A defensive claim

[gnasher]

It may or may not be appropriate to post details of a pending ruling or appeal on the internet, but it's certainly unwise. It may cause a suitable referee or committee member to recuse himself, so that your ruling is heard by somebody who is less well qualified.

[lamford]

It may or may not be appropriate to post details of a pending ruling or appeal on the internet, but it's certainly unwise. It may cause a suitable referee or committee member to recuse himself, so that your ruling is heard by somebody who is less well qualified.

A good point. I could have waited until the referee's decision. Does that not equally apply to posts where people have reported an original decision and asked people whether they think they should appeal?

[campboy]

I don't know whether there is any rule against posting sub judice rulings, but if you do so could you please make it very clear in the opening post that you have? Quite a few regular posters here are not permitted to comment on such cases.

[aguahombre]

I don't believe seeing opinions about which Laws apply would necessitate recusal. I don't think seeing these fora would create a conflict of interest which wasn't already there. Is there inadmissible evidence where we should dumb down the "jury"?

 

Certainly a comment on these fora by a committee member prior to the decision would be grounds for recusal, but these people know who they are and wouldn't be doing that.

[lamford]

I don't know whether there is any rule against posting sub judice rulings, but if you do so could you please make it very clear in the opening post that you have? Quite a few regular posters here are not permitted to comment on such cases.

"East-West have appealed", hidden away in the OP, was the clue that might have guided you and readers to the fact that the appeal (or referee decision) was still pending. I would have used "East-West appealed and won/lost" or "East-West intend to appeal" if the situation had been different.

[lamford]

It may cause a suitable referee or committee member to recuse himself, so that your ruling is heard by somebody who is less well qualified.

Vampyr and I would be quite happy having someone who scraped through the Club Director course handle it.

[jallerton]

My view was that the questions were not relevant. There was a defensive claim. Best play for declarer (which has to be a normal line) takes more tricks than the claimant conceded. End of the matter. It is cloud-cuckoo-land when someone of the Chief TD's or jallerton's ability is even contemplating asking further questions let alone asking them. And that must be my last word on the matter. Someone else can answer jallerton's questions if they choose.

 

I don't know who the Chief TD was, but I'm sure that he or she has a lot more experience that either you or I have at adjudicating claims ruling. So if, as you seem to imply, I've been replicating the Chief TD's actions in asking questions, then it's good to know that I'm in good company. As far as I can see the statement you have put in bold does not appear in the Laws; if it did then the ruling would indeed be clear cut!

 

A better approach is to admit that we do not know everything, read what the Laws actually say and if they do not lead to a firm conclusion, to seek technical guidance from publications and/or experts with experience in this type of situation.

[gordontd]

An AC should have been convened on site at the time, and it was I that suggested that we would refer the decision to a referee, to assist the organisers, and because I thought it was trivial.

The question was whether there should be a committee (which a referee is) at all, or whether under Law 93B the matter should have been heard by the Chief TD.

 

I don't know if we will now be allowed to appeal the decision of the referee (or if the other side will be able to). You can advise us on that, but I believe that the time limit will be 12 hours from the time of the referee's decision, at least it was for a match played privately.

Save for the unlikely case of an appeal to the national authority, a decision by a referee has the same status as that by an appeals committee and is the end of the appeals process. There is no regulation that there be a further time limit of 12 hours, but perhaps on one occasion you were given such a time limit after a ruling was made, possibly to allow time for all parties to be told of the ruling.

[lamford]

The question was whether there should be a committee (which a referee is) at all, or whether under Law 93B the matter should have been heard by the Chief TD.

I think this question is answered by 93B1: The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the committee. So, there is always a right of appeal. For what it is worth, I do not think a contested claim is solely a point of Law.

[lamford]

There is no regulation that there be a further time limit of 12 hours

You are correct. On the previous occasion, the ruling by the telephone referee in a match played privately was "a ruling of the first instance" and the time limit on appealing that was 12 hours. I don't know if that is for the Crockfords Cup only, or for all EBU knockout events and I could not find the current rules on the EBU site.

[RMB1]

You are correct. On the previous occasion, the ruling by the telephone referee in a match played privately was "a ruling of the first instance" and the time limit on appealing that was 12 hours. I don't know if that is for the Crockfords Cup only, or for all EBU knockout events and I could not find the current rules on the EBU site.

 

There was/is an issue that there was nothing in law/regulation that changed the 20-minute time limit for an appeal to be lodged in the case of rulings given after an event, even if the ruling was given to players who had left the venue. The practical approach is that those giving a ruling of first instance should state a time limit for an appeal to be lodged as part of the ruling: "twelve hours" or "noon tomorrow" are possible time limits.

 

[i haven't read most of this topic. If I had, no doubt I would have opinions.]

[gnasher]

I think this question is answered by 93B1: The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the committee. So, there is always a right of appeal.

But not necessarily a useful right, because "the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations" [93B3].

 

[RMB1]

But not necessarily a useful right, because "the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations" [93B3].

 

In practice, the final parenthetical sentence of Law 93B3 "(The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)" is enough.

