[aguahombre]

The designated Director of a Club game, for whatever reason, tells a different qualified director to take a call. A player wishes to appeal the ruling.

Assume that both directors are capable of determining whether the objection is about law or about fact, and both know how to otherwise proceed -----

Should proceeding be lodged with the director who made the ruling, or with the actual director of the session?

Does it make a difference if the designated director was at the table (hence the reason for a ruling by the other guy)?

Looking for opinions about "good form" here, not expecting there is an "official" answer.

[blackshoe]

Actually, there is an official answer.

Appeals shall be lodged with the actual director of the session. The laws speak throughout of "the Director". This is the person appointed by the Tournament Organizer or, in the case of clubs, by the club owner or board of directors (different kind of director here)*. The usual term for this person is "the Director in Charge" (DIC). The DIC may appoint assistants. Law 81D reads "The Director may delegate any of his duties to assistants, but he is not thereby relieved of responsibility for their correct performance." As to the Appeals process, Law 92C says "all appeals shall be made through the Director". This means the DIC. Law 93A says "The Director shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no appeals committee (or alternative arrangement under Law 80B2(k)), or if such cannot operate without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament." Again, this means the DIC. This is so in law even if the DIC made the table ruling.

Law 80B2(k) says "The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:… to make suitable arrangements for the conduct of appeals under Law 93." I suppose such arrangements might include a way for someone other than the DIC to handle an appeal in cases where the DIC made the table ruling.

* in a less formal situation, such as a game in someone's home (not talking here about the English practice of holding County level team matches in peoples' homes, they have well established procedures for that) Law 80B2{a}, which gives the TO authority to appoint the Director, also says that "If there is no appointed Director, the players should designate a person to perform his functions." This designated person is in effect the DIC for this home event.

A club could, under Law 80B2(k), write a regulation specifying that there shall be a pool of potential committee members drawn from the club's regulars (hopefully enough people that a committee of 3 or 5 could be formed from people not involved in the ruling being appealed) and that <designated person{s}> will hear appeals where the DIC made the table ruling. I've not seen a club do that - most of the club owners around here tend to do all regulating "on the fly". Nothing is written down. This is not best practice, IMO, but there's an element of 'I've been doing it this way for thirty years and I"m not changing now" here. BTW, I haven't seen an appeal in a club game in several years.

[Vampyr]

At our local club an appeal may be made, if both sides agree, by the club's CTD if he was not the original director. Otherwise referees are reached by telephone.

[chrism]

Washington Bridge League has about 2 appeals a year in our weekly club game. An appeal committee always comprises 3 players, none of them a director at the club, and normally consists of 2 Flight A players plus one player of about the strength of the weaker pair involved in the appeal. The DIC will form a committee ad hoc on the night, finding volunteers who are independent of all parties. This can sometimes be challenging but we have a large enough game that we can normally manage. Once in a blue moon if the appeal is lodged very late in the session, we have arranged (with the agreement of all concerned) to consider the case by email or before the start of the following week's game.

[Trinidad]

At my club, we have a few playing TDs. Each night it is announced who is DIC (rotating). Any of the TDs, except for one, can take any TD call (particularly when they are dummy). He is allowed to decide on technical infractions. Judgement decisions are deferred to the DIC during the break or at the end of the evening.

The one TD who doesn't take calls is assigned chairperson (and scribe) of the AC. If an appeal is made, the chairperson will find 2-3 suitable other members for the committee. He will translate the case into clear bridge judgement questions ("What has North shown?", "What does the BIT indicate?", "What are LAs?") and will let the other members make those bridge judgements. He can advise on the legality of rulings.

Rik

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-24, 00:31, said:

Law 80B2(k) says "The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:… to make suitable arrangements for the conduct of appeals under Law 93." I suppose such arrangements might include a way for someone other than the DIC to handle an appeal in cases where the DIC made the table ruling.

And the reverse? Recusal/deference to the other guy who made the ruling in a case where the DIC was at the table?

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-December-24, 09:27, said:

And the reverse? Recusal/deference to the other guy who made the ruling in a case where the DIC was at the table?

I like Rik's solution - if you have enough qualified TDs, have one who doesn't take TD calls during the game, and have him assume the DIC's role - and chair the committee - if the actual DIC was at the table.

If you don't have enough TDs, you'll just have to do the best you can.

[mycroft]

The DIC of the game is the DIC of the game. If the DIC took the call, then she may *choose to* appoint another qualified director as an appeal "committee" (more likely, she will have consulted with him before making the ruling, however).

