[Cyberyeti]

I raised it, the director ruled I should have protected myself by asking if the XX was alertable.

I knew the W player, and knew that he would know he should have alerted (Confirmed by the fact he admitted as much while the director was at the table and said he just forgot)

[mycroft]

Well then. You wanted to appeal that ruling? Because that, that is a ruling.

So now, the comment to the director after the game is "I was going to appeal your ruling, but as we won anyway, I won't put you to the trouble."

Again, this puts the notion in the director's head so that, when it turns out that you didn't "win anyway", something should happen.

What do I think of the ruling? Don't know - I'd have to walk through all the posts to find the actual case, hand and ruling and see. It is (to go back to your title) "EBU matters", though, because the ruling was "you are expert enough to know this is a situation where you need to protect yourself, and could 'without putting [your] side's interests at risk'" (Blue Book 2A3). The old ACBL Alert Procedure had something similar in it; the new one says "However, a player who is misinformed by an opponent’s failure to Alert will be protected."

There are two pins to that ruling: it needs to be a situation where we can expect "players [of your experience] will protect themselves", and it needs to be a situation where that can be done without prejudicing your own interests (by "alerting the opposition" [to a misunderstanding]'). Those two pins can be knocked over. However, "yeah, I should have alerted it" or even "sorry, forgot it was alertable" doesn't knock over either of those pins; it's therefore not relevant to the ruling.

"There was misinformation, there may have been damage. There would have been no damage if you had asked about the XX, it's obvious to check for someone of your skill, and there was no danger to your side in checking. So by regulation you are not entitled to redress when you chose not to ask. Score stands."

Is the director right? As I said, I don't know, and won't guess. Is there a valid appeal here? Pretty certain I could, in your shoes, attack either pin of the 2A3 ruling (especially the "putting their sides interests at risk" one). Is the appeal still available after a score correction makes a "doesn't matter" appeal matter? That's a question for the game's regulations. Does it matter that no mention of a possible appeal was made at the time? Again, a question only the RA for the game can answer.

But as I was looking up the BlueBook quote, I saw this from 2B7: "The use of specific questions should be avoided since the answer, whilst correct, might be incomplete." To me, the lesson here is that that regulation does not only apply to auctions at the bridge table.

[Cyberyeti]

The ruling came days later.

The reasons for the ruling was that "You knew the standard of that room, you needed to protect yourself", I was saying that I knew the standard of the player and shouldn't have had to. I also knew he played fairly traditional stuff and didn't think he'd have agreed this over a 1N overcall.

I also feel the director could have done more (I didn't think about it at the time) and taken me away from the table to ask why I thought I might have been damaged before I knew how the hand was going to unfold ie with the auction at 2♥, and I would have told him what I wanted to do. This would have removed any possibility of a "you weren't going to bid that anyway" ruling.

Obviously if this was a SOS or single suited redouble, I don't want to jog W's memory and miss defending 1Nxx.

[sanst]

I'm afraid that your original post wasn't very clear. We are fed bits of information piecemeal. I think there are two issues, one about the decisions by the director and the impossibility to get a ruling or appeal, the other about you first having won and then not.
From what you wrote I gather that during an auction a redouble that should have been alerted wasn't. You think that damaged your side, but the director told you that you should have protected yourself by asking and ruled against your claim. You thought that decision was wrong, but you didn't appeal till it was too late.
Here it becomes confusing, at least to me. You wrote about the final result having been made public, but was it really announced as ‘final’? Or was it the ‘official’ result as in Law 79C1, after which the Correction Period starts? Was there a correction period and if so, for how long? Was the score corrected in the CP or afterwards as made possible by Law 79C2? Could you have appealed and decided not to because your names were at the top of the list? That last question plays a major role. If you don't appeal because you think you've won, in my opinion you have forfeited your rights.
Till here this is in the field of the Laws and the conditions of contest. But I get the feeling you feel cheated. Had you already been given the winner's price - which might have been anything from a chocolate bar or a bottle of mediocre wine to a substantial sum - and did you have to give this back? That, IMNSHO, would be a rather stingy act. It would be different if it was the winner's trophy or a substantial sum. But in the last case I wonder why the organisers didn't hire a non-playing director.
You might argue that the director should have asked you whether you would still appeal after the play, since you said that you ‘reserved your rights’. But I don't think that he was obliged to do so.
I'm sorry, but the wisest thing is to consider it a lesson learnt.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2024-November-25, 12:56, said:

