[McBruce]

Phil, on 2011-August-19, 12:53, said:

We've discussed on here that the interval "without pause for thought", starts after its noticed by the player.

Agreed -- but the opponents are in a better position than the absent TD is to judge when the player noticed it. This player claims to have noticed his error just as partner was about to reach for the bid-box after at least a short delay. I'll take him at his word, but if the opponents doubt this and saw something indicating earlier doubt about the call, they'll tell me about it.

[semeai]

There's been much discussion of 4♦ versus 4♥, but not much discussion of:

mtvesuvius, on 2011-August-16, 01:29, said:

Partner's pass is in theory a relay beginning a spiral scan. Redouble would have been business. This means that partner couldn't be bidding keycard in clubs, otherwise they would have redoubled for sure. Therefore it now seems like AI that partner has messed up someplace.

(assuming this is still relevant, i.e. that 4♥ was enforced and partner's desire to bid 4♦ is UI)

If pass of 5♣ is really impossible, wouldn't partner know that too? Maybe he's trying to use it to get to play 5♣ but not redoubled.

I feel like if you want to argue strongly that your partnership always uses the strict meanings of bids according to your system notes, and that the pass really is spiral scan, with partner certain of the small slam and hoping to get to a grand (win 6 vs 5♣xx if you get to the grand, lose 2 if you get to the small and make 6, lose 6 if you get to the small and make 7), you can be allowed to make your normal spiral scan response. If you want to argue that it's impossible partner wants to spiral scan, I think pass is a logical alternative. I can't see an incorrect spiral scan response being allowed over the normal one in the first case or over pass in the second case.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2011-August-19, 12:22, said:

The primary reason that most bad appeals are lodged is that when ruling the TD does not:
A] state the agreed facts
B] explain his reasons for his finding of disputed facts
C] quote the relevant law
D] explain his judgment in interpreting the facts

Notably, if TD did the above they would not be giving so many rulings that should be appealed; and for the rulings that are appealed the appellants at least would be able to judge the relevant issues to bring forward.

Which is to say that AC should do the same and to fail to do so is a dereliction of duty and a disservice.

The other side to that coin is that players, at least around here, consider listening to "all that claptrap" a waste of time. They don't want to hear it, and if you try to tell it to them, they will inform you - often vehemently - that they don't want to hear it. Which, I suppose, may be part of why TDs don't bother.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-19, 15:01, said:

The other side to that coin is that players, at least around here, consider listening to "all that claptrap" a waste of time. They don't want to hear it, and if you try to tell it to them, they will inform you - often vehemently - that they don't want to hear it. Which, I suppose, may be part of why TDs don't bother.

The primary reason for giving thorough rulings is increase the likelihood that they will be good rulings. Ancilliary consequences include education [players and ruling giver] and avoiding the desire to appeal.

Personally, I haven't been given a good ruling [zone 2] in twenty years and I attribute the dearth to not doing the things I outlined above.

The attitude that you have displayed has very sad consequences. I suggest being thorough and if the players want to avoid it then maybe they will make the effort to avoid irregularities just to keep you away.

[pran]

axman, on 2011-August-19, 12:22, said:

The primary reason that most bad appeals are lodged is that when ruling the TD does not:
A] state the agreed facts
B] explain his reasons for his finding of disputed facts
C] quote the relevant law
D] explain his judgment in interpreting the facts

Notably, if TD did the above they would not be giving so many rulings that should be appealed; and for the rulings that are appealed the appellants at least would be able to judge the relevant issues to bring forward.

Which is to say that AC should do the same and to fail to do so is a dereliction of duty and a disservice.

Precisely!
Thank you - at least one sensible comment.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-19, 15:01, said:

The other side to that coin is that players, at least around here, consider listening to "all that claptrap" a waste of time. They don't want to hear it, and if you try to tell it to them, they will inform you - often vehemently - that they don't want to hear it. Which, I suppose, may be part of why TDs don't bother.

Which is no excuse for a TD failing to provide this very relevant information on the appeal form that goes to the AC.

All the appeal forms I have seen contain four major sections:

1: The facts (Deal, auction and play as far as is relevant for the case)
2: TD's report on how he experienced the situation, his considerations and his ruling with reference to law and/or regulation.
3: The appellant's comments and reason for appealing.
4: The opponents' comments.

[blackshoe]

I didn't say it was an excuse, I said it was reality. And TDs are just as human as anybody else. That's reality too.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-19, 21:27, said:

I didn't say it was an excuse, I said it was reality. And TDs are just as human as anybody else. That's reality too.

TD rulings are one side of the picture, when it comes to appeal I always expect an appeal form properly filled in by all affected parties. If the facts or TD report is missing I take it as evidence that TD did not do his job. And if the appellant has not filled in any comment or reason for appealing then I expect the appeal to be dismissed forthwith.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-August-20, 02:07, said:

TD rulings are one side of the picture

Yeah. I already said that.

pran, on 2011-August-20, 02:07, said:

when it comes to appeal I always expect an appeal form properly filled in by all affected parties

At a tournament, sure. Do clubs in Norway typically use/require such forms?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-20, 07:30, said:

[...]
At a tournament, sure. Do clubs in Norway typically use/require such forms?

Not necessarily the form itself, but certainly the information.

Less serious clubs obviously do not, but then neither do they handle appeals, they probably do not even know what an appeal is.