[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[WILLIAM SCHODER]

I would only hope that Tim's last posting was the result of overibibence, or 
a glitch in the computer. If he is serious, he needs to turn in any 
qualifications he may have on hand as a TD and preserve the game from his 
misguided ideas.  He is so far off base that I couldn't help but believe he 
was kidding.

Kojak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision.


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>