[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2014-April-10, 08:00, said:

No, I wouldn't normally consider it so either, but I think we've all been led astray by you saying "The basis of the appeal is that the TD was wrong in Law."

That means that it is not the judgement of the TD that is being questioned, but that he has not ruled correctly according to the Law, or has misinterpreted it. I don't think "wrong in Law" means that he has applied the wrong Law, but just that he has misapplied the Law.

For example, this particular Chief TD stated that failure to alert an artificial 2NT rebid in a previous appeal of which you may be aware was "not misinformation", and our side replied:

East-West also consider the TD's ruling that the failure to alert did not constitute misinformation is wrong in Law. Law 21B1(a) specifically states: "Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation."

And you should have been able to tell from the heading and the second diagram that it was a contested claim, when you need not have been led astray. And what makes you think "all have been led astray"? The majority seems fully aware that it was a contested claim which was not a "point of law or regulation". Finally, you seem to be posting more often than normal on a thread about which you questioned "whether [I] should have waited until the matter was no longer sub judice before posting it here".

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2014-April-06, 16:57, said:

The text of our appeal:

East-West are appealing against the decision to award two tricks to North. The basis of the appeal is that the TD was wrong in Law. It is true that the TD should rule as equitably as possible under Law 70, resolving doubtful points against the claimer. The TD made a value judgement that the declarer was not likely to find the throw-in. This is not the test.....

So originally you're saying that the appeal is based on a matter of Law and that the value judgement made is not relevant.

 lamford, on 2014-April-10, 07:10, said:

And, for what it is worth, I do not consider the ruling on a contested claim to be a ruling "on a point of Law or regulations". If it is so considered, then just about every other ruling would be.

Now you're saying it's a judgement matter.

 lamford, on 2014-April-10, 08:37, said:

That means that it is not the judgement of the TD that is being questioned, but that he has not ruled correctly according to the Law, or has misinterpreted it. I don't think "wrong in Law" means that he has applied the wrong Law, but just that he has misapplied the Law.

And now you're challenging the TD's interpretation of Law. That's an appeal on a matter of, er, ...Law.


Make your mind up!

[blackshoe]

The 1997 law 93C said "After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may be taken to the national authority." I've always felt this established the right of players to take their case, after appealing locally, to the national authority as a sort of "Supreme Court".* The NA would be able to say, for example, that the TD misinterpreted the law, and either overthrow the ruling and substitute their own, or send the case back to the TD for another look. Whether that's a useful procedure in a game is, I suppose, debatable.

The 2007 Law 93C is much longer, and among other things considerably waters down the right of appellants to take their case to the national authority. I'm sure this suits the convenience of the various LCs. I'm not so sure it suits the concept of fairness in the appeals process. Nonetheless it's what we have now.

* A prerequisite for appealing to the NA is of course that some appeals process have been in place locally.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2014-April-10, 08:37, said:

Finally, you seem to be posting more often than normal on a thread about which you questioned "whether [I] should have waited until the matter was no longer sub judice before posting it here".

I think you'll find I haven't commented on the case itself at all, merely brought up matters of procedure, but I'll make this my final post on this topic, and I think you'll find I do a better job of sticking to that than you did when you said the same thing upthread some days ago

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2014-April-10, 15:10, said:

And now you're challenging the TD's interpretation of Law. That's an appeal on a matter of, er, ...Law.
Make your mind up!

I spoke last night to Professor David Schiff, Head of Law at Queen Mary College, and a parliamentary adviser, and he confirmed that "wrong in Law" approximately means "wrong according to the Law", with the difference being that "wrong in Law" implies that the facts are correct, but the application of the Law is incorrect. I was pleased to use the phrase correctly in the last two rulings of this Chief TD involving me, whether or not the appeal succeeds, especially as English is not my first language. I shall now heed gordontd's advice to keep to my promise not to post on this thread any more, and I regret my earlier post: "And, although I stated that I would not reply any more on this post, I think it would be rude of me not to do so to the EBU Chief TD on this new issue."

I think it would be better for posters who wish to continue the discussion without me to concentrate on the ruling in the case, rather than semantic issues as to whether "wrong in Law" is the same as "wrong on a point of Law or regulations". This forum is getting more like the rather sad BLML. And I now have other non-bridge projects, so am unlikely to post on this forum again for a while. I use the word "unlikely" in case the situation changes.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2014-April-11, 02:36, said:

This forum is getting more like the rather sad BLML.

Yes. And I now ask, politely, that people refrain from moving in that direction any more. I don't want to stifle legitimate discussion about practical rulings, but these forums are not intended for philosophical discussions.

[par31]

What was the outcome of the appeal?

[gordontd]

Lamford & Vampyr won their appeal.