[roghog]

This is from a teams-of-four match played privately in England. I won't identify the participants, but let's say Team Purple versus Team Beige. It happened some months ago and I’ve allowed time for recuperation, but it raises important issues.

In the first of four 8-board stanzas, there was a failure to alert. At the scoring interval, Captain Purple phoned a TD (as provided for in the event regulations) who spoke to the players involved. In a subsequent phone call, the TD gave his ruling.

In the third stanza, with the scores neck and neck, Purple's other pair played against Captain Beige. The first four boards had been exchanged. On the fifth, Purple's declarer made a claim which was contested by Captain Beige and his partner. Declarer Purple was affronted. He left the table and interrupted play in the other room to make it clear to Captain Purple that he didn't want to play on. Declarer Purple then walked out of the playing area. Captain Purple, who had already played the disputed hand, left his room mid-hand to find out what had happened. He tried to get Captain Beige to allow the claim, and he also asked Beige's other pair to intervene: but none of the Beige team would comply.

Here is the nub of the problem. Beige players believe that play should be continuous until a scoring break: then you can phone a TD. However, Captain Purple’s priority was to get the claim allowed: presumably that would bring his player back. He now intended to phone a TD himself, even though the stanza wasn’t complete.

Play had ceased in both rooms and Beige's other pair were unhappy. Captain Purple had left their room and they weren’t exactly clear where Declarer Purple was. Ample time had passed for Captain Purple to prevail upon his player to resume. The security of separate rooms had been breached with 6 of the 8 boards still to be re-played. They saw no way out of the impasse and believed that the match was over. Unwilling to hang around any longer, they decided to go home and escape the rancour.

The match was being played on the top floor of a 3-storey building. When the first Beige player got downstairs, he encountered Declarer Purple. There was a brief handshake and Player Beige drove off. Declarer Purple went back up to the playing area.

The two other Beige players made their way downstairs, but somehow missed the ascending Declarer Purple. Captain Beige found himself in the playing area with all 4 of Team Purple. As he could no longer field a team, Captain Beige agreed to concede the match.

When he got home and had time to reflect, Captain Beige wanted to withdraw his concession. He argued that the match was over when Declarer Purple walked out (even though Captain Purple hadn’t conceded). Captain Purple offered to replay the match, but Captain Beige declined.

An arbitrator awarded the match to Beige. On appeal, a referee recommended that the match be replayed. After a counter-appeal, a three-person review panel decided that the match should be replayed.

How would you have ruled? I welcome your views on how one should go about making a decision in an unusual case such as this one.

[Vampyr]

The Purple team are how old? 9? 11? Still I think that the Beige team should have hung around, just to see out the situation. Their leaving is obviously the cause of the ruling that the match be replayed. The Purple team should have been given penalties for their shenanigans and possibly time penalties. Then they should have either conceded or completed the match.

Now, I see no choice for Beige except to agree to replay the match, unless Purple have the good grace to concede. Which I think they should do.

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

After a counter-appeal

It wasn't a counter-appeal as such, it was an appeal to the national authority, which was heard on the grounds that a matter of principle was involved.

The National Authority did come to more detailed conclusions over such matters as in what circumstances (specifically and generally) they could or should ask for a match to be replayed, whether it should be replayed from the start or from set three, whether exactly the same players must play or other members of the teams involved could do so, what time limit should be given for the replay and so forth.

As I was one of the three persons, I shall not comment further.

[sanst]

