[blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal?

[David Grabiner]

> [nige1]
> [D] The ruling involves substantial subjective judgement.
> [E] The case is difficult and complex.
> [F] The ruling is close (e.g. whether a call is a logical alternative).
>
> {David Grabiner]
> The standard for these three rules should be whether the players, given their
> own level of experience, should have known how the ruling would go.  If there
> has been a screener, the screener can advise less experienced players that 
> they
> have no case.
>
> [nige2]
> I agree with David, assuming that he is saying that we judge the appeal's 
> merit by the typical player's standards -- unless the appellants could > have 
> consulted an experienced appeals adviser but elected not do so.

I would judge the appeal's merit by the appellant's standards.  A Flight B 
player (not necessarily measured by masterpoints) who has not had the 
opportunity to speak to a screener should very rarely be penalized for an appeal 
without merit.  If a Flight B player says, "I was always going to make that 
bid", and it is clear that there is a non-suggested LA but the bid would be 
resonable absent any UI, the AC should rule against him (because that is what 
the Law says) but not impose a penalty for an appeal without merit (because he 
was following what most Flight B players believe the Law says, ignoring the UI). 
An expert in the same situation should know better than to appeal.

And I would apply these different standards even if the Flight B player and the 
expert are playing in the same event.