I'm afraid that your original post wasn't very clear. We are fed bits of information piecemeal. I think there are two issues, one about the decisions by the director and the impossibility to get a ruling or appeal, the other about you first having won and then not.
From what you wrote I gather that during an auction a redouble that should have been alerted wasn't. You think that damaged your side, but the director told you that you should have protected yourself by asking and ruled against your claim. You thought that decision was wrong, but you didn't appeal till it was too late.
Here it becomes confusing, at least to me. You wrote about the final result having been made public, but was it really announced as ‘final’? Or was it the ‘official’ result as in Law 79C1, after which the Correction Period starts? Was there a correction period and if so, for how long? Was the score corrected in the CP or afterwards as made possible by Law 79C2? Could you have appealed and decided not to because your names were at the top of the list? That last question plays a major role. If you don't appeal because you think you've won, in my opinion you have forfeited your rights.
Till here this is in the field of the Laws and the conditions of contest. But I get the feeling you feel cheated. Had you already been given the winner's price - which might have been anything from a chocolate bar or a bottle of mediocre wine to a substantial sum - and did you have to give this back? That, IMNSHO, would be a rather stingy act. It would be different if it was the winner's trophy or a substantial sum. But in the last case I wonder why the organisers didn't hire a non-playing director.
You might argue that the director should have asked you whether you would still appeal after the play, since you said that you ‘reserved your rights’. But I don't think that he was obliged to do so.
I'm sorry, but the wisest thing is to consider it a lesson learnt.

OK, full chronology:

Auction goes 1♣-1N-X-XX (no alert)-P-2♣

at this point I'm thinking whether I can call the director when it's not my turn to bid when P-2♥ hit the table rapidly, at this point I call him, it's too late to rewind back to my bid, I have a nasty guess to make and opt to bid 3♣ ending the auction +130.

we are half a board late with the directorials, it took a little while for him to arrive so we move for the final round.

after the final round, I see we have won. I look at the hand records and notice we have in fact been damaged so approach the director.

I ask "are the results final" he said yes and I made it clear I'd have asked for redress if we hadn't won.

I had also told the pair that finished 2nd that we had a ruling waiting if we hadn't won.

The pair that finished 2nd found a scoring error in their favour that evening when the results were put on the web and had the courtesy to email me to tell me I might need to get that ruling.

I asked the director for a ruling and he said out of time.

I said that's unfair, given that I felt I made it very clear I would have asked for a ruling if we hadn't won.

He came back a couple of days later with the "you should have protected yourself" ruling

I gave notice I was going to appeal.

[sanst]

Although it's besides the question you asked, I would like to know who you were in the auction. It goes - sorry, I can't insert a clear diagran - but I thnik you were the dealer and made the 1♧ call:
1♧ - 1NT - X - XX
P - 2♧

At this point you consider calling the director, but before you can do so the auction continues:
1♧ - 1NT - X - XX
P - 2♧ - P - 2♡

Now you call the director who tells you that's too late to change your call and you make the final call, 3♧.

Now what is the problem? You didn't ask about the redouble because

Quote

Obviously if this was a SOS or single suited redouble, I don't want to jog W's memory and miss defending 1Nxx.

I don't get it. You knew the meaning of the XX, but hoped for W not to remember. That didn't happen. What would you have done if the bid was alerted? Anything else than 3♧? Why didn't you make that call instead of 3♧ when you still had the chance? And why didn't your partner bid something?

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2024-November-25, 15:43, said:

Although it's besides the question you asked, I would like to know who you were in the auction. It goes - sorry, I can't insert a clear diagran - but I thnik you were the dealer and made the 1♧ call:
1♧ - 1NT - X - XX
P - 2♧

At this point you consider calling the director, but before you can do so the auction continues:
1♧ - 1NT - X - XX
P - 2♧ - P - 2♡

Now you call the director who tells you that's too late to change your call and you make the final call, 3♧.

Now what is the problem? You didn't ask about the redouble because

Quote

Obviously if this was a SOS or single suited redouble, I don't want to jog W's memory and miss defending 1Nxx.

Quote

I don't get it. You knew the meaning of the XX, but hoped for W not to remember. That didn't happen. What would you have done if the bid was alerted? Anything else than 3♧? Why didn't you make that call instead of 3♧ when you still had the chance? And why didn't your partner bid something?

You missed the word IF. I know from the non alert that the redouble is business and in that case I am EXTREMELY happy to defend 1Nxx, I actually thought (as did Richard Fleet on another site) that the NV/V 1N psyche might be in play.

The remark about not alerting opps to a mistake was in reference to this paragraph:

Quote

There are two pins to that ruling: it needs to be a situation where we can expect "players [of your experience] will protect themselves", and it needs to be a situation where that can be done without prejudicing your own interests (by "alerting the opposition" [to a misunderstanding]'). Those two pins can be knocked over. However, "yeah, I should have alerted it" or even "sorry, forgot it was alertable" doesn't knock over either of those pins; it's therefore not relevant to the ruling.

