Laws of bridge (7)

Though the bulletin is not the medium for Grattan and me to debate laws, since we both are in the drafting committee and will have plenty of time to cross our weapons, I would like to elaborate on one of his remarks. He likes Zones and even NBO's: 'to operate their own policies within the general framework of the laws' (quoted). An interesting remark, but rather confusing too. What will the general framework be? Is this just the choices zones and NBO's have now or should there be more? Do NBO's want more influence on the application of laws, being described in less detail than they are now? To be honest, I do not see this as a preferable development. Being a worldwide sport, having fought for recognition and almost having reached the status of being in the Olympic Games, the laws in my opinion should be as uniform as possible. When we accept differences it should not be between zones and NBO's but between levels of play, being more strict on the top level than in clubs for example. But even that is not an obvious choice. Edgar Kaplan told me once that he offered to the ACBL to make a set of laws for clubs being easier to apply and less punitive. But the clubs reacted astonished and even upset: were they supposed to play some degenerated form of the real game?

In the laws as we have them now there are some places where the level of play has influence on the ruling. If player A gets 14 cards dealt, another player counting to 12, and we decide to let the board be played, mister A has unauthorised information. This probably is not of any influence in a friendly club game when it is the diamond four that has been transferred. But it is questionable whether the option to play the board should be considered at all in top level bridge. Those kind of differences seem reasonable and are in the laws already. But do you, NBO's, players, want to go further?

Ton Kooijman

Laws of bridge (6A)

The ideas about appeals that Ton Kooijman puts forward in his latest contribution to the Bulletin have been well rehearsed over the last year or two in various places, and especially in North America. As he would agree, the present laws already provide scope for their introduction by any regulating body that wishes to adopt them. It is typically in accord with my general inclination to set parameters in laws within which regulating bodies may operate their zonal/national preferences that Law 93 allows no appeals committee need be appointed, the Chief Director handling appeals in this case, whilst Law 80 simply requires that the regulations include 'suitable arrangements' for appeals to be heard. It is open to debate whether arrangements of the kind suggested fully reflect concepts of natural justice.

Meanwhile, I am sure we all recognize this week the perfection of the method in the World Cup where a single referee, with the help of two expert assistants, makes decisions against which there is no appeal.

Grattan Endicott

Laws of Bridge (6B)

Ton's idea of doing away with Appeal Committees would not solve a basic problem.

It is not difficult to understand that decisions of Appeal Committees are disputable. At least one of the teams feels hard done by. Many of the negative reactions that are heard about decisions come from corners that are not unbiased to the cases they talk about. And while this is not really good for the game, it is a quite inevitable and understandable part of human nature.

But the cause of that problem is not the Appeal Committee. It is the decision which is criticized, and by extension the body that handed it out. If there were no Appeal Committee, and the Director would have the final say, then he would be just as open to criticism as is the Appeal Committee today. As it stands, the Director has it easy: "if you don't like my decision, you may appeal"

Surely Ton is not suggesting that Tournament Directors, as opposed to Appeal Committee members, are infallible? Let's not forget that in one of the two decisions that Ton cites as examples, the Committee actually followed the Tournament Director.

One should also remember that Bridge is a complicated game. A footballer might like to argue that he had no intention of tripping an opponent, but that is certainly not in the same league as a bridge player trying to explain why he would have returned clubs instead of hearts if he had known that the opponent had spades instead of diamonds. It is not fair on the player to ask him to do this between two hands, and we really should not take away his basic right to a defence. Maybe some sort of hearing, after the play is over, can be arranged for him to have his say. This hearing could be presided by the Chief Tournament Director, or by some other person, specifically appointed for that function. Expert players need to be present in order to base the final decision on sound bridge knowledge.

Might I suggest a name for this novel idea of a hearing? Let's call it an Appeal.

Herman De Wael