[Cyberyeti]

I'll have a look, but this is Norfolk, and the event is the county league, but it is run by one of the clubs (and by their rules), I doubt they're that organised.

For example, a previous run in was where nobody ever published the licensing regs, and some people assumed the top division was level 4 while others assumed level 3.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2011-January-31, 10:46, said:

Usually it's the director who fills out the appeal form, and a verbal request for an appeal (with the appropriate deposit) is normally enough to instigate an appeal. Like you I wonder if there were conditions of contest that cover this.

FWIW: The standard procedure that I know leading up to an appeal is:
1: The Director makes a ruling at the table (A ruling must have been made before it can be appealed)
2: One involved side states a request for an appeal of this ruling
3: The Director fills in an appeal form with the facts leading up to his ruling and the ruling he made. (He may also fill in further considerations at his own discretion.)
4: The appeal form is handed to the appealing side with an invitation for their comments (including their reason for the appeal)
5: The appeal form is then handed to the other side with an invitation for their comments.
6: Finally the appeal is considered and ruled upon (by the AC).

So I cannot see that the Director has done his job in the OP case.

[RMB1]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-January-28, 09:54, said:

It gets worse. We notified the TD within 5 seconds of his ruling on the Friday night that we were appealing, he said he wanted it in writing from the captain (by email). The captain has no home email and works Tues-Fri, Tues unsurprisingly is busy so he sent it in on Weds from work and the same director who made the ruling ruled it out of time

Did your team manage to take this any further?

As I was the only one who was not surprised by the original ruling, you clearly were likely to succeed in an appeal, if you could be were heard.

[Cyberyeti]

RMB1, on 2011-February-14, 11:04, said:

Did your team manage to take this any further?

As I was the only one who was not surprised by the original ruling, you clearly were likely to succeed in an appeal, if you could be were heard.

We've appealed against the ruling out of time, and if we succeed in that, the other appeal will be heard. I spoke to the EBU, and they suggested that if we were unambiguous that we wanted to appeal at the time and I feel we were, then it should be in time.

One related point. The club says it uses white book procedures. These seem to fall flat in the club situation (they're designed for EBU congresses with a rider for matches played privately), the concept of the playing director where he can't look at it till after his last board causes issues with what's set down there. By the time he wanted to think about setting up an appeals committee, the obvious candidates had all left.

I've said to the club that having some procedures for dealing with this would be good. Maybe a paragraph in the white book would also be good.

[bluejak]

I do not understand what procedures in the White book you are suggesting could or should be modified for clubs. True, judgement rulings are more difficult for a playing TD. But what else can he do but deal with it as soon as he can?

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-February-14, 18:06, said:

I do not understand what procedures in the White book you are suggesting could or should be modified for clubs. True, judgement rulings are more difficult for a playing TD. But what else can he do but deal with it as soon as he can?

Some idea of how "in time" should work and how to handle appeals that can't be done on the day.

[bluejak]

There is a fair amount on point even if not written specifically for clubs.

Quote

A club may wish the correction period to last until the commencement of the next weekly duplicate.

Quote

A request for a ruling or for an appeal against a ruling must be made within the
Correction Period as specified under Law 92B.

Quote

Two appeals had arisen where it had been very difficult to conduct the appeal. In one
case the appeal arose right at the end of the tournament where one pair had left
unaware of the appeal. The second one arose after the evening session of a congress
where qualification for a final the next day was involved. One pair had left and the TD
had to rely on suitable committee members arriving early enough the next day to hold
the appeal and hoping the other pair would also arrive in time to participate, having no
way to contact them.

Requests for appeals received within the time limits have to be entertained. In
particular pairs involved in a ruling should check to see whether the time limit for
lodging an appeal had expired before leaving. TDs need to let players know about the
deadlines for appealing.

Where the TD could not find a suitable Appeals Committee of three people then a
committee of one, a telephone Referee or even the DIC could hear the appeal.
Where it was necessary to conduct an appeal where one pair did not even know it was
happening, it was always an option of the Appeals Committee to halt the proceedings if
the absence of one side might prejudice the procedure.

Quote

If it is not possible to convene an Appeals Committee at a single time and place (for
example in the case of a match played privately), then a 'balanced' Appeals Committee
should still be appointed, and its members should liaise, eg by telephone or email, in
order to reach a verdict.

[Cyberyeti]

Well the appeals committee finally met, and decided to sort of rule in our favour, but award a split score which kept a large part of the original result and thus made almost no difference (1 IMP, no VPs). Our captain has decided not to take it further, so we have to accept this farce unfortunately

[jallerton]

Oh dear, this sounds like an illegal "Reveley" ruling to me.

If it is judged that pass of 4♠ is not demonstrably suggested by the UI and/or that there is no logical alternative to passing then (100% of) the table result should be retained.

If it is judged that pass of 4♠ is demonstrably suggested by the UI and that there are logical alternative(s) to passing then the pass is illegal and no percentage of the table auction should be allowed. In this case, it would not be possible to arrive at a contract of 4♠ by any other route, so 0% of that contract should be included in the weighting.