[blml] Honolulu casebook posted

[JOAN GERARD]

Hi,

I very rarely respond to e-mails that are written here but I feel I need to
say something ..

Having been in charge of ACBL Appeals as the Board member whose job it is to
work with the Chairman of Appeals - you should know that the ACBL believes
strongly in the Screening Process.

This process is not to strong arm someone into dropping an appeal but rather
to help them understand the nature of what they are bringing before the
committee. If it is strictly a matter of law the player needs to know  this
and unless the director has misinterpreted the law , the player is subject
to an appeal without merit . Also, the "Screener" can often help the player
to understand obvious things such as misinformation vs. misbid which once
explained becomes quite clear.When it is a questions of , let's say "
Logical Alternative" where bridge judgment is key - then the Screening
Director will simply explain the possibilities, but any opinion offered
would be strictly that -  an opinion..... The ACBL tries to use some of its
most competent directors for this Process.

I must say that the Screening Process is a great help to the players and the
committees. I don't believe there is any strong arming to get appeals to go
away. I believe this is a genuine educational process for most of the
players.
Directors on the floor often do not have enough time to spend with a player
to help the player to understand the reason for the ruling.
(and yes, I guess I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!)
Anyway, I do believe that what I have described is our goal and we have come
a lnog way towards reaching it.

Take care. Joan Gerard
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Honolulu casebook posted


> At 02:54 AM 3/10/07, Nigel wrote:
>
> >What is the *intended* role of ACBL screeners? It does seem a good idea
> >for would-be appellants to consult an independent advisor before going
> >ahead.
>
> They were supposed to briefly review the case and issue dire warnings
> about deposit losses and the other terrible things that can happen to
> those who waste appeals committees' time to prospective appelants with
> obviously meritless appeals, doing their utmost to convince them not to
> go forward.
>
> In practice, what they seem to do is briefly review the case and issue
> dire warnings about deposit losses and the other terrible things that
> can happen to those who waste appeals committees' time to prospective
> appelants regardless of the merits of their appeals, doing their utmost
> to convince them not to go forward.
>
>
> Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
> 1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
> Silver Spring MD 20910-1607
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>