Revoke at Appeal

[bluejak]

When a TD goes to a table he establishes certain facts to his own satisfaction. He may be certain what happened, very sure, fairly sure, or it is his best guess. Having done so he applies the relevant Law. If it is a book ruling, he applies the law, preferably by reading it out of the book. If it is a judgement ruling, he will consult and consider, reach a conclusion, and apply the law based on his judgement.

 

How much of this is appealable?

 

Anything that is not a matter of Law, ie anything where his judgement is involved.

 

So you can appeal his view of the facts and his judgement of what happened. You can appeal his judgement in a judgement ruling, so appeal what his actual ruling is. You can not appeal [to an AC anyway] what the Law is or how it is applied.

 

Now, if I have understood some articles correctly, some people think that if his judgement is certain, it is a matter of Law not judgment. That is not correct: if a TD is certain it does not mean other people would come to the same conclusion. Nor does his certainty change it from a view of the facts to a matter of Law: it is still a view of the facts.

 

Some have asked: if a TD is certain that a revoke occurred it must be a matter of Law because he is certain. What if he is wrong? And if he is not wrong, why does it matter: the AC is not going to over-rule him, is it?

 

One strange question was - if I have understood it correctly - that if a TD's decision is correct, how can we allow the AC to over-rule him? Well, they won't, will they?

 

Ok, ACs are not perfect, but nor are TDs. If the system works perfectly, we shall not get a wrong decision by an AC over-ruling a TD because they won't.

[blackshoe]

You can not appeal [to an AC anyway] what the Law is or how it is applied.

You can appeal this. The AC cannot change the ruling. Not the same thing as "you can't appeal".

 

Under the 1997 laws, an appeal on a question of law could be made to the "National Authority". Review of the case by an appeals committee was a pre-requisite, even though the AC, as now, could do nothing other than recommend the TD change his ruling. Under the current laws, Whether an appeal on a matter of law can be made to the Regulating Authority is up to the RA. The ACBL elections on this subject are:

 

8. Law 93C1: A further appeal to the Regulating Authority (ACBL) may be allowed only as follows:

a. On a point of law to and at the discretion of the ACBL Laws Commission.

b. On an allegation of bias of a committee member or members to and at the discretion of the ACBL Appeals and Charges Committee. The appellant is required to present evidence that the bias was not known at the time of the hearing.

c. The appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the decision of the Bridge Appeals Committee that heard the issue.

9. Law 93C3(a): Except as noted in 7 above, the responsibility of dealing finally with any appeal of a Director’s decision is that of the tournament’s bridge appeals committee.

I believe "7" in item 9 above is a typo: it should be "8". In effect item 8 says "we'll hear an appeal on a point of law if we feel like it". My understanding is that the LC will almost certainly not "feel like it" if the appeal comes from any event below NABC+ level. Also, it seems to me that if an appeal is to go to the RA, they are likely going to require that it has been heard by the Tournament AC already.

 

I suppose other RAs (the EBU for example) may have set up different procedures, but afaik, none have officially said "you can't appeal a point of law". Not yet, anyway.

[barmar]

You can appeal this. The AC cannot change the ruling. Not the same thing as "you can't appeal".

Right. While the AC can't overrule the TD in these cases, they can recommend that the TD change his ruling. And such a recommendation should carry more weight with the TD than requests from the appellants, who are obviously biased. I'd expect it to be very rare for TDs to ignore AC recommendations -- he'd better be able to defend his decision very well to club or league management.

[blackshoe]

Returning to the question in the OP ("Has the appeals committee any powers to over-rule the TD or are they only able to recommend to the TD that he changes such a ruling?") in the case presented in that post, I have come to understand that the AC has the power to over-rule the TD on matters of judgement, and that whether a revoke occurred is a matter of judgement, as is the determination of the score to which to adjust. If however the AC agrees that the revoke occurred, they cannot rule that the TD may not adjust the score, although they can overturn the actual adjustment and substitute a different one (in theory including, I suppose, "no adjustment" based on a judgement that there was no damage).

[aguahombre]

If we are back to the question in the OP, then I am not convinced that there is an appeal or an AC with any powers at all.

 

The calling for an AC was by the NOS to challenge the original ruling of no revoke. The TD has ruled that there was a revoke.

[blackshoe]

And the AC was presented with that as the final ruling. I suppose the AC might ask the appellants now if they wish to withdraw their appeal, but if they do not, the appeal should imo be heard. Also, I think the OS has the right to appeal still, if the NOS withdraw theirs.