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

[Ed Reppert]

On Sep 24, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Steve Willner wrote:

> 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.

And deciding to do something is not the same as having the authority  
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.

Seems to me that an AC that starts with the premise that TDs are  
incompetent is treading very dangerous ground.

>> 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.)

I do not believe that which law to apply is the only point of law  
contemplated by that particular provision of Law 93.

> 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?

I know you're not saying that an AC can say that something a TD has  
determined to be fact is in fact *not* fact. I will grant that if an  
AC uncovers facts that were not in evidence when the TD made his  
ruling, those facts may change the ruling.

I would think that the proper procedure for the AC is to send the  
case back to the CTD, pointing out the error(s) or new facts, and let  
the CTD or the table TD rule under 82C.

>> *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.

Why qualify "judgement"? Why is "bridge judgement" necessary?

> 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.

Um. This bothers me, but I'm not sure I can pinpoint why at the  
moment. I'll have to think about it.

>> 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.

Well, if the committee sustains the original ruling, have *they*  
given a ruling? Besides, if this were true, the National Authority's  
policy of refusing to hear certain cases (in the ACBL at least) would  
seem to be illegal at best, and at worst a slap in the face to anyone  
who submits such a case. In particular, I have been told that the  
ACBLLC would refuse to hear *any* case originating in a club game,  
regardless of its merits. And I still think that sending a case back  
to the CTD is within the purview of, and should in some cases at  
least be considered by, an AC.