Saying I think it does prejudice my own interests

[jillybean]

In my opinion, this is a terrible result. I hope with competent Director(s), it would not happen. (another case of a missing alert)
Here we have a playing Director. I don't know what level competition this is but in anything other than a club game, it should not be happening. The players are at a disadvantage if a discrepancy occurs, the Director is unable to give the issue their full attention, may or may not have played the board. The players can feel under pressure to quickly resolve the call, or not call at all.

The Director, knowing there was an outstanding issue and knowing that this pair had won the event should not have accepted a score adjustment without addressing the first issue. Isn't this just common sense? The Laws may say you need to protect yourself and you have a 30 minute window blah, blah, but say nothing about "protecting yourself" against a playing Director.

I can't see this sitting right with the pair who got the score adjustment, catapulting them into first place while knowing that another pair had an unresolved Director call.
If I was in Cyberyeti's shoes, I'd be highly cheesed off.

Isn't there somewhere in the Laws that says to the effect of "If these Laws don't apply to a specific situation, the Director should use their discretion to restore equity"?

[blackshoe]

LAW 12 DIRECTOR’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS
A. Power to Award an Adjusted Score
On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86B). This includes:
1. The Director may award an adjusted score in favor of a non-offending contestant when he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed.
2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).
3. The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity.
B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.
2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

[mycroft]

If you had "made it clear" that you would be asking for a ruling on the hand but it didn't matter since you won, then I agree with you, once the score correction came in that you should be entitled to the ruling.

If the ruling then was "2A3, you needed to protect yourself at the time" (as opposed to "it's too late to query"), then my last statement stands. It might, or it might not, be a good ruling, but it was the ruling.

I will just point out that, despite several statements to the effect of "if you didn't tell the director you felt there was an issue, just asked 'are the results final' and let him guess why, ..." this is the first time we've heard that yes, you did make it clear you'd have asked for a ruling if it mattered along with the "are the results final" question.

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2024-November-26, 23:27, said:

If you had "made it clear" that you would be asking for a ruling on the hand but it didn't matter since you won, then I agree with you, once the score correction came in that you should be entitled to the ruling.

If the ruling then was "2A3, you needed to protect yourself at the time" (as opposed to "it's too late to query"), then my last statement stands. It might, or it might not, be a good ruling, but it was the ruling.

I will just point out that, despite several statements to the effect of "if you didn't tell the director you felt there was an issue, just asked 'are the results final' and let him guess why, ..." this is the first time we've heard that yes, you did make it clear you'd have asked for a ruling if it mattered along with the "are the results final" question.

I forgot exactly what I said but I did make it pretty clear that I was only not going for the ruling because we'd won.

I posted the ruling on BW and Kit Woolsey said:

"There is no way a player should be put at a disadvantage because he failed to ask the meaning of a bid when the bid had not been alerted. He has every reason to assume the bid has the normal meaning. In fact, his asking might wake the opponent up. While the proper ruling might not be clear. the director's justification for his ruling is nonsense. "

so I appealed

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-27, 02:26, said:

I forgot exactly what I said but I did make it pretty clear that I was only not going for the ruling because we'd won.

I posted the ruling on BW and Kit Woolsey said:

"There is no way a player should be put at a disadvantage because he failed to ask the meaning of a bid when the bid had not been alerted. He has every reason to assume the bid has the normal meaning. In fact, his asking might wake the opponent up. While the proper ruling might not be clear. the director's justification for his ruling is nonsense. "

so I appealed

I'm afraid that Kit Woolsey is referring to the ACBL regulations ("However, a player who is misinformed by an opponent’s failure to Alert will be protected"), whereas the EBU Blue Book (2A3) says: "It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases."
I'm not certain that an appeal committee can change the director's decision, since such a committee "may exercise all powers assigned by the Laws to the Director, except that it may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations" (Law 93B3).
If I were you, I wouldn't set my hopes too high.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2024-November-27, 09:08, said:

I'm afraid that Kit Woolsey is referring to the ACBL regulations ("However, a player who is misinformed by an opponent’s failure to Alert will be protected"), whereas the EBU Blue Book (2A3) says: "It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases."
I'm not certain that an appeal committee can change the director's decision, since such a committee "may exercise all powers assigned by the Laws to the Director, except that it may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations" (Law 93B3).
If I were you, I wouldn't set my hopes too high.

The second part of the regulation is clear:

5 H 1 A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or
announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning
and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk. emphasis mine

I did NOT have the opportunity to ask without putting my side's interests at risk by waking W up to his partner playing a wriggle, and him not playing one. You do not have to rescue EW from their bidding misunderstanding.

