[blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Nigel]

[Richard Hills]
> It is true the AC did not infract Law 93B3 by
> reversing the TD on a point of Law.  But the AC
> infracted Law 93B1 by its creation of a new
> interpretation of Law, a prerogative restricted to
> the Chief Director or ACBL Laws Commission or WBF
> Laws Committee.

[nige1]
In this instance, the committee may or may not have re-interpreted a 
law. But they do seem to have the right to do so, if they feel like 
it. There is the notorious precedent of an appeals committee inventing 
a horrendous new law at a World Championship...

[WBFLC 2000]
The Laws Committee not having so far changed Law 12C3, the Appeals
Committee at the World Championships in Bermuda, January 2000, issued
the following directive to the Chief Tournament Director: "As part of
its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires the
Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals
process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the
provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of
the terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an
adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve
equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the
Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling,
but the fact that a judgmental ruling by the Director is made with
these enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and
expert opinion, means that appeals committees will require strong
evidence that puts it beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be
varied." The WBF Laws Committee will return to the question of Law
12C3 at a future time. In the meantime it has stated that it finds it
acceptable if other regulating authorities adopt this method of
achieving the intention of the Code of Practice.