When should an AC award a PP?
David Grabiner <grabiner <at> alumni.princeton.edu>
2007-10-01 02:42:14 GMT
Appeals committees often award procedural penalties, and they do have the right
to do so (they have all the powers of the Director except for the power to
overrule the Director on a matter of law), but there aren't good guidelines.
I looked at Kaplan's articles on the role of an appeals committee. The director
is considered to be the expert on ascertaining the facts and interpreting the
laws, but not on bridge judgement. And from article 14, "Procedural penalties
are rarely established initially by a Committee, although they may be (i.e., if
a violation of correct procedure comes to light during a hearing into a related
matter). Normally, the penalty is imposed by a Director and is considered by
Committee only on appeal.... Still, a Committee should tend strongly to uphold
the Director's ruling, unless the case for lessening or removing the penalty is
overwhelming, since the Director usually has the best knowledge of the facts,
and is the one responsible for the operation of the contest."
Therefore, here is what I think the guidelines should be.
An appeals committee should freely award or modify a procedural penalty that it
believes is justified:
For a procedural infraction that was made in the appeal itself (appeal without
merit, behavior before the committee).
If the facts justifying the penalty or modification were not available to the
If the justification for the penalty or modification is a matter of bridge
judgement and the judgement was not clear to the Director.
If the comittee determines that the level of the penalty was inappropriate for
the level of the player who committed the procedural infraction.
An appeals committee should normally accept a Director's ruling, but may award
or modify a procedural penalty if it believes the Director made a mistake: