[One Short]

A Director is required to consider a revoke under 64 B 4. That is, after play to the next hand has been started.
It is difficult to establish exactly the play of the cards to each trick and the revoke is not agreed upon. However, information from the four players enables the TD to decide that that the only way that the end result could arise is by the offending player revoking.
The information was obtained by the TD on the next day and in the meantime a valid appeal had been made against the published result of no revoke.
At the appeal hearing, TD submits a written report containing his findings of facts and concluding that the revoke had taken place with the result being amended accordingly.
Has the appeals committee any powers to over-rule the TD or are they only able to recommend to the TD that he changes such a ruling?

[sfi]

I don't understand why this is going to an appeals committee. There doesn't seem to have been an original director ruling to appeal.

If the director has determined that a revoke occurred after the play to the next hand started, Law 64C states that he shall assign and adjusted score if the non-offending side has been damaged by the revoke. It sounds like this is what has occurred, so the director should just adjust the score.

Once that occurs, either side can appeal this decision. Had the director ruled that no revoke occurred, that decision can also be appealed. In either case, the appeals committee can change the score as prescribed under the laws (Law 91B3 defines which points the appeals committee cannot overrule the director on, but these situations do not fall under that). I can't imagine that the pair claiming that the other one revoked would get very far with an appeals committee if it was not picked up at the table, the director did not think so, and the other side disagreed, however.

[One Short]

The TD did not in fact "rule" on the night as matters were just left in abeyance until there was adequate information available. The appeal was made on the published result just to preserve the right to have the issue considered.

[sfi]

That doesn't change the fact that there was nothing to appeal, so strictly speaking the process was not legal. Law 92B provides for a 30 minute period after the official scores have been made available for inspection, which had not happened since this matter had not been dealt with. If the 30 minutes was not appropriate, then the Tournament Organizer could have set another timeframe (like the next day, an hour before the next session, or a day after both sides had been notified of the result, for example) that would have allowed both sides to consider whether they wanted to appeal after finding out how the director ruled.

The practical difference is that you don't have to fill out a form, gather a bunch of people in a room, and run a formal process that inconveniences everyone until there is actually a reason to do so.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me incumbent on the director to make his ruling before the correction period expires, although the law does not explicitly say so. If the director has been informed of an irregularity in a timely manner (i.e., before the correction period expires) and he does not rule and inform both pairs of his ruling in time for either pair to lodge an appeal, then he has not done his job properly. I suppose the TD has the authority to extend the correction period in specific cases, such as the one in the OP (Laws 81C2, 81C3, at least).

[aguahombre]

Blackshoe's got it, with his last sentence. It seems akin to a legal process beginning before the statute of limitations expires, and continuing afterward.

There certainly is a right to appeal. But I think an appeal involves a ruling not a review of the whole hand in general. The TD's amended ruling should be presented to the players, who then might appeal it ---not to an AC formed to assess the original ruling.

[bluejak]

One Short, on 2012-September-20, 04:15, said:

A Director is required to consider a revoke under 64 B 4. That is, after play to the next hand has been started.
It is difficult to establish exactly the play of the cards to each trick and the revoke is not agreed upon. However, information from the four players enables the TD to decide that that the only way that the end result could arise is by the offending player revoking.
The information was obtained by the TD on the next day and in the meantime a valid appeal had been made against the published result of no revoke.
At the appeal hearing, TD submits a written report containing his findings of facts and concluding that the revoke had taken place with the result being amended accordingly.
Has the appeals committee any powers to over-rule the TD or are they only able to recommend to the TD that he changes such a ruling?

An AC can always over-rule a TD in any ruling he makes where his disciplinary powers are not involved.

As others have said, the process seems flawed. But the players must have a time to submit an appeal after the ruling is given.

blackshoe, on 2012-September-20, 07:52, said:

It seems to me incumbent on the director to make his ruling before the correction period expires, ...

I don't agree with this. Certainly the Correction Period for appeals needs to be extended whenever a ruling is late. But Correction Periods are designed for when someone can ask for a ruling or appeal a ruling.

