[blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs

[Tim West-Meads]

Sven wrote:
> 
> An AC can not overrule the Director on a matter of Law or regulation
> (L94B3); the duty of an AC is to try the Director's judgments. 
> Consequently it is more important for members of the AC to be
> competent bridge players than to be competent "bridge lawyers".

ACs can, and do, overrule TDs on points of law (whether they should is a 
different matter).  ACs may discover new information which brings a 
matter of law on which a TD has not ruled into play.  OTOH the ruling 
they are reviewing (if it is a judgement one) should be only to a degree 
the "TD's Judgement" since the TD should have consulted people of 
relevant playing ability before making such a ruling.
It simply isn't an issue of "more important".  The competence of an AC 
is a function of both its legal knowledge and its bridge knowledge - we 
should simply recognise that individuals with the requisite amount of 
both types of knowledge are only slightly more common than hen's teeth 
and that ACs should be blended appropriately.

BTW, my understanding of ACs in the US is that they do not "review the 
director's ruling" but rather "review the case and give a ruling" - 
making the requisite technical knowledge even more vital.

Tim