[Vampyr]

This past weekend, my partner (who was in receipt of UI) passed when he might have taken further action. The director ruled that the table result stood, and our opponents appealed the ruling. The committee adjusted in their favour, and also fined us on the basis that "Pass was not a logical alternative".

Complete gibberish, of course. I am not interested in whether the fine was merited or not, but I do find it deeply disappointing that this particular committee issued such an ignorant statement, as two committee members are also members of the EBU L&A Committee. If these people have no idea what an LA is and how it is applied in a UI case, what hope have the majority of appeals committee members? Is there a solution?

[Bbradley62]

What is this with being fined? Is that an EBU thing?

[gordontd]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-22, 22:54, said:

What is this with being fined? Is that an EBU thing?

Being "fined" is being issued with a Procedural Penalty. It's not an EBU thing (though your question now makes me wonder if calling it a "fine" is).

[gnasher]

I don't understand. Why does making the statement "Pass was not a logical alternative" display ignorance?

Edit: Sorry, I understand, I think. You're saying that choosing an illogical alternative isn't an offence in itself, so can't attract a procedural penalty?

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-22, 22:38, said:

This past weekend, my partner (who was in receipt of UI) passed when he might have taken further action. The director ruled that the table result stood, and our opponents appealed the ruling. The committee adjusted in their favour, and also fined us on the basis that "Pass was not a logical alternative".

It would be interesting to see the hand / auction.

With this said and done, if you truly feel aggrieved, kick the matter up the food chain.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-January-23, 04:00, said:

I don't understand. Why does making the statement "Pass was not a logical alternative" display ignorance?

Edit: Sorry, I understand, I think. You're saying that choosing an illogical alternative isn't an offence in itself, so can't attract a procedural penalty?

I think that the AC intended to write that "Pass was an LA that was demonstrably suggested", and chose the wrong words. I do not regard this as a major issue at all, as I think that the bid chosen is always automatically an LA, although the Laws are wrongly worded, yet again.

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-22, 22:38, said:

This past weekend, my partner (who was in receipt of UI) passed when he might have taken further action. The director ruled that the table result stood, and our opponents appealed the ruling. The committee adjusted in their favour, and also fined us on the basis that "Pass was not a logical alternative".

Complete gibberish, of course. I am not interested in whether the fine was merited or not, but I do find it deeply disappointing that this particular committee issued such an ignorant statement, as two committee members are also members of the EBU L&A Committee. If these people have no idea what an LA is and how it is applied in a UI case, what hope have the majority of appeals committee members? Is there a solution?

When ruling the TD should
a. investigate
b. state his finding of facts that are not disputed
c. state each side’s view of facts that are disputed and his reasoning for his finding of fact
d. state the law that is applicanle
e. state his reasoning for his ruling

going through this painful process will mostly have the following effects:

a. TD make rulings that are supported by the facts and in accordance with law because it is obvious to do so
b. The players can readily see that the ruling is a good one or why it is a bad one
c. The players will be in a position to make appropriate choices concerning the ruling
d. Mostly good rulings means fewer appeals, and more righteous appeals [know which issues to pursue] for when they are made


And appeals ought to be handled in much the same way.. nevertheless, the likelihood of satisfactory outcomes would tend to be undependable iwhen the laws themselves are barmy.

To wit- in your case I see no reason given why your opponents thought they had been cheated [reason for calling the TD] nor why the TD disagreed; nor any reason why you disagreed with the opponents. Which is to say that- how can you be expected to satisfactorily defend yourself in your opponents’ appeal if the TD did not explain the reasoning of his ruling?

[hrothgar]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-22, 22:54, said:

What is this with being fined? Is that an EBU thing?

FWIW, it feels very strange that

1. The TD ruled in your favor
2. The Appeals committee both

(A) Over ruled the TD
(B) Issued some kind of procedural penalty

(If anything, it feels as if TD rule in favor of the non offending side. If the TD originally found in your favor...)