First of all, I'm wondering what happened to make a player walk out. That the opps didn't allow the claim to stand, can't be a reason for that, unless the player has a very short fuse and is used to always getting his way. That would make him (or her) an overspoiled child, and who wants to play with such one?
If you play without a director present you must be able to call one if the need arises, not when there is a break in the play, otherwise you can't comply with Law 9B1a. So here Beige is in the wrong.
But then the behaviour of the Purple team and it's captain. That captain did everything he shouldn't have done, like trying to persuade the others to comply with the claim, but not what he should have done: get the player who walked out back and let the match continue. He could then also have tried to get whatever bad feelings there were out of the way. That the Beige team concluded that the match was over, because one of the opps had left and his captain was not trying to get him back, seems logical to me. That that player didn't say anything of going back to the Beige player leaving the building, is one more example of bad behaviour.
Since the national authority has decided that there should be a replay, I don't think it's up to me to comment on that. They probably had far more information about what happened and will have taken notice of the opinions and facts given by those involved.
In general, it's one of the worst things that can happen to you as a TD. It's happened to me twice and in both cases I found that there was a reason for it which made it understandable that the player walked out. But that was only some time after it had happened. In one case the player had just learned that he had incurable cancer and had come to play to have some distraction. His partner, who was much weaker than him, made some silly mistakes and he just couldn't take it anymore. In the other case a male player was making all kind of crude, sexist comments to his lady partner, who, after having asked more than once to stop with that, ran out of the room crying and got off before anybody could catch her. The culprit was banned for life by the club.
These two cases have learned me, that you shouldn't condemn the player that walks (or run) out straightaway. But if a player walks without good cause, it should be held against him and his team. If possible, I would give the team the opportunity to find a replacement, so that the match can go on, but there will be a penalty. If there is no replacement possible, then you would have to give an artificial score on all boards that couldn't be played (or scored in a teams match), plus a penalty in MP's, IMP's or VP's.

Joost

This post has been edited by sanst: 2015-August-16, 06:30

[wanoff]

If an opponent announced to all that he didn't wish to continue, then I'd assume it was a concession. Most people concede after a completed stanza but presumably one can concede at any time. In this circumstance I'd probably have been sporting and allowed a 5 minute grace period, time enough for the partner of Declarer Purple to coax a change of mind.
A bridge captain is a person who leads or speaks on behalf of his or her team. By his actions, Declarer Purple was clearly no longer under the control of the captain and free to cease playing at any time of his choosing.
I believe there's a fairly recent precedent. A player conceded after 8 boards in a privately played Gold Cup match without reference to the captain and that concession was accepted by opponents.

FrancesHinden, on 2015-August-10, 15:19, said:

It wasn't a counter-appeal as such, it was an appeal to the national authority, which was heard on the grounds that a matter of principle was involved.
The National Authority did come to more detailed conclusions over such matters as in what circumstances (specifically and generally) they could or should ask for a match to be replayed, whether it should be replayed from the start or from set three, whether exactly the same players must play or other members of the teams involved could do so, what time limit should be given for the replay and so forth.
As I was one of the three persons, I shall not comment further.

If it wasn't a counter appeal, how about 'Final appeal'

From the EBU website, the National Authority has 3 main functions:
1. Final appeal relating to matters of Law.

The Authority might have considered if Declarer Purple had said that he didn't wish to play on, and whether under the Laws of Bridge that constituted a concession. It might have looked at whether the Law had been applied incorrectly at appeal overturning the director's ruling. It might have asked if Captain Purple had attempted to contact another member of the team.

2. Refers complaints to the EBU disciplinary panel.

I've no idea if a disciplinary case is in progress or complete but we've heard nothing. Maybe there wasn't a complaint, but if not, with the EBU banging on so much about good behaviour, it ought to have referred Captain Purple and Declarer Purple.

3. Publishes the Blue Book.

[lamford]

Are there ring-side seats available for the replayed match, or has it now taken place? More seriously, I am sure that the three-person committee would have considered the facts and amount of blame and come to a sensible decision, and it seems pointless for those less informed than them to offer an opinion.

[wanoff]

lamford, on 2015-August-12, 15:50, said:

Are there ring-side seats available for the replayed match, or has it now taken place? More seriously, I am sure that the three-person committee would have considered the facts and amount of blame and come to a sensible decision, and it seems pointless for those less informed than them to offer an opinion.

A curious position for the 3 of you to hold on a discussion forum - "Let's have NO discussion"

I've had a quick flip through the 2007 Laws and can't find anything applicable apart from 74C8.
Nor in the White Book except 282.l/m/n

Like it or not, the handshake has some legal standing, and was probably Declarer Purple confirming his withdrawal. He cannot possibly have thought that Beige was withdrawing.
Now EBL General Conditions of Contest 18 if applicable would dictate Captain Purples action.

[sanst]

wanoff, on 2015-August-14, 04:52, said:

A curious position for the 3 of you to hold on a discussion forum - "Let's have NO discussion".

