JRG, on Jun 1 2004, 03:47 PM, said:
whereagles, on May 25 2004, 12:37 PM, said:
The Director's decision was his own judgement of the situation. You can't say it was "right" or "wrong". In fact, I might very well rule as he did unless Flame convinced me he would definitely bid over a non-forcing 3♦ and pass a forcing 3♦.
And of course, if you disagree with the Director's judgement, you appeal. That's what appeals comittees are for
And of course, if you disagree with the Director's judgement, you appeal. That's what appeals comittees are for
The burden of proof is NOT supposed to be laid on the non-offending side. If you are not sure, you are supposed to rule against the OFFENDING side.
There appear to be differing codes applied by TDs depending on which side of the Atlantic. In USA the TD seems to act as nothing more than an automaton to determine who is the offending side, rule against that side, schedule it for the inevitable appeal and move on to the next problem. In UK it seems that the TD should do his best to predict the result of the AC and make that ruling in advance. Yes, if in genuine doubt the non-offending side would be protected, but every attempt would be made to allay or limit those doubts, and if the balance of doubt was substantially in favour of the offending side then rule in that favour.
This issue was discussed in some depth at
http://forums.bridge...p?showtopic=535

Help

s
t
r-m
nd
ing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.