Suppose someone comes to the TD after 29 minutes in a jurisdiction where the default applies. Does that mean the TD has to listen to the evidence, consult, consider, and deliver his verdict in 60 seconds? No, certainly not.

[blackshoe]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-20, 07:52, said:

It seems to me incumbent on the director to make his ruling before the correction period expires, although the law does not explicitly say so. If the director has been informed of an irregularity in a timely manner (i.e., before the correction period expires) and he does not rule and inform both pairs of his ruling in time for either pair to lodge an appeal, then he has not done his job properly. I suppose the TD has the authority to extend the correction period in specific cases, such as the one in the OP (Laws 81C2, 81C3, at least).

bluejak, on 2012-September-21, 07:51, said:

An AC can always over-rule a TD in any ruling he makes where his disciplinary powers are not involved.

As others have said, the process seems flawed. But the players must have a time to submit an appeal after the ruling is given.


I don't agree with this. Certainly the Correction Period for appeals needs to be extended whenever a ruling is late. But Correction Periods are designed for when someone can ask for a ruling or appeal a ruling.

Suppose someone comes to the TD after 29 minutes in a jurisdiction where the default applies. Does that mean the TD has to listen to the evidence, consult, consider, and deliver his verdict in 60 seconds? No, certainly not.

Since we seem to be disagreeing with each other, let me suggest that your first statement is flawed, since the AC cannot over-rule a TD on a point of law.

As for the other disagreement, I did suggest that the TD has the power to extend the correction period in specific cases. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

[blackshoe]

I have had private correspondence from One Short, because he felt that we had gotten off track here. This post is an attempt to get us back on track.

The facts:
1. After board N+1 was started, the defending side on board N called the TD and alleged there had been a revoke by declarer.
2. The alleged OS disagreed that there had been a revoke.
3. The TD ruled under Law 85B that the score on board N shall stand, pending an investigation into the facts.

Assume for the sake of argument that everything occurs within the correction period specified in Law 92B, either as written in the law or in TO regulation, or as amended by the TD for this case.

Facts continued:
4. The NOS appealed the ruling in #3 above, in order to preserve their rights.
5. The next day, the TD's investigation uncovered evidence (a written statement from one of the defenders, verbal testimony and a joint written statement from the declaring side which did not contradict the facts presented in the defender's statement, and verbal corroboration of the defender's statement from the other defender) which indicated that there had indeed been a revoke.
6. The information in the declaring side's testimony and letter is incomplete as to how the play went, but several points are in agreement with the play as stated in the defender's letter, and no point in the former contradicts the latter.
7. The TD determined, from the evidence, that the table result could not have occurred had declarer not revoked.
8. The TD ruled that there had been a revoke under Law 61A, that the revoke was established per Law 63A1, and that there would be no rectification as in Law 64A, per Law 64B4.
9. The TD adjusted the score under Law 64C.
10. The TD presented all these facts, and his amended ruling, to the AC.

The OP's question: has the AC the authority to overrule the TD on the question whether a revoke occurred?

My answer:

Ordinarily, whether a revoke in fact occurred is a matter of law. The evidence is clear: the offender had a card of the suit led to a trick, and he did not play that card. You look at the trick, and it's obvious this is the case. So in such a case, the AC would not have the power to say "there was no revoke". However, in this case, the existence of the revoke is based on a reconstruction of the play of the hand based on the memories of the four players involved. So whether there was a revoke is a matter of opinion, not of law. The AC has the power to overrule the TD on this, but it would require additional evidence contradicting the existing evidence. IOW, the AC can't just ignore the evidence the TD collected — it has to find either new evidence or that the TD erred somehow in his collection.

My questions: On the basis of the facts presented (let's not get sidetracked again here), does anyone disagree with my answer? If so, for my own edification, why?

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-24, 09:08, said:

I have had private correspondence from One Short, because he felt that we had gotten off track here. This post is an attempt to get us back on track.

