[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2013-November-25, 08:35, said:

So, we have a flawed practice regarding AC's in Sven's realm being used as an argument against having AC's?

Why is that? I can't see any reason for such thoughts.

In my opinion the AC is, and has always been a valuable instrument for second thoughts on Director judgements. That is also why I favour ACs consisting of knowledgeable players rather than experts on Bridge Laws. Be aware that the majority of events in Norway have only one director (sometimes assisted by footmen). This system has worked beautifully here since long before I received my own authorization back in 1980.

(AC rulings may in Norway always be further appealed to the National Authority except when this authority according to regulation is the AC.)

A famous quote: "Nobody is Perfect!"

[nige1]

 pran, on 2013-November-25, 02:57, said:

Maybe you should be aware that once I as TD have handed the completed appeal form over to the AC I take no part in their discussion unless specifically called. I don't really see how I should have handled this case differently? (Arguing the AC ruling afterwards was not an option.)

When I'm on an appeal-committee, before deliberation, we ask the director what is the relevant law; and, afterwards, we ask the director if our ruling is legal. That protocol should be in the CoC (or better -- in the Law-book -- although that is unlikely to happen soon).

Players are likely to view the review process as a time-wasting farrago to rubber-stamp the original ruling, so presumably there will be far fewer reviews than there were.appeals. If so that is a bad omen for Bridge because analysts aver that appeals tend to improve on the original director ruling. And they are great educators for players, directors, and law-makers.

In a previous thread there was feedback from players as to how the new review process worked in practice in the EBL. What was the Bali experience? Are there any EBL or WBF review reports?

[aguahombre]

 aguahombre, on 2013-November-25, 08:35, said:

So, we have a flawed practice regarding AC's in Sven's realm being used as an argument against having AC's?

 pran, on 2013-November-25, 08:59, said:

Why is that? I can't see any reason for such thoughts.

Well, in a forum on changing laws and regulations and a thread on AC's, when the discussion has drifted toward doing away with AC's Henrik provided an anecdote with his position against AC's. Then, you provide another one which seemingly supports that position. I don't know why I had such thoughts. Maybe it is just a bad habit of reading things sequentially and thinking they follow one another.

[pran]

 nige1, on 2013-November-25, 09:20, said:

When I'm on an appeal-committee, before deliberation, we ask the director what is the relevant law; and, afterwards, we ask the director if our ruling is legal. That protocol should be in the CoC (or better -- in the Law-book -- although that is unlikely to happen soon).

Players are likely to view the review process as a time-wasting farrago to rubber-stamp the original ruling, so presumably there will be far fewer reviews than there were.appeals. If so that is a bad omen for Bridge because analysts aver that appeals tend to improve on the original director ruling. And they are great educators for players, directors, and law-makers.

In a previous thread there was feedback from players as to how the new review process worked in practice in the EBL. What was the Bali experience? Are there any EBL or WBF review reports?

In Norway the TD is required to specify on the appeals form which Law(s) he has applied.

(Incidentally, any candidate will fail his TD exam even when giving correct answers if he does not include the relevant Law Reference(s) with his answer.)

[blackshoe]

The WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees doesn't really address directly the question of illegal rulings by an AC. It does suggest that at International level there should be procedures by which the decision of an Appeals Committee can be appealed, but doesn't address the question for lower levels. In regard to reporting, it says "Before any report of an appeal is released for publication the chairman of the appeal committee must be satisfied that it gives a satisfactory account of the committee’s proceedings and decisions. Decisions should be referenced with Law numbers and it is highly important that the Director in charge or his nominee confirm Law references."

The emphasis is mine. It seems to me that statement highlights an obligation on the part of the DIC to review AC rulings, and to "send them back" if they're illegal. Yes, I know it's a guideline, and primarily intended for international competitions, but it seems to me a good guideline, and i think it should be followed at all levels.

[jhenrikj]

 aguahombre, on 2013-November-24, 15:34, said:

Tell me slowly how this happened, since I seem to be missing something. An AC doesn't rule on a matter of law, only on the facts. If their descision is to recommend to the TD that he use a different law or is that the TD broke the applicable law, it goes back to the TD anyway.

Or was this not one of your "best directors using proper procedure", and he didn't know any better?

Ok, you have 85 A85 T64 K7654, your partner opens 1♦ 11-13NT or 11-16 4+♦, RHO doubles for takeout, you bid 1♠ that is transfer to clubs, LHO doubles for takeout, partner bids 2♠ wich is natural with 4 spades 5+ diamonds, 14-16 hcp. RHO doubles for penalty..now what do you bid?

The problem is of course that your partner doesn't alert 1♠, so now 2♠ indicates 11-13 bal with 4 spades. Of course passing 2♠ isn't a logical alternative, but what do you think of bidding 2NT? If partner really has spades and diamonds he might bid 3♦, if we are doubled in 2N I can run in 3♣. To me that is using the UI, to the AC it was fine because when both the opponents bid, partnern might have forgotten the system, and the opponents bidding is AI so regardless of the UI the AC claimed that 2NT was ok...To me, that AC ruling is a breach of 16B1(a), since biddnig 3♦ is a LA, then we cannot allow bidding 2NT to cover up for the possibility that partner forgot the system. The AC did not think 3♦ X down 6 was a fair result so they wanted to allow 2NT because of that.

[aguahombre]

Yes, jhenrikj, it does seem unreasonable for the TD while charging the AC with their instructions before they proceed with their 73B3 duties, to anticipate and expressly forbid them from violating a law he didn't use.

So, Blackshoe's post #25 comes into play. IMO, the AC process should be cleaned up rather than eliminated. It is not uncleanable.