If an appeal committee is to be set up, the DIC should do that (or, again, delegate, but it's the DIC's committee). The table director should probably present the case, however.

I know that in the games where I am an "official unofficial second TD", any weirdies, or anything that may get to disputed ruling, gets reported to the real TD. Partly so that he doesn't get sideswiped by it, sure, but mostly because it's his game. Of course, in a judgement ruling (where most appeals come from), I must consult with someone; and the DIC is the easiest best person to do that. So, usually by the time the appeal goes through, the DIC is tainted.

Most commonly what happens is that the table director gives the ruling; if "I'm gonna appeal that", then I send them to the DIC to get further explanation/review of the law. That kills most appeals - whether because I missed something and we invoke Director Error, or whether a different phrasing, or just the same phrasing from an "uninvolved person" clarifies that there's no case - and if not, we set up the appeal.

The most common "club appeal" is the "Have you asked someone who actually knows how to play?" sequence (whether they're that bald-faced insulting about it or just a mild suggestion that their skill is slightly higher than the TDs (which is often true)). Because I consult on all judgement rulings, and I have a pretty good idea who's at what level for peering discussions, I can usually answer "yes" to that...

[Edit: I would have "appeal to the DIC and appeal to committee" as separate procedures, one or both of which are available (but not, I think, appeal to committee if the DIC hasn't been involved yet). It's uncomfortable for an active TD to be on the committee itself, again especially as they are usually consulted. DIC *advising* the committee on the laws and the committee's options (and suggested procedure), of course.]

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2014-December-24, 11:43, said:

If an appeal committee is to be set up, the DIC should do that (or, again, delegate, but it's the DIC's committee). The table director should probably present the case, however.

The responsibility to "make suitable arrangements for the conduct of appeals" is assigned by Law 80 to, in the case of clubs, club management (as the Tournament Organizer), which generally means either a board of directors or the club owner. The TD "has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer" (Law 81B1). In fact, in most clubs of which I'm aware, the owner appoints himself the DIC, and he doesn't make any arrangements until the need for a committee comes up. And then he grabs whoever he can (generally from the better players in the club) to form the committee. The DIC can delegate his duties (Law 81D) but neither the DIC nor the TO is absolved of responsibility under the laws. So while it may look like the DIC's committee, it's not. It's the TO's. In practice of course, since they're the same person, it doesn't matter, save that someone may try to carry "it's the DIC's committee" to higher level tournaments. Not Mycroft, I'm sure he knows all this already, but someone.

I agree that the table director should present the case, as he should be the one most familiar with it.

[mycroft]

Yes, certainly, if there is one set up or procedures set up by the game runner, then the DIC follows that. But almost always, it's up to the poor grunts in stripes, if only to follow the procedures set.

Re: the pedantry (note this is not criticism); in "higher level tournaments", at least here, while the tournaments are run by the unit/district, it's run under the auspices of the ACBL, and as a result, the devolution to the DIC happens. Again, if there is an appeal committee set up/procedure in place, the DIC would follow it - I'm sure that happens somewhere short of the NABCs, but I've never worked anywhere that did. The fact that it's the tournament's appeal committee and not the DICs makes sense, and I had clearly forgotten that (so, thanks for the pedantry); as said above, in practise that difference is no difference (especially as the TOs are either not there or playing :-).

I was trying to make the point that the DIC shouldn't be on the committee, unless "appeal to DIC" is the appeal procedure and the DIC *is* the committee. Mostly because usually the DIC is tainted, but also because of the visuals.

A side note that the director presenting should not think of themselves as the prosecutor; there are two sides to the appeal, and the TD is simply there to present the facts, the laws, and the judgements that went into the ruling. The people arguing for or against the ruling are the ones that should be plaintiff or defence. It's very difficult to be neutral as presenter, but it's critical.

I will note that I am yet to have an appeal judgement that did not surprise me in some way, even when they upheld the ruling. Having said that, I haven't been involved in very many. I note that as a good thing.

[Vampyr]

A lot of clubs don't own their premises, and/or have a lot of members who have to make the last train or tube. So they can't have appeals after the session. Once our club had an appeal many weeks later when we got together a committee to meet half an hour before the game. That is why we now use telephone referees, which is standard practice for privately-played matches.

[blackshoe]

I didn't intend to be pedantic, just to cover all the bases. I agree that the DIC should not be on the committee. Also that whichever director presents the case to the committee, he's not a prosecutor. Or a defense attorney. Critical that he be neutral, yes.

