Tangerine Book

The Tangerine Book is now available for download from this website, at http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/articles/tangerine/default.htm. It was written in response to criticism that the current Orange Book, although comprehensive, was too long and too complex for most players. It is intended to be a simple guide mainly to EBU regulations covering bidding agreements - what you are allowed to play, and how you explain to other people what you play.

There's supposed to be nothing new in it by way of what's actually allowed (that's under ongoing discussion by the L&E) rather it is aimed at those people who are reasonably interested in understanding the current rules, but don't want to work through a huge amount of detail. If the TB disagrees with the OB, the OB wins - but they shouldn't do unless the proof-readers have missed a trick somewhere (always possible).

If you can't see the point of it, then please don't tell us. As long as a reasonable number of people find it useful, then it is worth having. Just as not everyone is interested in reading articles on complicated squeezes, there's no reason everything we publish has to be appreciated by everybody.

Together with the TB is an Appendix, which is aimed squarely at people who like to write their own systems, or play unusual (to the UK) methods. It tries to summarise in a set of tables exactly what is permitted at each of Levels 2, 3 and 4. Again, you may not be interested it - but I wish it had been available when I first started writing system!

Why did I lose my appeal?

I see a number of rulings after hesitations or system forgets after which the pair adjusted against feel aggrieved and upset. Some of the most passionate letters to the L&E are on this subject.

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:

1. 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)?
2. If so, what action(s), if any, does that information suggest?
3. Are there logical alternatives to that action (bearing in mind all the authorised information available)?
4. 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.

Welcome to the L&E Blog

Welcome to the first post for the Laws & Ethics Committee blog.

Details of what the L&E does, and the publications can be found on the relevant part of the EBU website - use the links to the right. The official minutes from L&E meetings are also published here, along with minutes from all the other EBU bodies. The minutes can take a while to be agreed, so I shall update the blog after each meeting with anything that seems of general interest.

We try to be responsive to the EBU members, if you want to ask any member of the L&E something, there are lots of ways to get in touch:

• Jeremy Dhondy (jeremy2), David Stevenson (bluejak), David Burn (woubit), Mike Amos (mikeamostd) & Frances Hinden (frances) post regularly on the International Bridge Laws Forum, http://forums.bridgetalk.com and are happy to answer questions on the laws or on any rulings in public or private
• the secretary, John Pain, can be contacted by letter, telephone or email at the EBU. He is extremely helpful himself, and can also pass on messages to anyone you want to get in contact with.

For the time being, I thought I'd explain a couple of things that I sometimes get asked, which seem to be common misunderstandings.

Club System and Alerting Regulations

Individual bridge clubs can decide on any regulations they like for what methods can be played, and/or what alerting and announcing regulations to follow. In practice, most clubs tend to use one of the 'Levels' (2, 3 or 4) defined in the Orange Book, and also use the EBU alerting & announcing regs. However, there's no compulsion to do so - certainly there are a few clubs around who write their own regulations. Two examples I am aware of are a club that plays Level 3 but does not allow the Multi, and a club teams league that allows people to play whatever they like, including highly unusual methods such as forcing pass.

We do think it's a good idea to follow the EBU alerting rules, because otherwise it becomes very difficult both for visitors to the club to know what to expect, or for any club members to play elsewhere without getting confused or causing problems for others. Even if you don't like the rules, I promise that life would become much more difficult if you had to follow different rules depending on where you play!

Disciplinary Actions

When it comes to disciplinary cases, the L&E acts somewhat like the crown prosecution service - we decide whether to go ahead with a case, and we will present the case. However, it is the disciplinary panel who decide if the case is proven or not, and who decide on the appropriate punishment. The panel is drawn from a group of volunteers, who have received some special training.