[mr1303]

http://web2.acbl.org...11/09-NABC+.pdf

Loving Jeff Goldsmith's comments on an appeal he chaired.

[Zelandakh]

Wow, this is some AC report! The Chairman disagrees with it; the first additional commentary seems to be based on a personal (biased?) relationship with one of the OS; the second seems to say something different to the Laws (unmistakable is how it appears to the table, not the burden of proof the TD requires, as I understand it); and the final commentary implies that the OS were lucky to get the ruling they did. Is this a typical case of who you know rather than what you did?

To be honest I have not seen many AC reports - are they all like this?!

[paulg]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-31, 07:31, said:

To be honest I have not seen many AC reports - are they all like this?!

If you want to read more then the EBU has recently published its booklets for 2010 (PDF) and 2011 (PDF). Knock yourself out

[ArtK78]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-31, 07:31, said:

Wow, this is some AC report! The Chairman disagrees with it; the first additional commentary seems to be based on a personal (biased?) relationship with one of the OS; the second seems to say something different to the Laws (unmistakable is how it appears to the table, not the burden of proof the TD requires, as I understand it); and the final commentary implies that the OS were lucky to get the ruling they did. Is this a typical case of who you know rather than what you did?

To be honest I have not seen many AC reports - are they all like this?!

I believe that Bobby Wolff's comment is that NS were lucky to get the result that they got, not the ruling that they got.

[helene_t]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-31, 08:42, said:

I believe that Bobby Wolff's comment is that NS were lucky to get the result that they got, not the ruling that they got.

Yes, otherwise it would be somewhat sarcastic to say that they were "entitled" to it.

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-31, 08:42, said:

I believe that Bobby Wolff's comment is that NS were lucky to get the result that they got, not the ruling that they got.

Quote

If there was no BIT, then any action is legal, but I think in this case that North got very lucky, but he is entitled to that, as long as the officials ruled no BIT.

Given that the comment begins with "If there was no BIT" and closed with "as long as the officials ruled no BIT", it seems to clear to me that this is a suggestion that there may well have been a BIT, albeit done in a somewhat dry manner. This gives the "very lucky" part an additional meaning imho. If I read it correctly then it is an extremely clever comment.

Also, thanks for the links Paul - I am through most of 2011 and found some of the cases quite interesting, in a Stephen Fry kind of way.

[Phil]

I've read the first six decisions.

Did Bobby Wolff even read #6 LOL?

His comments on all the cases seem like he barely skimmed the decisions, as if he has something more important to do, instead of carefully considering them like the others.

[nige1]

Unless the director has attended the TD mind-reading course, all he can do after an alleged break-in-tempo, is interrogate the players. If there is a dispute over what happened, then the poor director has to make up his own mind. With experienced tournament players, typically, he has little to go on but must do the best he can. (Although, IMO, real BITs are more often denied than non-existent BITs invented). The committee may have been privy to new information, but on the given facts, I feel they should have endorsed the director's decision.

[campboy]

I disagree. If the TD had said "a BIT probably occurred" then there would have been no reason for the AC to overturn his ruling. He didn't, however, and "a BIT may have occurred" is not sufficient grounds for an adjustment. Law 85A1 requires the TD to make a judgement as to where the balance of probabilities lies, and he does not appear to have done so.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2013-January-31, 10:26, said:

Unless the director has attended the TD mind-reading course, all he can do after an alleged break-in-tempo, is interrogate the players. If there is a dispute over what happened, then the poor director has to make up his own mind.

But he didn't. He said that "the BIT was not clear but may have occurred." That is, he declined to make up his own mind.

Quote

The committee may have been privy to new information, but on the given facts, I feel they should have endorsed the director's decision.

On the given facts, the Director's decision was illegal. He didn't determine that there was a BIT. With no BIT there is no UI, and no grounds for adjustment.

[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on 2013-February-01, 02:17, said:

But he didn't. He said that "the BIT was not clear but may have occurred." That is, he declined to make up his own mind.

On the given facts, the Director's decision was illegal. He didn't determine that there was a BIT. With no BIT there is no UI, and no grounds for adjustment.

I suspect something was lost in translation from TD to AC. If you replace "may have" with "probably", the TD's position makes more sense. Ideally the TD would say something like "It is not certain but on the balanced of probabilities I believe the BIT occurred."

[gwnn]

Wow, "Alleged BIT of about 8 seconds. BIT disputed by North-South."

(the wow goes against the two sentences being so close to each other, not either of them separately)

[Cthulhu D]

Phil, on 2013-January-31, 09:52, said:

I've read the first six decisions.

Did Bobby Wolff even read #6 LOL?

His comments on all the cases seem like he barely skimmed the decisions, as if he has something more important to do, instead of carefully considering them like the others.

That one is pretty glorious yeah. Maybe someone should make him a stamp with CONVENTION DISRUPTION!! and that would cut down the time he needs to spend on it even further. The first one is pretty good too - Jeff Goldsmith points out that there has been a fundamental failure by the committee to gather the information to create a ruling, one of the other panelist agrees and Wolffs commentry on the substance of the matters is 'well reasoned decision'

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2013-January-31, 09:52, said:

His comments on all the cases seem like he barely skimmed the decisions, as if he has something more important to do, instead of carefully considering them like the others.

Something is going on, for sure. Check previous casebooks; he didn't just start doing that for Toronto. It is almost like he has been bashed into submission but still has some contractual obligation to comment.