[Zelandakh]

Well Ed, as one of the Laws involved contains examples and none of those examples is a direct match for the case, there is clearly going to be some judgement involved. So I would say it is a matter of both.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2014-August-27, 14:43, said:

Well Ed, as one of the Laws involved contains examples and none of those examples is a direct match for the case, there is clearly going to be some judgement involved. So I would say it is a matter of both.

Not sure what examples you're talking about.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-27, 14:26, said:

At trick 12, where an opponent shows declarer that his remaining KJ is sitting under the AQ (and that suit has to be or has been led by someone other than the guy with the AQ) it doesn't matter whether it was a claim or not. It's silly to argue about whether it was.

Back to the OP. A defender made a comment. Some people think that constitutes a claim, some don't. The Law is not perfectly clear, so a director (or an AC) could go either way. Frankly, in a reasonable jurisdiction, if an AC disagreed with my reading of the law*, I would submit the case to the National Authority for a final ruling. I don't think the ACBL is a reasonable jurisdiction in that regard - my impression is that the NA (the Laws Commission) would at most tell me they're not going to look at it. More likely I'd submit it and never hear anything. But that's my optimism showing.

* Question: is a reading of the law in this case a matter of law, or a matter of judgement? It seems to me it's a matter of law, but I've been wrong about that before. What say you all?

I'm with you:

Reading the Laws and interpreting a Law is still a matter of Law.

When the Law leaves a ruling to the Director's judgement (e.g. "in the Director's opinion") then (only) is that ruling a matter of judgement.

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-August-27, 12:39, said:

What is the legal difference depending on in which trick it happens?

Is it a claim if it happens in trick 12, but not if it happens in trick 11 or earlier? (Law reference please.)

The difference is whether the player making the statement could conceivably know how the choice of play on that trick could affect the rest of the play. It's a judgement call, but usually an easy one. With AQ over KJ on the opening lead, it's obvious to anyone that it makes no difference to the total number of tricks either side will take (so there's no point in agonizing), but there's still no way to know how many tricks either side will take (so it can't possibly be a claim). On trick 12, though, everyone has lots of information about the hands; if they say that it makes no difference, it really should mean that they know how many tricks will be taken for either choice.

The basis in law is that we're told that a claim is a statement that suggests to curtail play. The TD must use his judgement to determine whether statements like these are attempts to curtail or not.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-27, 16:34, said:

Not sure what examples you're talking about.

I was thinking of Law 74 when I wrote this.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that whether something is a violation of procedure is a matter of law rather than of judgment. The fact that the list in Law 74C is not exhaustive does not change my opinion. After all, the laws define correct procedure. If something is outside that definition, it is certainly not correct, and hence a violation. Only if the definition of correct procedure is itself ambiguous would there be a cause for judgment.

[Zelandakh]

I think matters of Law often require judgement Ed. Here we have something that should be a case of Law but with different ideas about how to go about interpreting it - hence judgement must be used first before following the course of Law.

[blackshoe]

Where I was going with the question, of course, was to Law 93B3: a committee may not overrule the director on a point of law. So if it's a matter of judgment (were there LAs, for example) the committee can override. If it's a matter of law (a revoke, for example) they cannot. If it's a matter of law that requires judgment I have no idea where we stand.

When there is an appeal on a matter of law, I think the director should inform the committee, when they convene, that Law 93B3 applies. So he needs to know when it does.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-05, 12:11, said:

Where I was going with the question, of course, was to Law 93B3: a committee may not overrule the director on a point of law. So if it's a matter of judgment (were there LAs, for example) the committee can override. If it's a matter of law (a revoke, for example) they cannot. If it's a matter of law that requires judgment I have no idea where we stand.

When there is an appeal on a matter of law, I think the director should inform the committee, when they convene, that Law 93B3 applies. So he needs to know when it does.

An AC may overrule the Director on any judgment decision including decisions where the Director has judged whether a particular or a different Law is applicable.
But the AC may not overrule the Director on how a particular Law is to be understood and applied unless that Law explicitly leaves such application to the Director's judgement (e.g. "in his opinion").

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-September-05, 23:56, said:

An AC may overrule the Director on any judgment decision including decisions where the Director has judged whether a particular or a different Law is applicable.
But the AC may not overrule the Director on how a particular Law is to be understood and applied unless that Law explicitly leaves such application to the Director's judgement (e.g. "in his opinion").

I'm not so sure that's what the law says, Sven. Convince me.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-September-05, 23:56, said:

An AC may overrule the Director on any judgment decision including decisions where the Director has judged whether a particular or a different Law is applicable.
But the AC may not overrule the Director on how a particular Law is to be understood and applied unless that Law explicitly leaves such application to the Director's judgement (e.g. "in his opinion").

blackshoe, on 2014-September-06, 00:34, said:

I'm not so sure that's what the law says, Sven. Convince me.

Naturally I have little more foundation than from how I have been trained to use

Law 93 B said:

If a committee is available,
1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the committee.
2. The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the committee for adjudication.
3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)

but IMHO L93B3 it pretty precise:
To me this says that the Committee may overrule any judgement made by the Director (including judgements on which among several possible laws to apply), but not any ruling (directly) instructed in Law or regulation.

(Whenever a Law leaves the actual ruling to the Director's judgement then this judgement as such is of course also subject to possible overruling by the Committee.)

