[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[Eric Landau]

On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote:

>> *From:* Ed Reppert <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>
>> *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml at amsterdamned.org>
>> *Date:* Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:51:12 -0400
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote:
>>
>>> Feel free to tell me where the laws limit the "any instruction"
>>> of  L90b8.
>>
>> One purpose of an AC is to provide a check on a TDs bridge
>> judgement.
>
> Not according to the laws.  The purpose of an AC is not actually  
> defined.
> IMO (and this *is* an interpretation of a point of law!) the  
> purpose of
> an AC is to assist the TD in giving high quality rulings.  The TD is
> *responsible* for the final ruling - the AC is not.
>
>> Your interpretation of Law 90B8 would negate that
>> purpose. Therefore  I reject your interpretation. If a TD told me,
>> as an AC member, to  ignore that purpose, I would resign from the
>> committee rather than  follow that instruction.
>
> Technically I, as TD, can discipline you for disobeying my  
> instruction to
> serve on the AC!  Usually I try and get volunteers on ACs so that
> wouldn't apply.
>
>> And I would report the incident to the  appropriate authority
>> (which, I grant you, might not mean much).
>
> And my instruction having been "I have investigated the incident and
> discussed it with the players - they all know eachother well and
> universally agreed that pass would simply not be an LA for Jim  
> (while it
> might be for others) so please don't spend time on this issue.  The
> reason for the appeal is..."
>
> Do you think the "appropriate authority" will deem my instruction  
> illegal
> (and if so as a breach of which law?).
>
> Other possible scenarios might include ones where the best player  
> in the
> room is the TD and the 2nd-5th best players involved at the appealing
> table while the residue have no/limited AC experience.  The TD may  
> need
> to brief very closely in order to ensure a good result.
>
> Of course if a TD instructs an AC of superior players not to review  
> his
> bridge judgement on a clearly delicate and disputed issue he is acting
> *unwisely* - and a higher authority might find grounds to overturn the
> ruling given by an obedient AC and to reprimand the TD on the  
> grounds of
> *competence*.

I don't see how we can read L90 as giving the TD such essentially  
unlimited power without, for example, obviating the right to appeal  
granted players by L92A.  Tim, as TD, cannot legally discipline me  
for disobeying his instruction to decline to appeal his ruling, nor,  
if that is to mean anything, achieve the same effect less directly,  
as by directing the AC to reach a pre-determined verdict, or simply,  
as he claims the power to direct players to serve, by directing them  
all not to!


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net