|
|
Appel 10-LK-3Danmarks Bridgeforbunds Appelkomite |
Norges Bridgeforbund has lodged a protest to the effect that the medals at the Junior Nordic Championships (held in Vingsted, Denmark 2011-04-21 through 2011-04-24) were not awarded properly.
This the documentation pertaining to this protest:
The protest has been considered by Danmarks Bridgeforbunds Laws Commission, which is a subcommittee of the national appeals committee.
| The Laws Commission rejects the protest. |
| The awarding of the medals at the championships is not to be changed. |
| The overall decision is unanimous, but there are details in decision that are not unanimous. |
The Laws Commission has considered whether it is the proper body to hear a protest of this kind.
Danmarks Bridgeforbund (DBf) was the tournament organizer for the Junior Nordic Championships. In that role, the Conditions of Contest were published (Law 80B2f), specifying (Law 80B2k) that the DBf Appeals Committee was to hear appeals passed to the regulating authority (Law 80A1c) according to the procedures governed by Law 93C. This obviously applies to appeals based on rulings made by a tournament director at a table. There is no explict rule within the Nordic Bridge Union that extends this procedure to cover protests based on administrative decisions made by the tournament organizer; however there is no other rule that provides some other process for hearing such protests. There are such rules in DBf's regulations (and indeed in other Nordic federations' regulations). By analogy, the DBf Laws Commission finds itself competent to hear this protest and decide its outcome.
This part of the decision is not unanimous. The minority opinion is that a protest of this kind should be heard by the NBU.The tournament organizer is responsible (Law 80B2f) for publishing tournament regulations. The tournament organizer has fulfilled this responsibility by publishing the Conditions of Contest and by holding a captains' meeting at the beginning of the tournament. In the captains' meeting, the tournament director presented the way winners would be determined:
In this way, the tournament organizer has interpreted the NBU rules and regulations as part of its overall responsibility for organizing the tournament. The Laws Commission is of the opinion that such an interpretation is within the competence and responsibility of the tournament organizer (Law 80B2f).
This part of the decision is unanimous.
The Laws Commission is of the opinion that the NBU rules are open to interpretation as to the details of determining the overall winners of the different parts of the event. The members of the Laws Commission have different opinions regarding the most appropriate way to interpret the regulations. It is therefore a display of due diligence that the tournament organizer has determined an interpretation and presented it at the captains' meeting.
Law 92B prescribes that an appeal of a ruling must be raised at the latest 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection. It is a fact that this protest was not raised within that time limit. Some, but not all of the members of the Laws Commission would rule that this time limit also applies to a protest like this one.
5. The conditions were known when the first match started
The conditions for awarding medals were explained at the captains' meeting, and afterwards this interpretation was consistently used in the way the overall standings were published. Those members of the Laws Commission that are willing to consider the protest in spite of the 30 minute limit mentioned in section 4 above, would rule that when these conditions were known throughout the tournament, it would be inappropriate to change them after the fact.
The Laws Commission is thus unanimous in its decision that the medals shall not be awarded anew as a result of this protest, even though the members arrive at this conclusion in different ways.