The facts:
1. After board N+1 was started, the defending side on board N called the TD and alleged there had been a revoke by declarer.
2. The alleged OS disagreed that there had been a revoke.
3. The TD ruled under Law 85B that the score on board N shall stand, pending an investigation into the facts.

Assume for the sake of argument that everything occurs within the correction period specified in Law 92B, either as written in the law or in TO regulation, or as amended by the TD for this case.

Facts continued:
4. The NOS appealed the ruling in #3 above, in order to preserve their rights.
5. The next day, the TD's investigation uncovered evidence (a written statement from one of the defenders, verbal testimony and a joint written statement from the declaring side which did not contradict the facts presented in the defender's statement, and verbal corroboration of the defender's statement from the other defender) which indicated that there had indeed been a revoke.
6. The information in the declaring side's testimony and letter is incomplete as to how the play went, but several points are in agreement with the play as stated in the defender's letter, and no point in the former contradicts the latter.
7. The TD determined, from the evidence, that the table result could not have occurred had declarer not revoked.
8. The TD ruled that there had been a revoke under Law 61A, that the revoke was established per Law 63A1, and that there would be no rectification as in Law 64A, per Law 64B4.
9. The TD adjusted the score under Law 64C.
10. The TD presented all these facts, and his amended ruling, to the AC.

The OP's question: has the AC the authority to overrule the TD on the question whether a revoke occurred?

My answer:

Ordinarily, whether a revoke in fact occurred is a matter of law. The evidence is clear: the offender had a card of the suit led to a trick, and he did not play that card. You look at the trick, and it's obvious this is the case. So in such a case, the AC would not have the power to say "there was no revoke". However, in this case, the existence of the revoke is based on a reconstruction of the play of the hand based on the memories of the four players involved. So whether there was a revoke is a matter of opinion, not of law. The AC has the power to overrule the TD on this, but it would require additional evidence contradicting the existing evidence. IOW, the AC can't just ignore the evidence the TD collected — it has to find either new evidence or that the TD erred somehow in his collection.

My questions: On the basis of the facts presented (let's not get sidetracked again here), does anyone disagree with my answer? If so, for my own edification, why?

The bolded assertion is dubious and grossly negligent; as, to otherwise have validity there are necessarily one or more additional conditions- such as he held no other card of such suit; he was required by law to play precisely that card and didn't.....

1. mixing the cards- the only way to verify a revoke or its absence is to recreate the play of the entire hand perfectly with the agreement of both sides. I think that this is one of the few valid ways to a finding of a verified revoke; it being acceptable that both sides concur to a revoke's existence without necessarily swearing to the exact play of the cards.

In this case, as both sides cannot concur to the play of all 13 tricks I am unwilling to accept someone's assertion that there in fact was such a revoke without being able to judge from the total evidence myself. The reason in part being that strange things could well in fact have happened during those tricks lacking concurrence. I say this because I have seen strange things happen hundreds and thousands of times when no one as much as as believed something strange happened [at least until it was pointed out].

2. As for opening pandora's box with such an out of date accusation [my motivation for speaking up]: I point out that much of a competition comes down to focus and forcing an opponent to spend his energy to be prepared to defend himself against something that may well have not happened- because he might be accused at any time- is a distraction from focus. I, for one erase the hand once it is over and it takes an immense exertion to attempt to resurrect it later.

So, to put the opponents to the distraction of generating facts necessary for a L64C ruling only in the end for the facts to not be certain/sufficient enough with which to produce a proper L64C ruling seems to be bad form to me. Well, yes the opponents will perform badly for the remainder so I guess that is something.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-24, 09:08, said:

My questions: On the basis of the facts presented (let's not get sidetracked again here), does anyone disagree with my answer? If so, for my own edification, why?

I am afraid I do. Whether there has been a revoke is a judgement decision, not a matter of Law, and may always be appealed and the AC may overturn it.

True, in most cases the judgement is fairly obvious and the AC very unlikely to overturn it, but that is not the point: they certainly can.