Why don't you start a discussion, since you seem to think that there is something to discuss.

wanoff, on 2015-August-14, 04:52, said:

I've had a quick flip through the 2007 Laws and can't find anything applicable apart from 74C8.
Nor in the White Book except 282.l/m/n

It's an obvious breach of Law74A1 and 2. The White Book states how to score in par. 2.4.

wanoff, on 2015-August-14, 04:52, said:

Like it or not, the handshake has some legal standing, and was probably Declarer Purple confirming his withdrawal. He cannot possibly have thought that Beige was withdrawing.
Now EBL General Conditions of Contest 18 if applicable would dictate Captain Purples action.

I don't think that this comes under the jurisdiction of the EBL, but even if it were, I don't see what the connection is between par. 18 and Captain Purple's actions. And what do you mean by your remark about the legal status of the handshake? Would that also have that standing in a EBU event?

[roghog]

I posted this bizarre case because it was widely discussed and it sets a precedent. The basic facts are not disputed.

The Arbitrator, a top TD, wrote to all 8 dramatis personae. One declined to reply. I’m sure there were discrepancies in what everyone remembered: but my reconstruction of the case is from matters which both sides agreed on. The Arbitrator gave detailed reasons and citations for his decision. He sent his ruling to everyone concerned. (In short, he determined that the match was over when Declarer Purple withdrew from the game and caused play to stop; and that anything thereafter wasn’t relevant.)

Captain Beige reports that the Referee, a highly experienced bridge professional, gave no reasons for differing from the Arbitrator. Mysterious!

I’m pleased other posters feel strongly that it is not acceptable to stop play in both rooms mid-stanza and expect everyone to wait while you get a ruling. I was surprised that the Referee seemed to lay equal blame on the other team when they refused to stay around. If I can find the time, I’m hoping to write to the appropriate Committees and suggest some changes. Thanks for your feedback which will be of great help.

[Vampyr]

roghog, on 2015-August-15, 03:01, said:

I’m pleased other posters feel strongly that it is not acceptable to stop play in both rooms mid-stanza and expect everyone to wait while you get a ruling.

Do they? Who?

In any case both tables don't need to stop play.

[Zelandakh]

roghog, on 2015-August-10, 13:06, said:

Here is the nub of the problem. Beige players believe that play should be continuous until a scoring break: then you can phone a TD.

This seems unworkable to me. How can there be a disputed claim and no mechanism to obtain a ruling for it? Does someone need to write down every card? What is actually the correct procedure here?

As for the idea that it would be proper for Captain Purple to go and get his player and persuade him to continue playing, has anyone thought that through? CP has apparantly already played the board set of DP and presumably the same is true in reverse. That opens up all kinds of possibilities.

It seems to me that replaying the match has to be the wrong ruling and sets a dangerous precedent. On a simple reading of the story my sympathies lie primarily with Team Beige but sympathy does not make for a ruling. Either DP's behaviour is acceptable or not. If it is then Team Beige have conceded by not staying; if not then Team Purple have conceded. I would be interested in hearing the national committee's logic for the ruling once the discussion dies down (assuming that is not regarded as confidential).

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-August-15, 04:29, said:

roghog, on 2015-August-15, 03:01, said:

I’m pleased other posters feel strongly that it is not acceptable to stop play in both rooms mid-stanza and expect everyone to wait while you get a ruling.

Do they? Who?

In any case both tables don't need to stop play.

I am with Vampyr on this one. If there is a need for a TD, as in when attention has been drawn to an irregularity or in the case of a disputed claim, the laws are clear: You get the TD involved.

In this case, there was a disputed claim. Who you're gonna call? The TD! There is (or shouldn't be) any need to involve anybody from the other table. Play only continues after the TD has instructed the players to continue.

When are you calling? At the point when the claim is contested (or attention has been drawn to the irregularity) not at the end of the session. The fact that the TD call is made by phone shouldn't matter for the timing of the TD call. If it does matter, it isn't bridge in the sense of the Lawbook.

Rik

[roghog]

You are right, of course. Imagine you offer a wine gum to an opponent during the auction. As they take it, a card falls face-up on the table. There would have to be a hiatus to consult a TD. You may also call a TD at the end of a hand if something complicated happened, and you'd like to talk about it while it was fresh in your mind.

In the problem match, the failure to alert was during the first stanza, but the players waited until the end of the stanza before talking to a TD. And then phoned back for the ruling at the end of the second stanza.

When the claim was disputed in the third stanza, it was quite permissible for the players to stop playing and report the facts to a TD, and then phoning back later for the verdict.

