South's hand and held in a position where West could see it.

The fact that South had ducked the ♦K earlier in the play makes me very suspicious that the premature detachment and display of the ♦7 may have been a deliberate ploy to reinforce his earlier legal deception to make declarer think that the ♦ hook was going to work again. South presumedly did not admit that (whilst not in the bulletin write-up, I was told that South's explanation for detaching the ♦7 was that he simply assumed any normal declarer would be cashing out at this point) however as matters of disputed facts need to be determined on the balance of probabilities (Law 85A1), I think it's more likely than not to have been a deliberate ploy or at the very least South ought to have known that it could have the propensity to mislead and should've been extra careful not to illegally mislead declarer.

My take on all of this is that West has made a SEWoG (Law 12C1b) in not cashing out for her guaranteed 9 tricks at imps and may well have been equally deceived by the earlier duck of the ♦K as the premature detachment and display of the ♦7 in the end position. West was being greedy, careless or both and most certainly contributed to the poor result through a gambing action of taking a completely unnecessary finesse. She deserves to go one down.

South, however, appears to have attempted to mislead his opponent through a purposeful deviation from correct procedure and that is covered by Law 73D2 and he deserves to have the game make against him.

I rule EW 3NTW-1 and NS 3NTW=.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2011-June-26, 21:50, said:

I rule EW 3NTW-1 and NS 3NTW=.

I agree with your rationale, I think, but… under which law(s) do you rule this way?

[Cascade]

I was at the table in the east seat so I was dummy.

I believe south detached the card before even his partner played to the trick. I could not tell that my partner could see the card but she was able to name the card and this was not disputed.

We never made a claim that the card had been played so were surprised by the director's ruling that it was not played. I don't believe that the director initially addressed the issue of the deceptive manner of the play. He subsequently returned to the table and made a comment along the lines that claiming that there was a deception was a very serious accusation.

I have never seen my partner risk her contract in a similar situation for an overtrick except when she had miscounted her tricks because she had placed a played card in an incorrect position. This had not happened on this hand. Before she played the queen she stopped and looked at south's card (I did not realize she could see the face) and then said "oh i might as well play the queen then" or something similar. In my mind this made it clear that this was not her original intention and she had been deceived by the illegal and improper action of south.

Interestingly I also informed the director that south had played similarly on the first round of diamonds when the finesse was successful. I am not sure if Pam (declarer) had noticed this. Now that I think about it I did not notice that this player played any other cards in this manner during this hand or on the previous hands in this match. He also did not detach any cards after this incident prematurely that I noticed. The incident occurred about half way through the sixteen board match. However the director had warned him that it was improper to detach cards prematurely. Given that this manner of playing only occurred in the suit where the player was attempting to deceive declarer by ducking it certainly appears that the illegal deception was intentional.

I don't agree with David that the result should be 3NT-1 for the non offenders as I do not believe it is a serious error taking a finesse when an opponent has shown you that the finesse will win.

[Rossoneri]

Thanks Wayne.

The bulletin from the day after has the following. I have no idea who wrote it.

Page 12

Quote

I somehow can’t fail to notice the “cultural” differences at this year’s APBF Championships, and the interpretation of the meaning of English words. The incident that aroused my attention is the meaning of “Constructive Raise”. The WBF Guide to Completion of Convention Card made several references to it but never really specified the actual point range. I guess what’s constructive to some players may be destructive to others!! When you take a poll the result is also amazing. Some suggested 4-7, others 6-9 and still some played 8-11. There are many other variations. On second thought, I suddenly realise that the diversity probably results from the basic structure of the system they play and the upper limit of a 1-opening bid. Just wonder what could be the “constructive raise” for a strong or medium pass system.

Then I turned my attention to Appeals Case 2 published in the Bulletin yesterday. I remember at all WBF appeals when the TD finishes the presentation of the facts, the committee will ask the appellants “What do you think the TD did that was wrong”, or some words to that effect. Somehow this did not happen here. Which reminded me to the ancient courts in the old Chinese dynasties, where the accused have to prove beyond reasonable doubts that he is innocent. What a “cultural difference”!!

