X-CAA-SPAM: F00000

From: "Susan Wang" <>

To: "Ray Orwig" <>,

"Alan M. Kirshner, Ph.D." <>

Cc: <>,

>,

<>,

<>,

"Brian Lu" <>

Subject: Re: Tournament Appeal

Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:23:29 -0800

Hi Ray,

I was wondering if you can clarify on a couple of points that you mentioned in your email to Dr. Kirshner.

1. In point #5, you wrote,

“5. We felt that the decision we made was a fair and compassionate one for both players concerned. They were both happy with it and the reasons we gave.”

Were you the one who informed Michael of the final decision from the hearing?

If yes, when did you inform Michael of the decision and what reason was given to Michael?

If no, please inform me as to a) specifically, who from the hearing committee or the tournament staff inform Michael of the decision, and b) when (time frame) was Michael informed.

I am asking because I am baffled as to when the committee had a chance to inform my son without my knowledge. Michael returned to us right after the last round, informed us that three TDs/Coaches had questioned him in the playing room. After he returned, we collected our belongings plus getting the chess clocks from the team room, and proceeded walking to our car via the bridge connecting the Santa Clara Convention Center/Hyatt with the parking structure. On the bridge, we had passed by three people sitting outside one of the room and one of them was Tom Langland. We dropped off our stuffs in the car (parked on the second floor of the parking structure) and walked back to the convention center/hotel side via the connecting bridge again. This time, the three that were sitting outside the room earlier were not there any more. We headed directly to the award ceremony room, and stood by the door before finding seats in the back. Dr. Kirshner and Ted Castro joined us not long after. It was at the award ceremony that we first heard about the decision from the hearing from Dr. Kirshner. My son definitely was not happy about the decision when Dr. Kirshner told him, so I am a bit baffled as to how you got the impression that ‘They were both happy with it and the reasons we gave.’.

2. In the second part of point #1, you wrote,

“Also a technical point; USCF Rule 21H1 (and Rule 21H4) specifically says that "a player" may appeal any ruling. It does not say a coach, a parent, but that it must be a player.”

a) So, if a coach or a parent cannot appeal a ruling, then why was Dr. Kirshner not informed of such at the time that he requested the appeal?

b) In addition, if a coach cannot appeal any ruling, then why the committee held a hearing to consider the appeal?

c) Lastly, if Dr. Kirshner’s appeal cannot be considered valid, then on what grounds were the originally ruling by John McCumiskey overturned?

To be honest, I don’t really care about who got the point, and who didn’t. However, I would like to have clarifications on how the rules are written, and the interpretation of the rules by the committee and the tournament staff, so that I can better educate my kids as well as other kids in the future when they play in tournaments. Plus, would the committee interpret the rule the same way if this happened to a kindergartener?

3. In point # 3, you wrote,

“3. We did in fact speak to Michael and asked him what had occurred, how the request was worded, and what he would like the outcome to be. ...”

So, your recollection is that you had asked what outcome Michael would like to have, in addition to what the TD had told him on day 1. However, my understanding from Michael is that he was asked by the three of you on what the TD had said, and he answered. In addition, he also said that the committee had asked him whether he did not press the clock because he felt that he was forced not to, or just being nice. Michael answered that he felt that he couldn’t. After which, he was told by the committee that the committee had everything that was needed from him. So, could there be some misunderstanding from the committee or maybe the committee had asked the opponent but forgot to ask Michael on what outcome he would like to see? Common sense would tell me that any one in Michael’s position would not have wanted to see what the committee had ruled in the final ruling.

Regards,

Susan Wang

Michael Lu’s mom