ACBL appeals committees

[Ant590]

Hi all,

 

I've just been reading through the ACBL Summer 2002 casebook (http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Washington_DC_Sum02.pdf) and was wondering if anyone could clear up two points for me...

 

1) When polling players of a similar standard are any other factors other than masterpoints taken into account? I was alarmed at the commentary from case 8; a player who is improving but fairly new to the game would surely balance on this hand, yet the poll suggests his/her peers (presumably accurately) would not. This leads on to q2:

 

2) I consider myself, rightly or wrongly, better than my masterpoint level- having been playing for four years but being a keen student of the game. I've only ever had the pleasure of attending one appeal (opp were offending side, we called to get ruling at table which they challenged... I'm sure Matt -Echognome- will remember it better than I!); our the committee's ruling was largely based on our opponents' skill level as opposed to bridge 'logic'. This leads me to believe that the EBU policy is similar to the ACBL one in terms of polling and LAs... do I need to start documenting the fact that I like to balance when the opps have a fit etc to cover myself?

[mr1303]

Well, having looked at the hand, 2C is beyond automatic under any circumstances. And I've got hardly any masterpoints either (the only thing they're good for is either for writing shopping lists or as book marks).

[paulg]

Masterpoints are only a guide to someone's skill level. In my experience (local) TDs are often quite aware of players who are misrepresented by them and more care would be taken with younger players (whose skill levels vary enormously due to skill, the time of day, etc.).

 

TDs are also better than most at understanding the experience of players just by chatting to them at the table. In the specific case it is quite clear that everyone believed that North was a particularly poor player.

 

Level of experience is also something that normally becomes clear at an Appeals Committee. However, as is mentioned in the report, it can be difficult for better players to understand how the minds of (considerably) less experienced players work.

 

Although 2♣ may be obvious to most, remember that they are probably playing 5-card majors and the auction suggests that South may have 4-4 in the majors, with only three clubs. This may be one reason that North's peers did not consider a 2♣ call. The other reason would be that they only have 4 points ... less experienced players do not bid with bad hands unless partner has huddled!

 

Paul

[han]

I agree with Paul although I do find it scary that they say they asked other players at his "masteropint level". I'm probably one of those!

[jdonn]

How else can they find peers? By asking the player how good they are then trusting their own self assesment? Yes masterpoints suck, but it's the only option available.

 

They have sometimes made exceptions in the past and asked players with more masterpoints, for example for young players who are obviously very strong, or foreign players who have lots of success in other countries.

[skjaeran]

A huge problem with the poll in my opinion is that they should have polled players at north's level who play a weak NT. (That might be a problem in the ACBL, I guess.) But given that this player was unable to give a bridge-logic explanation for bidding 2♣, the decision was probably correct.

 

I'm quite sure that this decisone would have been totally different in England and Denmark, where most people play a weak NT. North's peers there would be unanimously bidding 2♣ with this hand.

[Cascade]

A huge problem with the poll in my opinion is that they should have polled players at north's level who play a weak NT. (That might be a problem in the ACBL, I guess.) But given that this player was unable to give a bridge-logic explanation for bidding 2♣, the decision was probably correct.

I wasn't convinced by this reasoning. The player said that they never let the opponents play at the one-level.

 

This could easily be the thinking of an inexperienced player who realizes that in his system it is a good idea to balance without having explicitly worked out that this is because partner rates to have extra strength or extra distribution in his weak no trump system.

[pclayton]

Sometimes its not that easy for the director to find peers quickly. I agree it would be ideal for the director to find a few weak NT players with 300-500 MPs, but thats not always achievable.

 

We've discussed many times about the validity of masterpoints in determining skill level. It's not. However, what else is the director supposed to do? To the Patty's credit (the reviewing director), she polled six players, which more than I believe is typically asked.

[pclayton]

A huge problem with the poll in my opinion is that they should have polled players at north's level who play a weak NT. (That might be a problem in the ACBL, I guess.) But given that this player was unable to give a bridge-logic explanation for bidding 2♣, the decision was probably correct.

I wasn't convinced by this reasoning. The player said that they never let the opponents play at the one-level.

 

This could easily be the thinking of an inexperienced player who realizes that in his system it is a good idea to balance without having explicitly worked out that this is because partner rates to have extra strength or extra distribution in his weak no trump system.

This is a self-serving statement. The committee shouldn't give it any weight unless North can prove this is true in marginal cases.