I think the DIC also has a responsibility to ensure that the committee's ruling is in accordance with the laws, but I can't find that actually stated in the law book.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-24, 19:17, said:

I didn't intend to be pedantic, just to cover all the bases. I agree that the DIC should not be on the committee. Also that whichever director presents the case to the committee, he's not a prosecutor. Or a defense attorney. Critical that he be neutral, yes.

I think the DIC also has a responsibility to ensure that the committee's ruling is in accordance with the laws, but I can't find that actually stated in the law book.

The DIC cannot overrule the AC, but

Law 93 C 2 said:

The Director in charge or the Appeals Committee may refer a matter for later consideration by the Regulating Authority. The Regulating Authority has authority to resolve any matter finally.

for instance if he finds the AC ruling illegal.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-December-25, 03:16, said:

The DIC cannot overrule the AC, but [he can refer the matter to the National Authority] for instance if he finds the AC ruling illegal.

Sure. I wasn't suggesting that he could overrule the AC, but isn't part of his job to inform the AC what the law is? Wouldn't that include telling them their ruling is illegal, should that be the case?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-25, 03:56, said:

Sure. I wasn't suggesting that he could overrule the AC, but isn't part of his job to inform the AC what the law is? Wouldn't that include telling them their ruling is illegal, should that be the case?

I imagine he could tell them, but I don't see what difference that would make. I have never heard of an AC going back and re-hearing a case, and it is probably against regulations in most places.

[blackshoe]

From the ACBL's Handbook for Appeals Committees:

Quote

•An Appeals Committee is bound by the Tournament Director's statement of applicable law and regulation. If a committee finds the same facts as the Tournament Director and makes the same bridge judgments, then it must make the same ruling. A committee cannot overrule a Tournament Director on a point of law or regulation. A Committee may decide that a different Law applies and inform the Tournament Director of the facts that led to this conclusion. The Committee may not apply a different law if the Tournament Director disagrees.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2014-December-24, 18:00, said:

A lot of clubs don't own their premises, and/or have a lot of members who have to make the last train or tube. So they can't have appeals after the session. Once our club had an appeal many weeks later when we got together a committee to meet half an hour before the game. That is why we now use telephone referees, which is standard practice for privately-played matches.

I guess we have had about 12 appeals in the past 5 years. Some of those meetings never took place in real life, but in phone conferences the next evening. All members have gotten an electronic copy of the appeal form by email. In the email, the AC chair explains what -in his opinion- are the legal points and what questions need to be answered. Of course, the members can have a different opinion. The members read the appeals form (usually during a break at work), form an opinion, email it to the chair (only), and the phone discussion follows after dinner (unless there is concensus among the members). When concensus has been reached, we have a verdict.

Saves a lot of time and people have something relaxing to do in their coffee break.

Rik

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2014-December-25, 04:57, said:

I imagine he could tell them, but I don't see what difference that would make. I have never heard of an AC going back and re-hearing a case, and it is probably against regulations in most places.

It does not get that far but AC have been told that rulings they are trying to give are not permitted by law/regulation and have changed. In one case, one AC member came and found a TD to tell the rest of the committee they could not give a "Reveley" ruling.

Of couse it doesn't always work out. One AC consulted with me about giving a weighted score to a claim ruling and instead produced a split ruling: declaring side 7N-1, defending side 7N= !

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-24, 11:28, said:

I like Rik's solution - if you have enough qualified TDs, have one who doesn't take TD calls during the game, and have him assume the DIC's role - and chair the committee - if the actual DIC was at the table.

If you don't have enough TDs, you'll just have to do the best you can.

It helps a lot that the Dutch Bridge League has several levels of TDs. It is relatively simple to get a license for a "club leader". They know their way through the lawbook and can handle the technical infractions as "assistant TD". Our club also has several fully certified TDs. The jobs of DIC and AC chair belong to them.

Our club is not exactly a "walk in club", but -though there is a league series with the results of different sessions added- you do not have to show up every time (which suits me very nicely because I can't always make it to the club). That is one reason why it is good to have a big pool of TDs.

Rik

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-25, 03:56, said:

Sure. I wasn't suggesting that he could overrule the AC, but isn't part of his job to inform the AC what the law is? Wouldn't that include telling them their ruling is illegal, should that be the case?

Well, the Director of course passes the appeal form to the AC, and here he may point out details of the case that in his opinion are a matter of law and therefore not subject to appeal unless the AC finds that the Director has applied an incorrect Law.

The case is closed once the AC has reached a verdict, and then Law 93C2 is the only way for another view.