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-September-06, 04:42, said:

Naturally I have little more foundation than from how I have been trained to use


but IMHO L93B3 it pretty precise:
To me this says that the Committee may overrule any judgement made by the Director (including judgements on which among several possible laws to apply), but not any ruling (directly) instructed in Law or regulation.

(Whenever a Law leaves the actual ruling to the Director's judgement then this judgement as such is of course also subject to possible overruling by the Committee.)

I can't think of a situation in which the director must judge which among several possible laws to apply which is not already a "judgement case" for other reasons. Can you give an example or two?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-06, 14:19, said:

I can't think of a situation in which the director must judge which among several possible laws to apply which is not already a "judgement case" for other reasons. Can you give an example or two?

A judgement ruling is most often understood as awarding an assigned adjusted score, but it can also be the Director misjudging the facts and therefore ruling under an incorrect law.

The Committee may not rule that the Director has applied the Law incorrectly, but it may very well rule that the Director's judgement of the facts was wrong and that he has applied the incorrect Law.

I believe we have had a variety of such topics?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-September-06, 14:58, said:

A judgement ruling is most often understood as awarding an assigned adjusted score, but it can also be the Director misjudging the facts and therefore ruling under an incorrect law.

The Committee may not rule that the Director has applied the Law incorrectly, but it may very well rule that the Director's judgement of the facts was wrong and that he has applied the incorrect Law.

I believe we have had a variety of such topics?

If the facts are agreed (presumably by the players involved), Law 84 applies.

Quote

Law 84: When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed, he rules as follows:
A. No Rectification
If no rectification is prescribed by law, and there is no occasion for him to exercise his discretionary powers, he directs the players to proceed with the auction or play.
B. Law Provides Rectification
If the case is clearly covered by a law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity, he determines that rectification and ensures that it is implemented.
C. Player’s Option
If a law gives a player a choice of rectification, the Director explains the options and sees that the choice is made and implemented.
D. Director’s Option
The Director rules any doubtful point in favor of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgment it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these Laws provide no rectification, he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

If the director applies option A, the committee can do no more than suggest he got it wrong. If the director applies option B, unless the law says something about the director using his judgment in applying the rectification, again the committee can do no more than suggest he got it wrong. If the director applies option C, or mistakenly does not apply it properly, again the committee can do no more than suggest he got it wrong. If the director has applied option D, he will have used his judgement, so the committee can overrule him.

If the facts are not agreed by the players, Law 85 applies. In such a case the committee can overrule him if the basis of their decision is a different assessment of the facts.

Do you agree with this, Sven?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-06, 23:21, said:

If the facts are agreed (presumably by the players involved), Law 84 applies.


If the director applies option A, the committee can do no more than suggest he got it wrong. If the director applies option B, unless the law says something about the director using his judgment in applying the rectification, again the committee can do no more than suggest he got it wrong. If the director applies option C, or mistakenly does not apply it properly, again the committee can do no more than suggest he got it wrong. If the director has applied option D, he will have used his judgement, so the committee can overrule him.

If the facts are not agreed by the players, Law 85 applies. In such a case the committee can overrule him if the basis of their decision is a different assessment of the facts.

Do you agree with this, Sven?

Sure, but consider for instance the situation I remember we discussed some time ago: Opening lead out of turn. Application of Laws 45C and 54 is clear and not subject to any appeal, but the important point is that the situation was judged incorrectly: It was not an opening lead out of turn, it was a card exposed during the auction period.

A director's judgement that laws 45C and 54 should apply would be incorrect and certainly subject to appeal, the correct judgement is that Law 24 should apply.

This is one example of judgement versus matter of Law.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-September-07, 01:31, said:

Sure, but consider for instance the situation I remember we discussed some time ago: Opening lead out of turn. Application of Laws 45C and 54 is clear and not subject to any appeal, but the important point is that the situation was judged incorrectly: It was not an opening lead out of turn, it was a card exposed during the auction period.

A director's judgement that laws 45C and 54 should apply would be incorrect and certainly subject to appeal, the correct judgement is that Law 24 should apply.

This is one example of judgement versus matter of Law.

I would think that in such a case, given the facts as you've stated them, the committee would have to suggest to the director that he has applied the wrong law, and that 24 is the correct law, and let him take it from their. I do not think the committee has the power to say "mr. director, you applied the wrong law, and we're going to fix your mistake." IAC, I would argue that "which law applies?" is a matter of law, not a matter of judgment, unless Law 84B's "clearly" is clearly not the case.

If more than one law might apply (e.g., in a UI case do we apply Law 16 or Law 73C?) then I would accept that it is a matter of judgment which to use.

[nige1]

Attracting more than 100 replies should justify promotion from Simple rulings to Laws and rulings

[blackshoe]

This later discussion is not about the subject. Maybe it ought to be split off into a new thread. I'll think about that.

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2014-September-07, 13:30, said:

Attracting more than 100 replies should justify promotion from Simple rulings to Laws and Rulings

when 50 of them are between Sven and Ed, I wonder if it counts.

[Bbradley62]

aguahombre, on 2014-September-07, 16:33, said:

nige1, on 2014-September-07, 13:30, said:

Attracting more than 100 replies should justify promotion from Simple rulings to Laws and rulings

when 50 of them are between Sven and Ed, I wonder if it counts.

Regardless of the number of responses, was there a consensus answer?