Join Bridge Winners
Truth is a bitter medicine, Sabine

Today I've read the Sabine Zenkel-Auken-Welland's answer to the president's of the Monaco Bridge Federation - Jean-Charles Allavena - interview, concerning the controversial Appeal Commitee decision that overturned Director's decision from the Monaco vs. Auken match and put the losing Auken team into the Vanderbilt 2013 quarter-finals, which allowed them to play further and finally win this prestigious tournament.

If interested, you can find the whole interview (in fact, both of them) on the NeapolitanClub website (TY Laura for pointing that out).

Here's what she said:


"ACBL rules do not permit split scores, so the AC did not have that option at hand. In my opinion it is futile to ask what is normal."

This is untrue!

ACBL laws (Elections by The ACBL Board of Directors, election #1) say:
"The provisions of Law 12.C.1(e) apply for ACBL sanctioned events, while the provisions of Law 12.C.1(c) shall not apply for ACBL sanctioned events."

You can check it here:, page 136

The prohibited Law 12.C.1(c) is the law referring to the WEIGHTED scores (when both lines get the same score):
"In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results."

The Law referring to the SPLIT scores (where the NS/EW lines may get a different score) is the Law 12.C.1(e), which, as we can clearly see above, APPLIES for ACBL sanctioned events:
"In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of (c):
(i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.
(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable."


"Nobody ever claimed we were prevented from beating the contract. That is not the point. The point is that my partner with the (mis)information given did not consider a defence he otherwise might (note that "might" is enough according to the laws) have considered."

This is untrue!

"Might" isn't enough. There's no "might" word into the Law 12.

"Would have been the expectation" is enough, as per Law 12.B.1. See below.

"Was likely" is enough, as per Law 12.C.1(e)(i). See above.

Law 12.B.1
"The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b)."


In your opinion, what is the main reason why this beautiful world-class player is not telling the truth?

What this nice lady says is truth, you are the one who is uninformed and/or malicious
She doesn't know the rules (as many don't)
She's lying
She's deluding herself

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top