[Cascade]

1. Depending on exactly what the methods are this hand may not be marginal. In particular if the pair play 4-card majors then 2♣ seems pretty close to automatic to me.

 

2. Anything I say in support of my appeal is self-serving. It seems unfair to me to not place any credence on the statements of the appellents. "We always bid rather than pass out the opponents at the one-level" or its equivalent could easily be the non-expert's way of saying "In our system partner will always have extra values or extra distribution on this auction". It seems wrong to me to accept the latter because we like (and understand) the bridge logic but not accept the former because the player has not had the experience or taken the time to think through why it is a winning strategy so often to bid on marginal hands in the pass out seat.

 

It seems to me to be more self-serving to learn the magic words - 'bridge logic' - that the appeal committee will accept rather than express the concept in ones own language using his limited understanding of the situation.

 

3. In this case I am not at all convinced from reading the report that the committee established that pass was a logical alternative to bidding 2♣. In particular they seem to have surveyed inexperienced players who were unfamiliar with this pair's methods. To pay full weight to players' opinions when they are unfamiliar with the methods and no weight to the testimony of the player who made the bid seems out of balance to me.

[pclayton]

] 1. Depending on exactly what the methods are this hand may not be marginal. In particular if the pair play 4-card majors then 2♣ seems pretty close to automatic to me.

 

The appeal review said nothing about their base system except they play weak NT's. I would bid 2♣, but I don't have 300 points either.

 

]2. Anything I say in support of my appeal is self-serving.

 

Completely disagree. A player can say plenty of things to a panel that isn't self serving. A player should attest to what happened at the table, without trying to put spin on it. A player should give honest answers to their methods, agreements and carding.

 

]It seems unfair to me to not place any credence on the statements of the appellents. "We always bid rather than pass out the opponents at the one-level" or its equivalent could easily be the non-expert's way of saying "In our system partner will always have extra values or extra distribution on this auction".

 

I understand that this is a relatively new player involved, but to make a blanket statement like "We always bid rather than pass out the opponents at the one-level" shows either a total lack of understanding about competitive auctions or is trying to make the panel look like they never sell out, thus self-serving. As I said, if they can show - particularly in the tourney or event - that they competed on a yarb at the 2 level. then I wouldn't give any credit to this statement.

 

 

] It seems wrong to me to accept the latter because we like (and understand) the bridge logic but not accept the former because the player has not had the experience or taken the time to think through why it is a winning strategy so often to bid on marginal hands in the pass out seat.

 

It seems to me to be more self-serving to learn the magic words - 'bridge logic' - that the appeal committee will accept rather than express the concept in ones own language using his limited understanding of the situation.

 

I agree with what you are saying, but you are trying to interpret "Beginner Bridgese". There's nothing to suggest thats the case.

 

] 3. In this case I am not at all convinced from reading the report that the committee established that pass was a logical alternative to bidding 2♣. In particular they seem to have surveyed inexperienced players who were unfamiliar with this pair's methods. To pay full weight to players' opinions when they are unfamiliar with the methods and no weight to the testimony of the player who made the bid seems out of balance to me.

[blackshoe]

If the TD, or an AC member, disregards a statement from a player solely because it's self-serving, he's not doing his job correctly.

[pclayton]

If the TD, or an AC member, disregards a statement from a player solely because it's self-serving, he's not doing his job correctly.

Really? So I can say ridiculous statements to an AC like "we pass all 13 counts" and expect that that will weigh into their decision?

[jdonn]

If the TD, or an AC member, disregards a statement from a player solely because it's self-serving, he's not doing his job correctly.

Really? On what do you possibly base that statement? You feel that way thus it's true? Sorry but it is well documented and understood that committees are not to consider self-serving statements unless they are obviously true or can be proved. Just read any casebook from an NABC, decision after decision explains that the committee (correctly) ignored this and this self-serving testimony.

 

In fact, this is even provided in their instructions!

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...dge-Appeals.pdf

 

"The committee should be prepared to deal with self-serving testimony. The testimony usually is relevant and should be admitted, but in such cases the committee should not give it any significant weight. The reason is the potential bias by players having a direct interest in the committee deciding matters in a particular way."

[Cascade]

The committees and directors seem to accept self-serving testimony all of the time that there was a hesitation.

 

Have you ever been to a committee when you know there was not a hestitation but the opponents claim that there was and tried to convince the committee or the director that there was no hesitation. It is all but impossible.

