RENO CASE BOOK Foreword This marks my first venture as editor of this Case Book. In a departure from previous efforts, this volume has three new features. The Table of Contents is now a subject reference to the cases for quick reference. The purpose is to help a reader find the right case. At the end we have excerpts of every Law cited by a committee or panel member. The purpose is to help a reader find the relevant section of Law and see how it applied to that case. The third new feature is a brief explanation how to handle certain problem areas. Finally, at the Summer Meeting our ACBL Board of Directors adopted a new system to regulate appeals without merit. As a service, this new policy is reprinted here starting on page 7. As with previous Case Books, however, the main focus will be on the cases and panel comments. It is my hope the readers find them insightful and easy to understand. There are so many people who contribute to a project of this size. First, the committee members who contributed so much time to listen to these cases in the first place. Second, the committee chairs who were responsible for the write ups you will be reading. Third, the panel members who read every case and freely gave us their thoughts so that we all can learn. Fourth, Alan LeBendig, Jon Brissman and Karen Allison, who organized the committees and showed their expertise and experience in providing guidance to all. Fifth, to those many nameless ACBL employees without whom this book could never be printed. And last, but not least, to Linda Weinstein, who as Appeals Manager at Reno made the whole system work. Jay M. Apfelbaum October 1998 1 Contents by Subject Matter Extraneous Information from Partner (References are to Cases) From Alert, Explanation or Question (29, 33, 34) From Break in Tempo Does Not Demonstrably Suggest a Call (12, 14) Demonstrably Suggests a Call Chose Call Not Suggested by Unauthorized Information (1) Chose Call Suggested by Unauthorized Information Bid (2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16) Double (5, 10) Logical Alternative to Call Chosen (4, 5) No Logical Alternative to Call Chosen (7, 11, 12, 14, 17) Demonstrably Suggests a Play (6) From Misinformation Failure to Alert (20) Lack of Agreement (21, 24) Misbid (18, 23, 27, 31) Wrong Explanation (22, 29) From Explanation of Agreement Adequate (19, 28) Not Adequate Leading to Damage (30) Not Cause of Damage (25, 26, 32) Play of Hand Claims and Concessions (38, 39, 40) Penalty Card (43) Played Card (41, 42) Revoke, Penalties after Session Completed (37) Mis-duplication of Hand (36) Inadvertent Bid When Using Bid Boxes (35) Burden of Proof for Offenders to Prove System (13, 23, 31) Obligation to Know Partnership Agreements (19) Timeliness of Appeal or Call for Director (5, 8, 37) Result, most favorable likely or most unfavorable probable (9, 10, 16) Appeal, Whether Has Substantial Merit (6, 10, 15, 22, 28, 38, 41, 43) Procedural Penalty Discussed (21, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37) 2 Handling the Laws - A Process Most of the Reno cases presented the problem of what to do when a player obtains extraneous information from his or her partner. This section will begin, therefore, with a suggested process for handling this often thorny problem. Other items include possible definitions of logical alternative and demonstrably suggest, and a possible standard for imposing procedural penalties. As a caveat, what follows are my suggestions. The National Laws Commission has not taken any position on the merits of these remarks. Part I - Unauthorized Information from Partner When reading this portion, please refer to the extract of Law 16A on page 113 and the extract of Law 73C on page 119. It is completely legal for a player to make a call or play based on information obtained from (1) legal calls or plays and (2) mannerisms of opponents. Basing a call or play on other extraneous information may violate the laws. Law 16A tells us that extraneous information can be given by “a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like.” What strikes me about these examples is that all of them are behaviors. When partner provides us with extraneous information, he or she is giving us extra information to help determine our best next call or play. This extra information is the sum of the bridge inferences that are made available from the extraneous information. Of course, Law 73C says we must carefully avoid using this extraneous information. The list of examples of extraneous information is fundamentally different from what we think of as unauthorized information. They are related in that the unauthorized information is the sum of the bridge inferences available from the extraneous information. In practice, extraneous information from partner nearly always will result in unauthorized information. However, if the unauthorized information is coextensive with the authorized information there can be no violation of Law 16. The first two questions for a Director or Appeals Committee are, therefore: 1. Did partner provide extraneous information? 2. Did the extraneous information suggest something about partner’s hand different from what the player understood to be suggested by the authorized information? If the answer to either question is no, there is no violation of law. My suggestions handle the alert procedure. ACBL requires a player to alert certain calls when the opponents are not expected to know their meaning. An alert is extraneous information because it is neither a legal call nor play. However, the underlying agreement is authorized information. 3 Therefore, before anyone can violate Law 16 the extraneous information has to suggest something different about the player’s hand than the authorized information. When an alert is properly made and both partners know their agreement, the bridge inferences available from the extraneous information (alert) are identical to the bridge inferences from the authorized information (agreement). Because the unauthorized information is coextensive with the authorized information, there can be no violation of law. However, when (1) the alert causes the player to remember an otherwise forgotten agreement or (2) the explanation does not match the player’s understanding of the agreement, the unauthorized information is not identical to the authorized information. There can be a violation of law. The third question a Director or Appeals Committee should answer is: 3) Did the unauthorized information demonstrably suggest the action chosen over another action that is a logical alternative? (NOTE: The action chosen need not be a logical alternative.) If the answers to these three questions are “yes”, there is an infraction. The Director or Appeals Committee should try to replay the hand from the point of the infraction. The next paragraphs describe how each side may be assigned a score. The offenders should receive the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. To reach the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, the Director or Appeals Committee should examine the bidding or play from the point of the infraction and give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders. Figure out the worst possible score and the chances of getting that score. Then look at each progressively better result and add the chances of getting each together until they get to the worst score where the probabilities add to about a one chance in six. The non-offenders should receive the most favorable result that was likely had there been no infraction. To reach the most favorable result that was likely, the Director or Appeals Committee should examine the bidding or play from the point of the infraction and give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders. Figure out the best possible score and the chances of getting that score. Then look at each progressively worse result and add the chances of getting each together until they get to the best score where the probabilities add to about a one chance in three. There is a possible exception for non-offenders who “fail to play bridge.” First, the non-offenders must be able to get at least as good a score after the infraction as if the infraction never happened. The Director or Committee will have to determine the best likely score for the non-offenders had there been no infraction. The non- offenders are not required to play perfectly - the correct standard is reasonable for the class of player involved. If the non-offenders cannot get as good a score once the infraction occurs this exception will not apply. Next the Committee should decide if a non-offender made a bid or play that is “clearly wrong” for that class of player. Careless or inferior is not “clearly wrong.” A clearly wrong call or play might break the causal connection between infraction and final result. The Director or Committee could allow the non-offenders to keep their score. However, this exception should be invoked only rarely. 4 This approach will often lead to different scores for the offenders and non- offenders. Sometimes, it is impossible to predict events from the point of the infraction. A Director or Appeals Committee should reach this conclusion only after a good faith effort to determine a result. In these cases, the Director or Appeals Committee may award an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity. Normally, this will mean an average plus and average minus. Part II - Suggested Definitions “Demonstrably Suggests” means there is a fairly direct and largely non- contradictory line of reasoning that shows the unauthorized information suggests the action actually chosen over another action that is a logical alternative.