But the problem was that play stopped in both rooms. In the Arbitrator's ruling he mentioned that players of the Purple Team's standard knew full well that you must not interfere with play in the other room.

The Referee's remit didn't allow him to recommend a replay, but officials agreed to go along with it. It seems a bit of a cop out.

[FrancesHinden]

All that has been said publicly about the national authority's reasoning can be found in the L&E minutes at

http://www.ebu.co.uk...2015/27-may.pdf

(to explain one thing for non-EBU members: in order for an appeal to the NA to be heard, it must have valid 'grounds', you can't just disagree with a ruling as you can for the first appeal. One of the valid grounds for appeal is that a matter of principle is involved.)

[gnasher]

The Committee considered three possible decisions:
a) Award the match to one side or the other based on the score at the end of the second stanza;
b) Continue the match from stanza three. This would require both sides to produce the same team line upas for the original match.
c) Require the match to be replayed, allowing the teams to alter their line-ups, if necessary (subject tothe rules of the competition).
The Committee agreed that as a matter of principle, their order of preference was (b), ©, (a) but thatpractical considerations (such as the timetable of the event and availability of the players) must always betaken in consideration.

Frances (or Robin), can you explain why option (b) would require the same line-ups? It seems to me that option (b) with different line-ups is preferable to (c).

[Zelandakh]

I also still wonder why the option of deciding who was at fault for causing the match to be abandoned is not there. I still feel that this mechanism is too open to abuse and that it is surely not the best solution except in special circumstances - one player has a heart attack or the venue was flooded, hit by a bomb, etc.

[sanst]

Zelandakh, on 2015-August-17, 10:03, said:

I also still wonder why the option of deciding who was at fault for causing the match to be abandoned is not there.

If you read the minute, you'll see that both sides were deemed to be at fault. That's no wonder, because there were faults made by both sides, Declarer A walked out, player B thought that the match was over and left. The facts were not agreed on. From what I have read, I can only conclude that the Committee's decision is the most reasonable, but I would like to read the answer to gnasher's questions.

Zelandakh, on 2015-August-17, 10:03, said:

I still feel that this mechanism is too open to abuse and that it is surely not the best solution except in special circumstances - one player has a heart attack or the venue was flooded, hit by a bomb, etc.

I'm afraid that this is incomprehensible to me. Still? What mechanism? What abuse? The circumstances given in the OP seem rare enough to me to be called 'special', but it seems that for you disasters and the like are necessary for circumstances to be special.

Joost

[Zelandakh]

"Still" referes back to my previous post; "mechanism" refers to the replay of a match based on one player walking out and the subsequent confusion; "abuse" should be obvious - under certain circumstances it would be possible for a team to obtain an advantage by getting a replay to take place. The "special" circumstances I gave were all examples of neither team being at fault.

It is clear that both teams were at fault in this case but not at all clear that that fault was equal, nor that the boards that had already been played in the round should be thrown out. If one team takes 30 minutes longer than they should for a set of boards and the other team takes 10 minutes too long, would you also assess both teams to be at fault and give equal penalties? There are plenty of examples on these forums where both teams are at fault but the experienced directors rule wholly in favour of one side or the other based on the information provided.

That leads to further possibilities - e) continue the match from the point where it was abandoned including scoring up all boards played in both rooms (and examining the scores for half-played boards for any exceptionally good/bad results); f) continue the match from the beginning of the stanza but with penalties applied to one of the teams; g) award the match to one side or the other based on the score at the end of the last stanza adjusted for penalties.

And just a final note. I hope there is a patient TD standing by for the replay - if I am playing on Team Beige I am not accepting any claims from Declarer Purple at all during the rest of the match!

[campboy]

I agree with Zel and gnasher that requiring the match to be restarted with the previously played stanzas counting but no requirement to field the same lineups would, if legal, be preferable to either (b) or (c) above. Presumably, since the L&EC didn't give that as an option, the conditions of contest do not currently allow it, but in that case it would IMO be a good idea to change them for next year.

[pran]

Has anybody considered Law 86C in this situation?

The Director shall not exercise his Law 6 authority to order one board redealt when the final result of a match without that board could be known to a contestant. Instead, he awards an adjusted score.

It appears to me that this effectively prevents option {b} here, either the match stands as played (incompletely - with or without adjusted scores) or the entire match must be cancelled and replayed?