[jdonn]

The committees and directors seem to accept self-serving testimony all of the time that there was a hesitation.

 

Have you ever been to a committee when you know there was not a hestitation but the opponents claim that there was and tried to convince the committee or the director that there was no hesitation. It is all but impossible.

No, when one side claims a hesitation and the other denies it, the committee uses the bridge hand itself and any other evidence (witnesses, history) as a guide to determine whether or not there was one. They do not accept the testimony of either side as being conclusive. This is exactly what they are supposed to do, and what the casebooks show them doing in many cases.

[blackshoe]

I'm sorry. Apparently I missed the forum rule that prohibits the expression of opinion.

 

I note that the ACBL guideline quoted does not say to dismiss "self-serving" testimony out of hand, and it does say that such testimony is to be admitted - and testimony which is to be admitted must be considered, even if little weight is given it.

 

And yes, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. :P

[jdonn]

I'm sorry. Apparently I missed the forum rule that prohibits the expression of opinion.

 

I note that the ACBL guideline quoted does not say to dismiss "self-serving" testimony out of hand, and it does say that such testimony is to be admitted - and testimony which is to be admitted must be considered, even if little weight is given it.

 

And yes, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.  :P

No one said your opinion couldn't be admitted it. I just correctly did not give it any significant weight :P

 

Seriously though, it's a sad trend lately the alarming frequency with which posters are grasping at straws and stubbornly sticking to their "opinions" even after being conclusively proven wrong. :P

 

I'll flip through some casebooks.

 

Cases in which the committee notes it ignored "self-serving testimony" (there were many more, but the term "self-serving" was not always used), or in which at least one casebook commentator either noted the committee for ignoring self-serving testimony, or chided them for failing to do so:

 

From Washington: 20, 23, 25, 26, 42

From Phoenix: 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 24

From Philadelphia: 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 21, 22

[david_c]

The committees and directors seem to accept self-serving testimony all of the time that there was a hesitation.

That's a little different. When there is a dispute about whether there has been a hesitation, the committee will rarely overrule the director's decision, since this is one of those things where "you had to be there". So if you believe that there was not a hesitation, you have to try to persuade the TD of this; if it goes to an AC you have virtually no chance of overturning the TD's decision unless he made some glaring error.

[ralph23]

If the TD, or an AC member, disregards a statement from a player solely because it's self-serving, he's not doing his job correctly.

Really? So I can say ridiculous statements to an AC like "we pass all 13 counts" and expect that that will weigh into their decision?

Interestingly (to some anyway), the common law imposed an evidentiary "disability" upon parties to a lawsuit; they were not deemed competent to testify in the lawsuit, because they were obviously biased and might (or would probably/perhaps) lie !

 

The party disability rule, like many common law rules, was simple and effective, but eventually came to be recognized as less than optimal.

 

It's of course been superseded by statute in all jurisdictions (see e.g. Federal Rule of Evidence 601, "all witnesses are presumed to be competent etc",) and the modern approach is: let anyone testify, and witness bias can be exposed/explored by cross-examination, so that bias goes to the weight of the testimony, and not to its admissability.

 

The ACBL Guidelines specifically note that ACBL is a private organization, not a court, so the "rules of evidence" don't apply (hence hearsay is admissible in general), but the "weight" rules appear to be adopted.

 

So yes, you can make (i.e. they are admissible, you are not barred by a disability from making them) ridiculous statements to an AC like "we pass all 13 counts." And, of course, once you do make such a statement, everything you say thereafter will be ... er ... "suspect" would be a nice word for it.

 

I saw a witness one time make such a ridiculous statement on the stand. At the end of his testimony (which for obvious reasons, ended SOON thereafter :P ), the judge turned the witness over to the other lawyer for cross-examination. The lawyer rose and said "No questions, Your Honor; the witness has already cross-examined himself and I can't do any better." Everyone laughed, judge banged his gavel, lawyer apologized for any disruption, and of course his side won. It was the best cross-examination I've seen in 30 years.

[blackshoe]

Seriously though, it's a sad trend lately the alarming frequency with which posters are grasping at straws and stubbornly sticking to their "opinions" even after being conclusively proven wrong. :angry:

I don't believe I've been grasping at straws, and I don't believe I've been proved wrong, so you'll forgive me if I disregard this self-serving statement. :D