Determining facts

[Poky]

Screens in use. Suppose a case of a potential bid out of tempo (slow double).

After the Director is called he collects the facts and goes away.

After some time he returns and rules "result stands" because "pass of the penalty double isn't a LA".

After the match, the players from the innocent side contact their team captain wanting to know if it is a case for the AC.

This captain goes to the director and asks 2 questions:

- Did you establish as a matter of fact that the double was for penalty. - Yes.

- Did you establish as a matter of fact the hesitation. - Yes.

- OK, if so, we want to go to the AC. - OK.

 

Coming to the AC the first two things that director said were:

a. I ruled that result stands because leaving the double in wasn't a logical alternative.

b. Besides that, it isn't really sure that the hesitation happened.

 

Three questions:

1. What do you thing about director's statements?

2. How appropriate is for the AC to determine facts (about the hesitation) on its own, in situation where the director did that earlier?

3. What is the proper conduct of this AC towards the director?

 

Thank you.

[Trinidad]

1. Lousy

2. I think that in this case, it is entirely appropriate for the AC to try and establish the facts.

3. That is up to the AC.

 

Usually, in an AC, the TD introduces the case, then the appealing side can comment and finally the other side. Each will get the opportunity to reply to the comments from others.

 

If that procedure is followed, then the first thing that I would tell as an appealing captain, is what you asked the TD (and why that is relevant for your decision to appeal) and what his answers were at the time.

 

After that, I would continue to make my case and would leave it entirely up to the AC what to decide. I would accept any AC decision (including AWMs, etc.) with grace.

 

If the AC did not do anything about the TD, I would take a walk outside to calm down. After that I would walk over to the tournament organizers to report in an objective way what happened. And with that, my job is finished.

 

Rik

[peachy]

As to the conversation between the captain and the TD, either this TD or the appeals advisor or the Chief TD could have explained the ruling to make sure the team still wants to appeal. I wouldn't.

 

The conflicting information about facts could be due to misunderstanding by the captain, but if it indeed was conflicting presentations by the TD, then it is the AC responsibility to establish the facts because without establishing facts that will affect the ruling, one is poorly equipped to review a ruling or make a new one, if that were the case. However, whether the BIT is established or not established, does not affect the ruling IN THIS CASE. Passing a Penalty Dbl is the only LA, while pulling a slow Penalty Double would be using the UI (if there was any). IMO. Result stands. Meritless appeal.

[aguahombre]

As to the conversation between the captain and the TD, either this TD or the appeals advisor or the Chief TD could have explained the ruling to make sure the team still wants to appeal.  I wouldn't. 

 

The conflicting information about facts could be due to misunderstanding by the captain, but if it indeed was conflicting presentations by the TD, then it is the AC responsibility to establish the facts because without establishing facts that will affect the ruling, one is poorly equipped to review a ruling or make a new one, if that were the case.  However, whether the BIT is established or not established, does not affect the ruling IN THIS CASE.  Passing a Penalty Dbl is the only LA, while pulling a slow Penalty Double would be using the UI (if there was any). IMO.  Result stands. Meritless appeal.

?? peachy smoking his sox

[woefuwabit]

Screens in use.

 

b. Besides that, it isn't really sure that the hesitation happened.

This is true, no? When screens are in use, we can't tell which of the two players across the screen tanked

[bluejak]

A TD should make a decision, state it, defend it if necessary, and only change it in special circumstances. If he changes it, he should say that he has changed it and why he has changed it.

 

Of course, where a TD is not sure whether there was a BIT but feels there were no LAs to the chosen action it is quite reasonable for him to say so and not decide whether there was a BIT. But he should explain this to the AC.

[Vampyr]

If the AC did not do anything about the TD, I would take a walk outside to calm down. After that I would walk over to the tournament organizers to report in an objective way what happened. And with that, my job is finished.

What can the AC do about the director? The committee members are volunteers with no power other than to resolve the appeal.

 

I would certainly have a word with the organisers, though, and the CTD.

