In all these cases, there has either been a long think by someone, or there has been a misbid/system forget together with an alert and explanation which tells partner about it. With a hesitation, partner of the hesitator is absolutely certain either that their choice of action was not affected by the time spent thinking or that they had so many good reasons for their action that there was no alternative to it. A typical comment is "but I was always going to bid/double here". With a misbid/misalert, the bidder either says "I knew as soon as I did it that I had got the system wrong, partner's alert told me nothing I didn't already know", or they say "it's obvious from partner's bidding that we've had a system accident, the alert/explanation was irrelevant".
When you get ruled against, it feels very much as if you are being accused of lying and/or deliberate unethical behaviour. I remember getting very upset indeed years ago when we were ruled once to have fielded a psyche and I absolutely knew that we hadn't. When the appeals committe rule against you, it's natural to think that either they haven't understood your arguments, or they think you are making them up after the fact.
However, much of this has really very little to do with the ruling. In cases of this type, the AC are not trying to divine whether or not you are telling the truth. They are merely addressing a standard set of questions using (what passes for) their bridge judgement:
- Was there some action that gave you information you aren't supposed to have (e.g. a break in tempo, an incorrect alert, an alert which shows that you have got the system wrong)?
- If so, what action(s), if any, does that information suggest?
- Are there logical alternatives to that action (bearing in mind all the authorised information available)?
- If the answers are 1.Yes, 2.{the action chosen at the table} and 3. yes: would an alternative, not suggested, action have been less successful? If so, adjust the result.
Everyone has an opinion about bridge hands. It's really no different to discussing how to bid a hand in the pub after the game. You give an argument to the AC as to why there's no real alternative to your choice of action, and those who rule against you don't agree with it. You need to approach rulings with the same frame of mind that you do when a team-mate disagrees with your line in 3NT - it's purely a bridge judgement, nothing to do with your ethics.
It's quite possible that the AC won't know you, particularly at a national event. So they answer the questions above purely in the only context they have - by thinking about what pairs playing in the same event and (possibly) coming in a similar position would do. They may not know your individual style very well, if at all. And quite often there may have been some table 'action' from the opponents which you think tipped you off. Perhaps the AC are wrong - when discussing table action it's often the case that you really have to be there - but the way the appeals process works means that it is normal for ACs not to know the appellants well, as we try and get people who will give objective rulings.
I want to make one other, slightly tangential, point.TD John Probst sometimes uses the concept of the "Probst Cheat" to explain rulings: as a very general rule, if a pair take actions that a cheat would take, and they gain from them, then for the Laws to work at all they must get ruled against. This is not a suggestion that the pair in question really were unethical, but rather that the ruling has to be this way or else cheats would prosper. Is it fair that the innocent may get ruled against in order to ensure the guilty don't gain? Maybe not, but one way to avoid that is, if possible, to avoid giving partner these difficult problems in the first place. Don't think for ages then pass when partner might have a problem himself, and don't forget the system (easier said than done, of course) - then partner won't be under any constraints.
