[blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Nigel]

[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.

[tim West Meads]
I really don't know why you bang on about this Nigel.  The legal 
impact on rulings of the WBF AC making those arrangements was 
absolutely zilch. Since the introduction of L12c3 any TD has been able 
to recommend a L12c3 ruling to an AC of his own volition.  If the TD 
says to the players "I will be recommending a score of X" and both 
pairs agree then actually convening the AC is just a waste of time. If 
either of the pairs disagrees a L12c2 ruling (and mooted L12c3 
recommendation) go to an AC in the normal way. All the AC did was 
tinker with the admin procedures to make everybody's (including the 
players) lives easier.  It didn't change the laws.


{grattan Endicott]
+=+ Law 80G does not specify what the arrangements for appeals
are to be.  The only requirement in law is that they be 'suitable'.
The fact that an individual does not like a particular law is not a 
sound basis for denying its application as written.
+=+

{nigel]

L12C3 may be a player's nightmare but it is a director's wet dream, so 
BLMLers leap to its defence.

IMO, the committee did not simply "reinterpret an old law". They 
invented a completely new one.

[A] L12C3 only empowered *committees* to adjust scores to  "achieve 
equity". Unfortunately, committees seem to have interpreted this as an 
instruction to reduce both the deterrent for law-breaking and the 
redress for damage. A bit of a stretch and a great pity; but "equity" 
is such a vague term that you can hardly blame committees for taking 
the most hassle-free interpretation. Grattan is right: a law may seem 
daft to players but that does not excuse us from complying with it.
And, anyway this is irrelevant to the current discussion.

[B] At the world championships, an appeals committee empowered itself 
to write a new law allowing the *chief tournament director* to award 
weighted scores.

[C] The new law *required* the chief director to comply. Seemingly, 
had he been unwilling, then he would have had to undergo compulsory 
brainwashing. Weird! Luckily, a typical director would need no persuasion.

[D] For previous laws, the criterion for most rulings is "balance of 
probability". Under their new law, the committee backed the judgement 
of the chief director to the extent that they promised not alter his 
rulings unless the appellants could prove their case "beyond 
reasonable doubt". This is a far stricter criterion and means that 
rulings under their new law are practically unappealable.

IMO Tim deludes himself into thinking that the new law has no legal 
impact. He believes that the fall in appeals is because players are 
"grateful for easier lives" and "happy with the rulings". Admittedly, 
to some extent, Tim is right...
(1) *directors and law-breakers have easier lives* and
(2) *directors and law-breakers are happy with the rulings* but
(3) *law-abiding players are often denied adequate redress* and now
(4) *victims of infractions cannot even resort to a fair appeal*

Thus the new law that the appeal committee invented has wider 
application and more teeth than any previous law. Its main effect is 
to reward law-breakers and reduce appeals.

All this is water under the bridge. In the new laws, players hope that 
the WBFLC shows more sympathy for law-abiding players.