 

Of course, where a TD is not sure whether there was a BIT but feels there were no LAs to the chosen action it is quite reasonable for him to say so and not decide whether there was a BIT. But he should explain this to the AC.

 

I disagree. The BIT was one of the facts the TD was asked to establish when he came to the table.

[peachy]

?? peachy smoking his sox

Heh, I guess... ignore most of it, please. I misread the OP.

 

To state my opinion again. Passing a penalty double is a LA. Much of the time, it is the only logical alternative. Reasons for pulling might be that the doubler's partner didn't have the hand he had promised in the auction and/or he can determine that doubler cannot have the setting trick(s). If I were the TD, I would like to see the auction and the cards before I would make a ruling. Surely the TD did get that information and judged accordingly that this time, in his opinion (or did he poll? -that was not mentioned), passing was not a LA.

[Trinidad]

If the AC did not do anything about the TD, I would take a walk outside to calm down. After that I would walk over to the tournament organizers to report in an objective way what happened. And with that, my job is finished.

What can the AC do about the director? The committee members are volunteers with no power other than to resolve the appeal.

Who needs power? Power is overrated. It is influence that matters.

 

The AC can do a lot of things, but no, they can't fire the TD.

The AC could just tell the TD that in their opinion, this was a "stylistic error" on the part of the TD. They can even publish their decision and mention this error in the publication. (I don't say they should, but they could.) And they can even tell the TD that they might publish errors the next time this occurs.

The AC can also decide to mention this to the DIC or the tournament organizers.

The AC can ... (fill in for yourself)

 

Also people whose name is not Barack Obama have the means to bring about change.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

Of course, where a TD is not sure whether there was a BIT but feels there were no LAs to the chosen action it is quite reasonable for him to say so and not decide whether there was a BIT. But he should explain this to the AC.

I disagree. The BIT was one of the facts the TD was asked to establish when he came to the table.

Actually, it is the TD's job to decide how to do his job, not the players. Players bring things to his attention, on which he makes a ruling. I agree, players do tell the TD what to do, but that is rude, and therefore illegal.

[mjj29]

I disagree. The BIT was one of the facts the TD was asked to establish when he came to the table.

Actually, it is the TD's job to decide how to do his job, not the players. Players bring things to his attention, on which he makes a ruling.

However, I believe L85 requires the director to try and establish the relevant facts where they are in dispute, which in this case certainly includes the BIT

[bluejak]

Try, yes, but Law 85B tells him what to do when he has not determined them. It is perfectly normal to let play continue: it is a big waste of time, for example, to consider, consult, worry, and then not be recalled.

 

The difference between what I am suggesting and the comments in the OP, is that I keep the players informed. But I do not believe I have to decide if I do not need to.

[Trinidad]

When I read the OP, I don't see that any of the players told the TD how to do his job.

 

A ruling was given and accepted by the players. The captain asked if the TD had established that there had been a BIT. And the TD answered yes. He could have answered "I didn't find it relevant, since Pass is not an LA anyway.", but he answered "Yes".

 

Based on this information the captain decided to appeal. He actually tells the TD that the "yes" answer is a condition in his decision to appeal. (If the answer would have been "no", there wouldn't have been an appeal, because it would be without merit.) Now, the AC meets and the TD starts by saying that he wasn't sure whether there was a BIT. The merit of the appeal is flying out of the window, together with the deposit.

 

I can buy that the TD changed his mind, misspoke or whatever. Then he should say so in the AC. Then the AC can rule the merit of the appeal based on the information that the captain had when he decided to appeal.

 

But if the TD didn't change his mind or misspoke, then the TD is (or was) simply lying. I think that a captain can go to the tournament organizer and point out in a polite way that lying to a captain (or an AC) is not part of a TD's job description. If I was the tournament organizer and heard this story and it turns out to be true, I would want an explanation from the TD.

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

A question to the OP. Are you sure that the same question was asked of the TD in each case? For example if asked "Did you establish that there was a hesitation?" the TD might answer yes. But when subsequently asked "Did you establish that the Doubler hesitated?", a no answer is perfectly compatible. I would like to hear the TD's side of the story before pointing any fingers.