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

[Steve Willner]

> From: Ed Reppert <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>
> Seems to me that an AC that starts with the premise that TDs are  
> incompetent is treading very dangerous ground.

Seems to me ACs have to take the directing as they find it.  You know as 
well as I do what that means here in the ACBL.  (As it happens, the two 
clubs I play at have _far_ better directing than the ACBL tournaments I 
attend.  There _are_ competent directors around here; we just don't get 
them at the tournaments.  Don't ask me why not.)

> 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 am saying they have that authority.  L93B3 agrees.  _Exercising_ that 
authority will typically be unwise, of course.

> 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.

That's one possible reason for overruling the TD.

> 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.

I don't see why.  This seems cumbersome and unnecessary as a practical 
matter, and there's no legal need to do it that way.

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

Probably it isn't really, but it emphasizes that bridge skill -- as 
opposed to ordinary reasoning and general human knowledge -- is an 
important aspect of the judgment.

> Well, if the committee sustains the original ruling, have *they*  
> given a ruling? 

Seems to me they have.