The TD gathers facts, but all such facts may be appealed and overturned, whether there was a revoke, whether a player said or wrote something, what the auction was, what system is being played, how the play went, and so on and so on. These are all matters that may be appealed.

When the facts have been determined, the application of Law and its interpretation is a matter for the TD. The AC may not over-rule him because that is a matter of Law. But they may always over-rule him on what he believes the facts to be, because that is not a matter of Law.

[blackshoe]

Define "matter of law" then. Provide three examples.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-24, 19:03, said:

Define "matter of law" then. Provide three examples.

Was that on the Bar Exam?

[blackshoe]

Damfino. It certainly wasn't on the ACBL's TD exam when I took it.

[bluejak]

If there is a revoke, the revoker wins the trick, and his side wins another trick, what is the penalty? That is a matter of Law.

If a player might have received UI from his partner, whether he has is a matter of fact to be determined, what actions are LAs is a matter of judgement, and what the effect of each is another matter of judgement. Having decided that there is UI, what LAs are and what effect they have, how you adjust is a matter of Law.

Can you ask a question for partner's benefit is a matter of Law. Whether a question asked is for partner's benefit is a matter of judgement.

Was there a hesitation by a player? That is a matter of fact to be determined. What ruling is to be given once the facts are determined and the bridge judgement decided is a matter of Law.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-24, 19:03, said:

Define "matter of law" then. Provide three examples.

bluejak, on 2012-September-25, 09:59, said:

If there is a revoke, the revoker wins the trick, and his side wins another trick, what is the penalty? That is a matter of Law.

If a player might have received UI from his partner, whether he has is a matter of fact to be determined, what actions are LAs is a matter of judgement, and what the effect of each is another matter of judgement. Having decided that there is UI, what LAs are and what effect they have, how you adjust is a matter of Law.

Can you ask a question for partner's benefit is a matter of Law. Whether a question asked is for partner's benefit is a matter of judgement.

Was there a hesitation by a player? That is a matter of fact to be determined. What ruling is to be given once the facts are determined and the bridge judgement decided is a matter of Law.

You gave one example of a "matter of law", and then three examples of the difference between Law and fact or judgement.

I believe the Bar Exam graders would not give a high score for that

But, seriously, your answer should be copied and memorized by all prospective TD's and AC members.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-25, 10:11, said:

But, seriously, your answer should be copied and memorized by all prospective TD's and AC members.

I can't argue with that. However,consider this scenario: if the TD is called to the table and told "declarer revoked on trick three: a spade was led, the contract was 3NT, and declarer pitched a diamond from his hand", then looks at trick three (no one having mixed his cards yet) and determines that indeed declarer pitched a diamond, and then looks either at later tricks or at declarer's hand, as necessary, and determines that declarer did indeed have a spade in his hand at trick three, because either he still has one in his hand now, or one identified as having come from declarer's hand is found among the later quitted tricks. Now, if I understand David correctly, the answer to the question "did declarer revoke on trick three?" is a matter of opinion, excuse me, judgement, and not a matter of law. I confess I'm having trouble getting my head around this.

[bluejak]

How can it be a matter of Law?

Compare the following:

There is a Law in the USA that all females must obey males.
Along comes a human who has an hourglass figure, very large breasts, tiny waist, big hips, and a lovely voice.

Does this human have to obey males?

It is a matter of Law that females must obey males, but it is not a matter of Law that she is female.

To be honest, I do not understand why a judgement that is completely obvious suddenly becomes a matter of Law, when it is not if it is not completely obvious. Strange.

[blackshoe]

All right, that's fair enough. So the AC comes along and says "nope, that wasn't a revoke". Now what? It seems this judgement by the AC is legal. If it isn't, why isn't it? If it is legal... Maybe it's enough to say "no AC would ever do that," but it sure doesn't seem enough to me.

[barmar]

Neither the TD nor the AC should be able to contradict the definition of a revoke. However, the AC can say "the TD made a mistake when he determined that the alleged revoker had a card of the suit led".

In other words, the definition of a revoke is a matter of law. Whether the actual circumstances fit the definition is a matter of fact or judgement, not law.