[blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs

[Eric Landau]

At 08:19 AM 7/5/06, twm wrote:

>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.

The current policy for NABC+ appeals requires that a TD be present or 
"readily available" to advise the AC on points of law or regulation; 
this is the existing mechanism for insuring that committees have "the 
requisite technical knowledge".  The actual "business" of the voting 
members of the committee is supposed to be to determine the answers to 
questions as to either (a) what really happened (fact), or (b) what 
would (might) have happened if... (bridge judgment).


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607