[pescetom]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-27, 10:02, said:

The second part of the regulation is clear:

5 H 1 A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or
announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning
and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk. emphasis mine

I did NOT have the opportunity to ask without putting my side's interests at risk by waking W up to his partner playing a wriggle, and him not playing one. You do not have to rescue EW from their bidding misunderstanding.

In Italy it's not uncommon to hear "you should have protected yourselves" but there is no specific regulation. So it's up to Director's interpretation of the Laws and you wouldn't get anywhere with an appeal if you don't like it.

[blackshoe]

So you appeal, the table director hears your appeal and denies it, and you then appeal to the RA (FIGB in Italy, if I'm not mistaken). I don't know how far you'll get with that. In the ACBL, an appeal to the RA will go nowhere, unless perhaps your name is Bob Hamman.

[mycroft]

You believe you didn't, and as such you have grounds for appeal (at least to the TD). He disagreed in first instance; maybe you can make your case to him/the club appeal process.

Of course, when it was pulled, your partner had the opportunity to ask "without putting your side's interests at risk". And had you been misinformed, you could call the TD, make your case, and if you succeed, get to change your call. And your partner gets to judge their hand with both auctions.

"Was that not a penalty redouble?" "Oh. That's Alertable, isn't it? Let's get the director over, he knows the regulations."

I'm not saying that failing to do that was sufficient to deny your side redress, but your side did have the opportunity, and if it was a case of "I'm not going to wake them up from their potential mistake", then you at least (and I assume your partner) are experienced enough to know that people frequently forget that these "obvious" calls are Alertable; and when it turns out that in this case it was, you have rights.

I'm not saying that would be my ruling; I will say it was the ruling I was given back in the "WJS in non-competitive auctions are Alertable" days when *I* didn't have an issue with it in balancing seat, but partner might have had in direct, and we found out only after they passed it. At that time the old ACBL Alert Procedure (with the "experienced players are expected to protect themselves" bit) was in effect. (my problem was L20G1, "question solely to benefit partner". The response was "when it gets passed, you know either that they failed to Alert or they passed a forcing bid. So it is very likely there was an infraction, so you need to find out.")

I will admit a dislike for the "expert" attitude that "why should we have to protect the opponents from what is either their mistake or their misunderstanding of the (complicated) Alert Procedure? But by G-d, we were hella damaged when it turns out they actually knew their system!" In my experience, it goes along with a whole lot of other "expert edge" plays that make me think "so, you *don't* think you can beat these players with only your bidding and cardplaying skill?" From what I know of you from here, I do not expect that "extra" from you; I do not wish to imply that. But it might be colouring my responses a little.

Final question: can you show that a direct 3♣ (playing them for knowing their system and not "Hoping they're going to forget their way into 1600") *would* have led to 3NT? Even half the time? I don't know partner's hand, but if they're likely to pass 3♣, even knowing it's "tricks", then you weren't damaged.

If 3NT would go down, then also you weren't damaged, but that's another story. Of course, if you call the TD back at the end of the hand and say "if we were informed correctly, we'd have got to 3NT", then they can come back and say "yeah, but 3NT goes down on normal lines, so you weren't damaged". You don't have to wait to look at the hand records to "know you were damaged" - I'm sure you were thinking it as soon as you saw dummy. I know directors "can't play, or they would be", but they can evaluate a hand record well enough, sometimes even as well as you can.

[Cyberyeti]

Partner's hand was K9xx, AJ9x, Q10xx, x.

I was concentrating on making 3♣, it is not apparent you have 9 tricks in NT on a spade lead, but you do when you realise W has 15-17 of the missing 17 points and he may well lead the J telling you the 2 partner has are the Q♠, but 3N would be played by partner and almost certainly get a heart lead, giving 9 off the top.

Partner wasn't confused at all, when he heard 2♣ he worked out what was going on and can't ask just to protect me. I wasn't sure whether I could call the TD when 2♣ was bid, and while I was thinking about that, P-2H appeared.

[sanst]

Just wondering: about what are you appealing? The decision of the TD that you should have protected yourselves? Or the impossibility to have appealed after the 'final' score that was corrected and wasn't final after all? In the last case I don't think you stand a chance. The procedure was certainly not immaculate, but as far as I can see within the Laws. Maybe not fair, but that's nowhere in the Laws.
And I'm afraid that the decision in the first case will be that you should have appealed in time, before the end of the Correction Period. The not final 'final' of the TD caused this, but it might be held against you that you didn't appeal because you thought you had won although the CP wasn't over yet.
I do sympathize with you, and I'm sure most if not all others do too, but, as I wrote before, don't set your hopes too high.