[Bbradley62]

gordontd, on 2012-January-23, 01:56, said:

Being "fined" is being issued with a Procedural Penalty. It's not an EBU thing (though your question now makes me wonder if calling it a "fine" is).

I've been away from tournaments for a while, so I may not be up on current lingo, but I would always equate "fine" with "financial penalty".

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-January-23, 16:22, said:

If that's really all the form says, then I would have thought there are two possibilities:

either
a. these people have no idea what an LA is and how it is applied in a UI case
or
b. the form wasn't very well filled in, and ACs do indeed need education, but in how to fill the form in properly.

Yes, the exact wording in the "Decisions and Findings of Fact by the Committee" is "Pass by South not a logical alternative after the UI". Nothing else.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2012-January-23, 16:40, said:

If the UI demonstrably suggested bidding on over passing then your partner's Pass was of course illegal

Huh?

[campboy]

According to Fowler, the verb following "majority of X" is invariably plural but either a singular or a plural verb may be correct after "majority", depending on context.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-23, 17:15, said:

Huh?

Good point, I got my words the wrong way round, now corrected (I think). I clearly need someone to proof-read my posts at this time of night!

[wank]

is this thread any more than a baseless rant?

[WellSpyder]

campboy, on 2012-January-23, 17:20, said:

According to Fowler, the verb following "majority of X" is invariably plural but either a singular or a plural verb may be correct after "majority", depending on context.

[Warning - off topic, of interest to pedants only]

I don't have a copy of Fowler to hand, but AFAIR he makes a critical distinction over whether the article preceding words like majority or number is definite or indefinite: "a majority are.." but "the majority is..." (This distinction is unfortunately lost in wyman's otherwise really nice chart.)

I think the distinction works well, but I find it increasingly difficult to persuade people to use a plural verb when appropriate because they see what looks like a singular noun and think they are being careful when they use a singular verb. But it really doesn't sound right (and therefore isn't right!) to say "a number of people has started playing bridge....".

[campboy]

WellSpyder, on 2012-January-24, 04:02, said:

I don't have a copy of Fowler to hand, but AFAIR he makes a critical distinction over whether the article preceding words like majority or number is definite or indefinite: "a majority are.." but "the majority is..." (This distinction is unfortunately lost in wyman's otherwise really nice chart.)

That's the distinction made (at least in the third edition) for "a/the number of", but there's a separate entry for "majority".

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-January-24, 05:09, said:

That's the distinction made (at least in the third edition) for "a/the number of", but there's a separate entry for "majority".

The data in the chart are not convincing. If one looks at "a majority is" it is neck and neck with "a majority are", but "the majority is" is well behind "the majority are". "Data are" was well ahead of "Data is", but the latter is closing. Declining standards in education or a more flexible approach to language?

[bluejak]

wank, on 2012-January-23, 19:58, said:

is this thread any more than a baseless rant?

I would hate to agree with wank in any way, but I do not see the point of this thread either. Surely, to comment sensibly on it, we need to see the hand.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-January-24, 11:03, said:

I would hate to agree with wank in any way, but I do not see the point of this thread either. Surely, to comment sensibly on it, we need to see the hand.

I doni't think that the hand is an issue. I am simply concerned about the fact that appeals committee members do not understand the concept of LAs nor how to apply the Laws concerning them to a ruling. I think that there needs to be some sort of standard, but I have no idea what exactly can be done.

[bluejak]

People who chair ACs generally understand the concept of LAs and generally realise that they should consult the TD on any matter of law they do not understand. If you think that on a specific hand they went completely barmy it is difficult to comment further without seeing the hand. You may, of course, be completely right, but it is difficult to suggest anything further without us being able to evaluate the hand.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-January-24, 11:16, said:

People who chair ACs generally understand the concept of LAs and generally realise that they should consult the TD on any matter of law they do not understand. If you think that on a specific hand they went completely barmy it is difficult to comment further without seeing the hand. You may, of course, be completely right, but it is difficult to suggest anything further without us being able to evaluate the hand.

WB 93.4.3(m) states that "once the committee decision has been made then no more discussion is allowed." I think this should be followed, certainly if members of the AC, appellants or defendants, are on this forum. If the L&E confers an exemption to this rule for this forum, then it should be stated.

[Bbradley62]

lamford, on 2012-January-24, 11:46, said:

WB 93.4.3(m) states that "once the committee decision has been made then no more discussion is allowed." I think this should be followed, certainly if members of the AC, appellants or defendants, are on this forum. If the L&E confers an exemption to this rule for this forum, then it should be stated.

Are you suggesting that "the rules" say that when after an appeals committee makes a ruling, no one should discuss it later at the bar, or on the drive on the way home, or in this (or any other) public forum? It seems clear that the meaning of the quoted rule is that once the committee has made its decision, that decision is final and there can be no attempts to make the committee change its ruling.

[lamford]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-24, 12:03, said:

Are you suggesting that "the rules" say that when after an appeals committee makes a ruling, no one should discuss it later at the bar, or on the drive on the way home, or in this (or any other) public forum? It seems clear that the meaning of the quoted rule is that once the committee has made its decision, that decision is final and there can be no attempts to make the committee change its ruling.

It states "Chairmen of Appeals Committees are to remind both the Committee and the players that once the committee decision has been made then no more discussion is allowed." I think only the L&E can comment on how strictly this is to be interpreted.

[wyman]

Regardless, those of us not bound by the WB may wish to comment on such happenings.

This ruling is akin to an American juror commenting after a conviction "there was reasonable doubt as to his innocence, so we had to convict; " it isn't enough to warrant overturning the whole justice system, but it's certainly enough to cause concern.

Just as a judge advises and oversees juries, perhaps it would be reasonable to have a TD (who did not make the table ruling) oversee/advise the committee as to relevant law.

[bluejak]

If we are not allowed to discuss cases here then a lot of good advice will not be heard. However, I do not think that is the case.

I believe that you are completely misinterpreting the White book advice. The problem comes with people who wish to challenge the AC decisions directly: on occasion they have been very nasty to AC members and have challenged them in person. At least one leading player informed the authorities that he would not sit again because of the attack from one of the players involved.

It is not our aim to attack the persons involved. Admittedly some people seem to think it is acceptable to try to work out who is involved: I do not believe that is a good idea. But discussion of real cases has been the mainstay of this and other forums, and I feel it always will be and should be.

[Oof Arted]

jallerton, on 2012-January-23, 17:32, said:

Good point, I got my words the wrong way round, now corrected (I think). I clearly need someone to proof-read my posts at this time of night!

Perhaps Frances

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-24, 11:09, said:

I doni't think that the hand is an issue. I am simply concerned about the fact that appeals committee members do not understand the concept of LAs nor how to apply the Laws concerning them to a ruling. I think that there needs to be some sort of standard, but I have no idea what exactly can be done.

I think they may understand the concept, but worded the ruling poorly. What they probably meant was "not an allowed Logical Alternative".

[blackshoe]

It does seem an odd way to phrase it, if in fact they meant "the player selected a called which could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative".