[blml] Chicago regional case 11: Director's error

[Steve Willner]

>>The AC can exercise (almost) all powers the Director can (L93B3).

From: Ed Reppert <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>
> That is true, and is probably the basis of the ACBL's idea that the  
> AC ought to toss out the TD ruling and start from scratch.

I suspect the historical origin was one of personality rather than 
specific text in the Laws.  Either approach is consistent with the Laws 
as they stand.  Having authority to do something is not the same as 
deciding to do it.

> The first question before an AC is "was the  
> TD's ruling correct?'

This is a good approach if TDs are competent.

> but the AC *cannot* overrule the TD on a point of law. 

They can, however, recommend the TD change his ruling.  In practice, in 
relatively few cases is there doubt about the appropriate law to apply. 
(We on BLML see a high proportion of such cases.)

> That being the case, throwing out the TD ruling is not a  
> power of the AC, and neither is deciding there was TD error and  
> applying Law 82C, which is in effect overruling the TD on a point of  
> law.

I don't know how you extrapolate to this.  Most TD rulings are of fact 
or bridge judgment.  The AC can override those.  Sometimes the original 
ruling has prevented the board from being played normally.  If that 
happens, what else can the AC do besides apply L82C?

Only rare TD errors will be on a point of law.  (Alas probably more 
common in the ACBL than elsewhere.)

>>Later the AC overturns this judgment, ruling that the remark was  
>>not a claim after all.

> *Is* this judgement, in the sense of the laws?

What else can it be?  The Laws give standards for what constitutes a 
claim.  Ruling whether a specific remark does or does not meet those 
standards is a matter of bridge judgment.

More familiarly, the definition of "logical alternative" is a matter of 
law (actually regulation, but still solely within the TDs powers). 
Whether a given action is or is not a LA is bridge judgment.  Of course 
even if the TD rules wrong in a UI case, it typically won't lead to L82C 
because the deal has been played normally.  (It isn't hard to construct 
examples where L82C would be required, though.)

> Or is the  
> determination whether a claim was made a point of law? Seems to me  
> the latter.

I can't see why.  It depends on what the putative claimer said (fact) 
and whether that statement meets certain standards (bridge judgment). 
The standards themselves are a matter of law.

> Even if it is, should the *committee* apply 82C, or send the case  
> back to the TDs and let them do it? In practice I don't suppose it  
> matters much, but I still think it's wrong.

Why?  Once a case reaches an AC, they are obliged to give a ruling.