[axman]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-06, 08:52, said:

How would you suggest simplifying disclosure and UI rules?

A necessary [but not sufficient] condition for progress is to change [a] NT to the lowest denomination and [b] change the scoring of NT tricks to 40, minor tricks to 30, and major tricks to 20.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2013-July-06, 07:58, said:

IMO, directors are loth to impose procedural and disciplinary penalties; and players resent being singled out; so more deterrence should be built into the ordinary rules.

blackshoe, on 2013-July-06, 09:44, said:

Your first item is a problem with directors, not with the laws. The tools are there. I'm not sure why "players resent being singled out" should be a problem. You screw up, you pay the price. Don't like that? Don't screw up.

In previous posts, Blackshoe has remarked on the mind-set of directors on such issues. Perhaps some are concerned about possible slander actions. It's more practical to change the rules than to organise brain-transplants for directors. Even if the former entails brain-transplants for rule-makers

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-July-06, 10:11, said:

Anyway there's nothing intrinsically unfair or immoral about a double-shot.

No, but you don't want people doing truly ridiculous things so that they will get a very lucky, very unlikely top if it works out, with no risk attached.

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2013-July-06, 10:42, said:

A necessary [but not sufficient] condition for progress is to change [a] NT to the lowest denomination and [b] change the scoring of NT tricks to 40, minor tricks to 30, and major tricks to 20.

Have we moved on from appeals committees to Christmas parties?

[nige1]

nige1, on 2013-July-06, 10:11, said:

Anyway there's nothing intrinsically unfair or immoral about a double-shot. There's just a silly law against it.

Vampyr, on 2013-July-06, 12:52, said:

No, but you don't want people doing truly ridiculous things so that they will get a very lucky, very unlikely top if it works out, with no risk attached.

But there is a risk: Vampyr snipped my previous sentence.

nige1, on 2013-July-06, 10:11, said:

A dangerous tactic when the director may disagree that there's been an infraction.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2013-July-06, 11:21, said:

In previous posts, Blackshoe has remarked on the mind-set of directors on such issues. Perhaps some are concerned about possible slander actions. It's more practical to change the rules than to organise brain-transplants for directors. Even if the former entails brain-transplants for rule-makers

I have never heard of a director in the US being concerned about a slander suit, in spite of our reputation for being a litigious society. However, the slander laws in England are different from ours, so I suppose it might be a concern there.

It's not, or at least should not be, a matter of brain transplants. It's a matter of education.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2013-July-06, 10:11, said:

I too feel that Appeals-committees are better than Referees but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

The EBL hasn't replaced appeals committes with referees. They have replaced them with reviewers. In bridge, an appeals committee and a referee have the same power, including the right to overrule a TD on matters of judgement - a refereee is effectively a one-man appeals committee. An EBL reviewer can rule only on whether the TD followed proper procedure and applied the correct laws.

[blackshoe]

The word "referee" is not used in the laws, as far as I can see, so I don't know where you get the idea that a referee is a one man appeals committee. Some regulation somewhere?

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-06, 19:41, said:

The word "referee" is not used in the laws, as far as I can see, so I don't know where you get the idea that a referee is a one man appeals committee. Some regulation somewhere?

It's used in the English regulations, and I parochially assumed that it was used elsewhere too.

But anyway, the term "referee" usually means someone who applies and enforces the rules. My point was that this is not the functionof the EBL reviewer.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-July-07, 03:11, said:

It's used in the English regulations, and I parochially assumed that it was used elsewhere too.

Okay, Brittanicus.

Quote

WB 93.2: A Referee is an Appeals Committee of one.

gnasher, on 2013-July-07, 03:11, said:

But anyway, the term "referee" usually means someone who applies and enforces the rules. My point was that this is not the functionof the EBL reviewer.

Fair enough.

I would submit that since the function of a reviewer is not "to apply and enforce the rules", to disallow appeals simply because you have a reviewer is illegal. Specifically, it violates Laws 80B2{f} and 92A. But I suppose the 500 pound canary will sit wherever it likes.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-July-06, 14:59, said:

But there is a risk: Vampyr snipped my previous sentence.

No and yes, because I was discounting those cases where it is not clear that there was an infraction.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-07, 07:51, said:

No and yes, because I was discounting those cases where it is not clear that there was an infraction.

There'd be no perceived risk for you if you knew beforehand that directors would agree an infraction that damaged you. I don't remember such a case.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2013-July-06, 16:20, said:

The EBL hasn't replaced appeals committes with referees. They have replaced them with reviewers. In bridge, an appeals committee and a referee have the same power, including the right to overrule a TD on matters of judgement - a refereee is effectively a one-man appeals committee. An EBL reviewer can rule only on whether the TD followed proper procedure and applied the correct laws.

blackshoe, on 2013-July-06, 19:41, said:

The word "referee" is not used in the laws, as far as I can see, so I don't know where you get the idea that a referee is a one man appeals committee. Some regulation somewhere?

gnasher, on 2013-July-07, 03:11, said:

It's used in the English regulations, and I parochially assumed that it was used elsewhere too. But anyway, the term "referee" usually means someone who applies and enforces the rules. My point was that this is not the functionof the EBL reviewer.

blackshoe, on 2013-July-07, 07:26, said:

Okay, Brittanicus.

Sorry, I mean a reviewer not a referee --
and certanly not a relative of an appellant
although appellant is probably no longer the correct term either

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-07, 07:26, said:

I would submit that since the function of a reviewer is not "to apply and enforce the rules", to disallow appeals simply because you have a reviewer is illegal. Specifically, it violates Laws 80B2{f} and 92A.

Law 93C3(b) makes it legal: With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-July-08, 02:00, said:

Law 93C3(b) makes it legal: With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws.

Ah, right, I'd forgotten about that little knife in the back. Player, you have a right to appeal - except when we decide you don't.

I'd really like to ask the Drafting Subcommittee what the Hell they were thinking when they drafted this piece of... legislation.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-08, 02:44, said:

I'd really like to ask the Drafting Subcommittee what the Hell they were thinking when they drafted this piece of... legislation.

I'm guessing they were thinking about the ACBL, so the EBL's use of it is probably a surprise.

[barmar]

paulg, on 2013-July-08, 06:48, said:

I'm guessing they were thinking about the ACBL, so the EBL's use of it is probably a surprise.

I know the ACBL gets a bad rap in many law-related issues, but why do you think this clause was put in for our benefit? I'm not aware that we have a history of truncating the appeals process.

[paulg]

paulg, on 2013-July-08, 06:48, said:

I'm guessing they were thinking about the ACBL, so the EBL's use of it is probably a surprise.

barmar, on 2013-July-08, 08:59, said:

I know the ACBL gets a bad rap in many law-related issues, but why do you think this clause was put in for our benefit? I'm not aware that we have a history of truncating the appeals process.

A guess purely on the basis that the ACBL runs the largest tournaments and, given the size of the appeal teams for the NABCs, is most likely to want flexibility in this area. I expect that whoever put it in did not have a need for it immediately, but thought it might be useful in the future.

[jallerton]

My guess is that some of the people responsible for the new EBL non-appeals procedure were also instrumental in the inclusion of Law 93C(b) in the 2007 Laws.

This seems more likely than some EBL official reading through his Law Book looking to see what changes can be made to the Conditions of Contest and saying to his colleagues: "Oh look what we can do now!".

[VixTD]

Chambers English dictionary has, among other definitions for junior:

Quote

[noun] a bridge-player on declarer's right

This is not a use I've come across. There is no similar entry under senior.