Saga of a controversy
The review
The reviewers ruling, when received was an absolute shocker. From what I could see, he had gone far out of his designated role (as defined in wbf code of practice for reviewers, as well as SCoC of the tournament), had flouted the law, and had cited non-existent precedents in direct contravention of BFI system policy.
Here are some examples –
1.
Law 93 B3
In adjudicating appeals, the committee (or the authorized alternative) may exercise all
powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that it may not overrule the Director
in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers.
(It may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)
And yet, the reviewer waived all penalties applied by the CTD.
We can all talk about whether the penalties applied by CTD were disproportionate. Perhaps the technical commitee could discuss it, perhaps BFI executive committee could decide. But the law makes it very clear that its not within reviewer’s right to do so.
2.
The reviewer stated that the onus of checking if a particular convention is Brown sticker or not was with Regulating Authority. He based this on his experience that there are vetting desks in the international events (he specifically cited asian games)
Here’s what asian games bridge hand book says
any appropriate Brown Sticker or other forms required by the WBF
Systems Policy are fully completed and appended to the Card.
Similar statements are made in BFI system policy, WBF system policy and SCoC of all major domestic as well as international event.
And yet, reviewer stated that
If you expect players to file their systems, at least vet them. Failure to do so by the RA/TD tantamount to license to use of the same.
There is no law or rule that exempts players from their responsibility of declaration of their methods, and yet – this is exactly what he did.
The reviewer did agree with majority view and termed the convention as brown sticker for future.
In effect, the reviewer
- Reversed all penalties
- Reversed director’s decision to remove the double
- Rejected my appeal for score adjustment as in his view the favourable result was achieved at one other table and so in his opinion the result would be achieved by their counterparts.
Interestingly our teammates had reached 4H on the hand below, on very thin values. And the hand can be beaten on club lead.
The reviewer gave full benefit to opponents about reaching the contract, but did not even consider the possibility that we might be able to beat it.
I have two questions / observations
1. If the convention was a variation of “Multi” , why are a team of top experts creating such a furore about playing against it. If this convention is so difficult, then why is “Multi” being allowed even in the league stages against moderate opponents. Either “Multi’ Should be stopped ( I am personally not in favour of doing so) OR variations should be allowed without categorising them in different stickers.
2. When the convention card has been submitted, now to put the onus on players to know the finer points of the “Stickers” law, and to self declare “Brown sticker convention” to me, seems unfair. If this is the challenge faced by a team of known top experts , I shudder to think of the perils – that ordinary teams will face – in terms of penalties (and that too retrospectively) because they are playing a convention that is suddenly deemed as HUM or Brown sticker.
Kiran what is being sought by you here ?
1. A feedback to BFI ? I guess not since you ought to have used official BFI channel for feedback ; you have chosen a public blog .
2. Gathering public support to persuade BFi to conduct tournaments better in future – I am inclined to rule this out in view of your huge sponsorship clout that’s more than adequate in this pursuit
3. Seeking public shoulders to cry on – I cannot believe this from my reading of your character in the past 35 years
4. Venting anguish in public – this looks increasingly a possibility. If so you have created a precedence ! Many players feel similarly angry daily on their perceptions of unfair actions from Authorities- mostly Directors . If they start their own public venting …. BFI will have an issue on their hands
In the chat group I saw kiran forwarding the link so I assumed the post was by her – in the sleepiness of wee hours. I realise now it is by Sandeep
I am sorry , I wish to change name addressed by me to Sandeep
My sincere apologies to Kiran
PS,
Since you ask, my purpose in going public is to try and bring fairness and transparency to the process.
Everyone is aware that often when perception is of being wronged, but law and processes are followed properly, I have frequently stood up in favor of authority, even if it’s a hugely unpopular stand.
In this particular case, I tried my level best to get an acknowledgement of responsibility through official channels, and in every instance the door was shut firmly in my face.
However, I hope you and others will agree, that even though you have benefitted in this episode, you would not, in future want to be at the mercy of an individual’s views, especially when the views are illegal and autocratic.
My purpose in writing this blog was to bring the affair to public sphere, in the hope that this will lead to the federation in understanding that accountability can be demanded of them by those they represent.
Perhaps it’s a pipe dream. I haven’t the clout to force my view. And if public opinion isn’t swayed I have only axed my own legs. But then being unpopular has never worried me, never will. Miscarriage of Justice always will, no matter who the victim is.
As per law, you can’t have a weak opening bid without a known suit. That makes it brown sticker
A 2 minor bid showing weak in either major is an exemption granted to this law.
The law also says that if you have more than one weak options, you must have a known 4+ card suit that’s common to all weak options
Eg it’s okay to have say 2c as only h or h + m or 4h + longer side suit. They all have h in common.
But you can’t have say 2c as weak in d or both majors. There’s no common suit.
The method played by opponents, according to their CC , said weak in either M, may have both M.
This option if may have both M adds to the meaning of multi (either major) by adding the possibility of ekren to it.
That’s what makes it brown sticker as per the definition above.
This is all clearly spelled out, with example in system policy.
So, if you intend to play something that’s highly artificial, why would you not bother to check if it qualifies. And if you can’t work it out, consult some director about it.
Sandeep
1. This is your website.
2. You have written a long article stating your point of view.
3. Since you had left space for comments , I have commented.
4. If it is going to be a comment and a response and a recomment, I am not interested. That is why I am not part of the Whatsapp groups and have no intention of entering into a debate with you.
My limited point is that the furore is being created on a point of law rather than it being a very difficult convention. Bridge is already a very complex game and if all players are expected to know and follow every fine aspect of the law, then we are just dramatically increasing its complexity and that can be counter productive.
I do wish that the Bridge community not split hairs on what to me seems like a limited technical point and that is the objective of my post.
Sampath,
Yes this is my website, but it’s available for everyone who is a member to express themselves.
And membership is not restricted.
When you said you had two questions, I presumed you’d expect answers.
I didn’t realize you intended them to be rhetoric.
The basis of the conflict may have been a technical issue, but the way it was handled was a question of responsibility. And perhaps some may consider that to be of some concern.