Back to the case. Did the TD err? I absolutely don’t believe so. I agree with the TD that the 7 was not a played card under Law 45C1 and his judgement under Law 73F was accurate. The defender has nonetheless violated Law 74B3; detaching a card before it is his turn to play. However, considering that
it was the last board on the last match of the day, when everyone was hungry and you can see that the declarer already have enough tricks to make the contract, this action was most probably unintentional and spontaneous. I also agree, without any doubt, with the TD that his ruling under Law 12C1(b) was both correct and equitable. What amazed me was the reason that the committee based their ruling on. It appears that they believe they can determine the facts hours afterwards better then the TD who was at the table at the time. Laws 23 and 74B3, which they based their ruling on, are almost similar to Law 73F. What they are saying is in fact: “if I don’t get you one way I will do it in another similar way”. Somehow I have the feeling that they wanted to make their presence known and played god.

What also amazed me was the fact that the declarer did not claim. One can argue that the defender could have conceded, but could the declarer miscount the tricks!! I have absolutely no sympathy for the declarer in this case. You reap what you sow. Incidentally the TD had consulted over 10 players, which was not required under this situation, and ALL of them would have played the A whether they have seen the 7 or no

Comments? Also, is this the first time that such a "commentary" of an appeal has been published in the tournament bulletin?!

This post has been edited by Rossoneri: 2011-June-26, 22:55

[Cascade]

deleted since i quoted the same subsequent bulletin as Rossoneri

[pran]

Rossoneri, on 2011-June-26, 22:52, said:

Thanks Wayne.

The bulletin from the day after has the following. I have no idea who wrote it.

Page 12



Comments? Also, is this the first time that such a "commentary" of an appeal has been published in the tournament bulletin?!

I read the quoted part of the bulletin as an attempt to find excuses for the offending side. None of the excuses appear relevant to me.

The facts presented in this thread show a clear violation of Law 74B3, possibly a deliberate violation of Law 73D2 and a very good reason to apply Law 23.

[mgoetze]

pran, on 2011-June-26, 16:13, said:

One might just read this as a fact that I agree with the AC decision. I do not, I would have kept the deposit.

Is it even legal to overturn the TD's decision and keep the deposit?!?

[nige1]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-27, 03:15, said:

Is it even legal to overturn the TD's decision and keep the deposit?!?

IMO, the rules should be clear about when a committee must return the deposit e.g. when

• An official advisor, after perusing the ruling report, advises the appellants that they have a case.
• The committee changes the director's ruling.
• The committee decision isn't unanimous.

[RMB1]

nige1, on 2011-June-27, 04:13, said:

IMO, the rules should be clear about when a committee must return the deposit e.g. when

• An official advisor, after perusing the ruling report, advises the appellants that they have a case.
  
• ...

As you may be aware EBU Appeals and Desposits guidance takes a different view of this point.

[mrdct]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-27, 03:15, said:

Is it even legal to overturn the TD's decision and keep the deposit?!?

I don't see why not, but it would come down to what the relevant regulations say for the event you are playing in.

It would certainly make sense to keep the deposit if the appeals committee replaces the director's ruling with an adjusted score that is even more unfavourable for the appealing side.

Personally I think appeals deposits are stupid as they do not act as a deterrent for frivilous appeals. A much better idea is to issue AWM penalties in VPs or imps.

[mgoetze]

mrdct, on 2011-June-27, 04:47, said:

It would certainly make sense to keep the deposit if the appeals committee replaces the director's ruling with an adjusted score that is even more unfavourable for the appealing side.

Hm, possibly. But that wasn't the case here...

[bluejak]

Seems a simple case, though several of the posts bring something up about intent that is not there.

Was it a played card? No, but since no-one suggested it was, what has that got to do with it?

Was it a deliberate ploy to mislead declarer? No idea, and no evidence was presented here to suggest it was. So we treat it as not deliberate. Since it does not affect whether we adjust it matters little. Yes, some conspiracy theorists would like to give a PP, but to do so on a single case with no evidence to suggest it was deliberate is clearly wrong.

Was there an infraction? Yes, failure to follow Law 74B3. So we can adjust under Law 23.

As to what the adjustment should be, that is the one difficulty: if we thought declarer had some idea of finessing anyway, perhaps we should include a small proportion of the effects of finessing anyway.

How about treating the finesse as SEWoG? I know that it might be considered gambling without the other considerations, but I do not think we can ignore the other considerations: so, if you have very strong evidence that the finesse will work, do we consider it gambling to finesse? I don't, really, but it is a matter of judgement.

Finally, is it "legal" to keep the deposit and then make some change? Legal, yes: unless there is an unusual regulation for the retention of deposits, most people say that you keep the deposit if the appeal is deemed to be frivolous, so if the AC decide that it is then they keep the deposit. It is legal to do so.