[gordontd]

axman, on 2012-January-23, 09:10, said:

To wit- in your case I see no reason given why your opponents thought they had been cheated [reason for calling the TD] nor why the TD disagreed; nor any reason why you disagreed with the opponents. Which is to say that- how can you be expected to satisfactorily defend yourself in your opponents’ appeal if the TD did not explain the reasoning of his ruling?

That this was not all laid out in detail in the original post does not mean it didn't happen at the table.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2012-January-23, 07:31, said:

I think that the bid chosen is always automatically an LA, although the Laws are wrongly worded, yet again.

This is a consequence of the view, which I have been told is correct, that the phrase "logical alternative" doesn't actually mean what the words in it say. Instead they mean something like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". Personally, I view this as akin to the ACBL's stance that "strong" means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means.

It does no one any favors for the lawmakers to use certain words in writing the laws, and then tell us that the words don't mean what they say. If the lawmakers intend the laws to say something else, they should use different words.

[barmar]

The lawmakers probably did intend the words to mean what they wrote, but didn't anticipate all of the consequences. There have been a number of threads where the idea of an ILlogical alternative comes up: a player making a call that none of their peers would even consider.

Writing laws is a little like writing computer programs, you're supposed to consider all the possible cases, and failing this leads to bugs. On the other hand, laws are implemented by humans, not dumb automata, so they're able to overcome some of the bugs when they're obvious.

[blackshoe]

How long has "logical alternative" been in the laws? They certainly had an opportunity to change the wording in 2007. Why didn't they?

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-January-23, 04:00, said:

I don't understand. Why does making the statement "Pass was not a logical alternative" display ignorance?

Edit: Sorry, I understand, I think. You're saying that choosing an illogical alternative isn't an offence in itself, so can't attract a procedural penalty?

Not exactly. My point was that whether the chosen bid is a "logical alternative" is not the test that is applied in this or any situation.

[wyman]

...and if it's not, you certainly didn't violate any proprieties by choosing it!

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-22, 22:38, said:

what hope have the majority of appeals committee members?

"has", surely?

[gnasher]

"Have", definitely.

[wyman]

This doesn't make it right, but...
http://books.google....s=0&smoothing=3

[FrancesHinden]

If that's really all the form says, then I would have thought there are two possibilities:

either
a. these people have no idea what an LA is and how it is applied in a UI case
or
b. the form wasn't very well filled in, and ACs do indeed need education, but in how to fill the form in properly.

[FrancesHinden]

wyman, on 2012-January-23, 13:16, said:

This doesn't make it right, but...
http://books.google....s=0&smoothing=3

This is very cute.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-22, 22:38, said:

This past weekend, my partner (who was in receipt of UI) passed when he might have taken further action. The director ruled that the table result stood, and our opponents appealed the ruling. The committee adjusted in their favour, and also fined us on the basis that "Pass was not a logical alternative".

Complete gibberish, of course. I am not interested in whether the fine was merited or not, but I do find it deeply disappointing that this particular committee issued such an ignorant statement, as two committee members are also members of the EBU L&A Committee. If these people have no idea what an LA is and how it is applied in a UI case, what hope have the majority of appeals committee members? Is there a solution?

What's the "EBU L&A Committee"? Does that stand for English Bridge Union Logical Alternatives Committee?

If the UI demonstrably suggested passing over bidding on then your partner's Pass was of course illegal unless Pass was the only logical alternative. Sometimes a TD/AC will disagree with a player's judgement about whether a particular non-suggested action was a logical alternative or not. Slight differences in bidding judgement are part of bridge, so a rectification score adjustment does not necessarily imply that the player has knowingly breached Law 73C.

However, if, in the opinion of the AC, Pass was not even a logical alternative, then any argument to the effect that Pass was the only logical alternative would seem to be way off the mark. In that regard, I can understand why the AC would be minded to issue a procedural penalty.

This post has been edited by jallerton: 2012-January-23, 17:27