Bbradley62, on Jun 24 2010, 05:26 PM, said:
The appeals committee should not have to poll North's peers; the committee should BE COMPRISED OF North's peers. When I was elected to my ABCL unit's board as a 23-year-old with about 50 master points, one of my immediate goals was to have such a practice initiated at our tournaments; it is not right for Flight B players' actions/motives/thoughts to be judged by Flight A players.
While I agree in principle that a committee should be comprised in the main of a player's peers, it is often not possible to arrange that. Also, at a large tournament, you'd have to have either a large committee, or several committees each peers of one or another group.
I've often heard it said that while B players aren't capable of thinking like A players (else they would
be A players), A players are capable of thinking like B players. Having met a few A players of whom that seems to be untrue, I would disagree.
Quote
Outside of ACBL-land, it might be that the director's ruling was inaccurate because it might be right to weight the expected results of playing 3N and 5♣. Of course, if North/South want the committee to consider this, the appeal would have to say so.
This is inaccurate. Either you use Law 12C1{c} and weight the scores, or you use 12C1{e} as the ACBL does. In a jurisdiction where the former is true, the AC would be
expected to weight the scores, and consider possible weightings, even if the appellants didn't specifically ask them to do so.