[blml] What constitutes a frivolous appeal? [SEC=PERSONAL]

[Nigel]

[Richard Hills]
ACBL screeners are not synonymous with EBU Appeals Advisers.  The reason
that the EBU has ruled that "cuddlies" views are not given to the EBU
appeals committees is that the cuddlies only hear the potential appellant's
version of the facts (which may be misconstrued or self-servingly
distorted).  On the other hand, ACBL screeners are supposed to interview
the floor director who made the ruling.

[Nige1]
There are slightly different arrangements under different legislations but my aim was to define *general* guidelines for judging whether an appeal had merit. To *that* end, I suggested that...

[A] *screener* be a portmanteau term for official appeals adviser, screening director, or whatever.

[B} The screener should base his advice mainly on the *appeal form* (but be free to ask questions of whomever he feels like).

I've just realised that this does assume that there *is* an appeal form. 
IMO the Director should make a *contemporaneous* note of basic facts, 
when he makes a ruling. If a pair tentatively decide to appeal, then 
both sides should immediately add their version of events (and their 
arguments if any) to the appeal form -- while it is all fresh in their 
minds. As far as I know, this sensible protocol is normal EBU practice.

Now, the screener can rely mainly on the appeal form when giving advice. 
The screener should be wary of new disputed *facts*, freshly remembered 
by either side.