[lamford]

In practice, the final parenthetical sentence of Law 93B3 "(The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)" is enough.

And, for what it is worth, I do not consider the ruling on a contested claim to be a ruling "on a point of Law or regulations". If it is so considered, then just about every other ruling would be.

[gordontd]

And, for what it is worth, I do not consider the ruling on a contested claim to be a ruling "on a point of Law or regulations". If it is so considered, then just about every other ruling would be.

No, I wouldn't normally consider it so either, but I think we've all been led astray by you saying "The basis of the appeal is that the TD was wrong in Law."

[lamford]

No, I wouldn't normally consider it so either, but I think we've all been led astray by you saying "The basis of the appeal is that the TD was wrong in Law."

That means that it is not the judgement of the TD that is being questioned, but that he has not ruled correctly according to the Law, or has misinterpreted it. I don't think "wrong in Law" means that he has applied the wrong Law, but just that he has misapplied the Law.

 

For example, this particular Chief TD stated that failure to alert an artificial 2NT rebid in a previous appeal of which you may be aware was "not misinformation", and our side replied:

 

East-West also consider the TD's ruling that the failure to alert did not constitute misinformation is wrong in Law. Law 21B1(a) specifically states: "Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation."

 

And you should have been able to tell from the heading and the second diagram that it was a contested claim, when you need not have been led astray. And what makes you think "all have been led astray"? The majority seems fully aware that it was a contested claim which was not a "point of law or regulation". Finally, you seem to be posting more often than normal on a thread about which you questioned "whether should have waited until the matter was no longer sub judice before posting it here".

[jallerton]

The text of our appeal:

 

East-West are appealing against the decision to award two tricks to North. The basis of the appeal is that the TD was wrong in Law. It is true that the TD should rule as equitably as possible under Law 70, resolving doubtful points against the claimer. The TD made a value judgement that the declarer was not likely to find the throw-in. This is not the test.....

 

So originally you're saying that the appeal is based on a matter of Law and that the value judgement made is not relevant.

 

 

 

And, for what it is worth, I do not consider the ruling on a contested claim to be a ruling "on a point of Law or regulations". If it is so considered, then just about every other ruling would be.

 

Now you're saying it's a judgement matter.

 

 

 

That means that it is not the judgement of the TD that is being questioned, but that he has not ruled correctly according to the Law, or has misinterpreted it. I don't think "wrong in Law" means that he has applied the wrong Law, but just that he has misapplied the Law.

 

And now you're challenging the TD's interpretation of Law. That's an appeal on a matter of, er, ...Law.

 

 

Make your mind up!

[blackshoe]

The 1997 law 93C said "After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may be taken to the national authority." I've always felt this established the right of players to take their case, after appealing locally, to the national authority as a sort of "Supreme Court".* The NA would be able to say, for example, that the TD misinterpreted the law, and either overthrow the ruling and substitute their own, or send the case back to the TD for another look. Whether that's a useful procedure in a game is, I suppose, debatable.

 

The 2007 Law 93C is much longer, and among other things considerably waters down the right of appellants to take their case to the national authority. I'm sure this suits the convenience of the various LCs. I'm not so sure it suits the concept of fairness in the appeals process. Nonetheless it's what we have now.

 

* A prerequisite for appealing to the NA is of course that some appeals process have been in place locally.

[gordontd]

Finally, you seem to be posting more often than normal on a thread about which you questioned "whether should have waited until the matter was no longer sub judice before posting it here".

I think you'll find I haven't commented on the case itself at all, merely brought up matters of procedure, but I'll make this my final post on this topic, and I think you'll find I do a better job of sticking to that than you did when you said the same thing upthread some days ago :)

[lamford]

And now you're challenging the TD's interpretation of Law. That's an appeal on a matter of, er, ...Law.

Make your mind up!

I spoke last night to Professor David Schiff, Head of Law at Queen Mary College, and a parliamentary adviser, and he confirmed that "wrong in Law" approximately means "wrong according to the Law", with the difference being that "wrong in Law" implies that the facts are correct, but the application of the Law is incorrect. I was pleased to use the phrase correctly in the last two rulings of this Chief TD involving me, whether or not the appeal succeeds, especially as English is not my first language. I shall now heed gordontd's advice to keep to my promise not to post on this thread any more, and I regret my earlier post: "And, although I stated that I would not reply any more on this post, I think it would be rude of me not to do so to the EBU Chief TD on this new issue."

 

I think it would be better for posters who wish to continue the discussion without me to concentrate on the ruling in the case, rather than semantic issues as to whether "wrong in Law" is the same as "wrong on a point of Law or regulations". This forum is getting more like the rather sad BLML. And I now have other non-bridge projects, so am unlikely to post on this forum again for a while. I use the word "unlikely" in case the situation changes.

[blackshoe]

This forum is getting more like the rather sad BLML.

Yes. And I now ask, politely, that people refrain from moving in that direction any more. I don't want to stifle legitimate discussion about practical rulings, but these forums are not intended for philosophical discussions.

[par31]

What was the outcome of the appeal?

[gordontd]

Lamford & Vampyr won their appeal.