[blml] When should an AC award a PP?

[David Grabiner]

Appeals committees often award procedural penalties, and they do have the right 
to do so (they have all the powers of the Director except for the power to 
overrule the Director on a matter of law), but there aren't good guidelines.

I looked at Kaplan's articles on the role of an appeals committee.  The director 
is considered to be the expert on ascertaining the facts and interpreting the 
laws, but not on bridge judgement.  And from article 14, "Procedural penalties 
are rarely established initially by a Committee, although they may be (i.e., if 
a violation of correct procedure comes to light during a hearing into a related 
matter).  Normally, the penalty is imposed by a Director and is considered by 
Committee only on appeal.... Still, a Committee should tend strongly to uphold 
the Director's ruling, unless the case for lessening or removing the penalty is 
overwhelming, since the Director usually has the best knowledge of the facts, 
and is the one responsible for the operation of the contest."

Therefore, here is what I think the guidelines should be.

An appeals committee should freely award or modify a procedural penalty that it 
believes is justified:
For a procedural infraction that was made in the appeal itself (appeal without 
merit, behavior before the committee).
If the facts justifying the penalty or modification were not available to the 
Director.
If the justification for the penalty or modification is a matter of bridge 
judgement and the judgement was not clear to the Director.
If the comittee determines that the level of the penalty was inappropriate for 
the level of the player who committed the procedural infraction.

An appeals committee should normally accept a Director's ruling, but may award 
or modify a procedural penalty if it believes the Director made a mistake:
If the Director had the same facts and basis to award or not award a penalty as 
the appeals committee.
If the infraction is not one which directors normally penalize, even if the 
infraction came to light in the committee.

An appeal committee may not award or modify a procedural penalty:
To restore equity (use a non-balancing adjusted score instead).
Because the committee ruling is considered enough of a penalty even after the 
committee removes a penalty imposed by the Director.

The "same facts and basis" rule is the one most often violated by AC's, when 
they impose penalties for improper creation of UI, or flagrant use of UI, or for 
MI, which the Director chose not to impose.  (It is proper for the AC to 
overrule the Director's bridge judgment that use of UI was or was not flagrant, 
but when it is flagrant to the Director, the Director should normally decide the 
penalty.)  The "not one which directors normally penalize" applies to 
infractions such as failing to correct MI at the end of the auction (by the 
declaring side) or correcting it at the end of the auction (by the defenders). 
And penalties for "convention disruption" violate both rules.

This type of penalty can cause a particularly serious problem when the AC 
upholds the Director's score ruling but adds a procedural penalty against the 
non-appealing side.  In a KO match, the appealing side can even gain nothing 
from the appeal but win the match as a result of the penalty.

It can also cause a problem when the offending side appeals, gets a score 
adjustment in its favor, and then unexpectedly winds up worse off because a 
procedural penalty is added for the original offense which is more than the gain 
from the score adjustment.