[blackshoe]

"Cannot be appealed" is incorrect. Any ruling can be appealed. It is true that an appeals committee cannot overrule the Director in Charge (DIC) on a matter of law or on a disciplinary penalty under Law 91, but the committee can recommend he change the ruling, and the DIC would do well to seriously consider doing so in most cases.

Law 83 does not permit the table director to refuse to allow an appeal.

As for a disciplinary penalty, how is simply calling the director a breach of order and discipline?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-05, 10:07, said:

As for a disciplinary penalty, how is simply calling the director a breach of order and discipline?

I know that you always argue that calling the TD cannot be wrong, but I think that to do so for the purpose of disrupting the game or annoying the declarer when he uses expressions like "follow" and "play", is a breach of the etiquette.

Under Law 83 I would exercise my power not to advise a contestant of his right of appeal, as I would believe that a review would not be in order. If the miscreant works out that he can still do so, but cannot in theory get the penalty changed that is up to him.

[blackshoe]

How do you know his purpose was to disrupt the game or to annoy the declarer?

Law 83 requires the director to inform a contestant of his right to appeal if the director believes that a review of his ruling "could well be in order". If the director doesn't believe that, he's free to ignore this law.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-05, 15:18, said:

How do you know his purpose was to disrupt the game or to annoy the declarer?

Law 83 requires the director to inform a contestant of his right to appeal if the director believes that a review of his ruling "could well be in order". If the director doesn't believe that, he's free to ignore this law.

Anybody who calls the TD when declarer says something like "play" or "follow", which is clearly understood by all, is being a "tosser" and merits a DP. And I would always believe that a review of the DP was not in order, and, if the player did appeal, I would apply 91A and 91B3. If an AC advised me to remove the penalty, I would refuse, and then resign as (voluntary) TD at the club and not direct again.

[blackshoe]

If you would alter your ruling after the fact from a PP (Law 90) to a DP (Law 91) to avoid having an appeals committee overturn your penalty, I should think your club would be happy to accept your resignation.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-05, 18:11, said:

If you would alter your ruling after the fact from a PP (Law 90) to a DP (Law 91) to avoid having an appeals committee overturn your penalty, I should think your club would be happy to accept your resignation.

I would impose a DP in the first instance, as the offence would have been deliberate disruption of the game. I am sure you would not accept 184 director calls when there was an incomplete designation, which was the number (of such designations, not of TD calls) I counted at my table last week? If you did nothing, the players would vote with their feet.

[blackshoe]

184? Were they all by the same player?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-05, 21:24, said:

184? Were they all by the same player?

No, they were an average of 15 per two boards, by 12 different declarers, including me; I routinely and deliberately break Law 46A myself by not specifying the suit and rank when it is unnecessary, as does around 90% of the North London Club. I think one declarer who says, for example, "three of diamonds, please, partner; nine of diamonds, please, partner" every time is intensely irritating and distracting (and a breach of Law 74A2 in that "please" and "partner" are extraneous remarks).

On this board, I am told, RR had eight incomplete designations. At trick one, he said, "follow", when the ace of diamonds was led, and on the king of diamonds he annoyingly called for "The Curse of Scotland", getting a withering look from SB. On the third diamond, as we know, he said "ruff with the two" and the TD was correctly called and ruled that the two of hearts had to be played, being the only two in dummy and declarer's different intention was not incontrovertible. East won that trick and cashed the ace of clubs and this time declarer just said "play". When drawing trumps, which by now he suspected were spades, as he recalled that the two of hearts had not won an earlier trick, RR specified "small" under the top trumps. Then under the top hearts, he just said "heart". This was fairly typical of the behaviour of the declarer on other boards, and this board alone would, technically, have required eight TD calls in Blackshoe Borough.

[blackshoe]