You have been warned

[Phil]

From the WBF Daily Bulletin today:

 

Appeals — We say again

First-day appeals at these championships demonstrate

that captains fail to understand the extreme difficulty of

persuading the appeals committee that the tournament

director’s ruling is not correct. No change in a director’s

ruling was made and a deposit has been retained.

The director’s ruling is considered to be correct unless

an appellant succeeds in presenting strong evidence

that the director is not right. Since judgemental rulings

are always the subject of consultation among very experienced

directors and the opinions of a number of

expert players are always obtained, it is highly unlikely

that a team will succeed in changing the ruling on appeal.

[iviehoff]

I suspect that captains would have long experience that appeal committees are normally more easily persuaded than that. It may indeed be the case that WBF has given attention to making sure that TDs at the Bermuda Bowl get it right first time, and consult widely on the judgment aspect. But simply because WBF says they aregetting it right first time, doesn't necessarily mean that they are. But if they are, then it might take some time for the players to discover that this is actually the case at this event.

[nigel_k]

The director’s ruling is considered to be correct unless

an appellant succeeds in presenting strong evidence

that the director is not right.

Considered by who to be correct?

 

Don't the appeals committee have a duty to rule in accordance with their best judgment, regardless of what the director did? That's their job.

[bluejak]

Certainly, but ACs do follow the rules laid down for them by the authority. It has been clear over the years, for example, that ACs in th ACBL have a much freer approach than ACs in England/Wales, for example, while in some countries there appear to be no control at all over ACs.

 

In the ACBL the approach has always been that you look at the case from the start, as though this is th first time it has been looked at. In most other jurisdictions that instruct their ACs [many do not] the approach is to start with the TD's ruling and consider whether it is correct.

 

For example, if a ruling is given and a weighted score of 65-35 was given by the TD, to appeal it to try and get a weighting of [say] 75-25 would be considered meritless in England/Wales because the authority has said so. In another jurisdiction this may not be the case.

 

The WBF use the best TDs and rules designed for their events [in passing, that is why I am amazed that people think that such rules are suitable in clubs in Scotland, for example :) ] and it is not unreasonable for them to point out the dangers of appealing, where it may be different in Glenrothes BC, for example.

[MFA]

WBF has improved the TD procedure, so that more TDs are involved in each decision and polls among strong players are standard for all tricky evaluation problems. The TD will be able to explain to the AC about all this and thus give more weight to his decision.

 

I think the quoted statement is fair. Appeals with very little hope are good for no-one, but since it's a world championship, some people might be inclined to make silly, marginal appeals.

[aguahombre]

Even though there are plenty of "peers" to poll, there are none to poll who haven't seen or played the hand.

[JoAnneM]

My problem with an appeal committee, especially at an event like Sao Paulo, is the partisan aspect of it. That is why I favor TD's consulting with each other over difficult rulings, or most rulings, and then that being the end of it. Seems like the TD's chosen for top flight events are very highly respected, at least the one TD that I know from the US who is at Sao Paulo is probably one of the top two or three in ACBL.

[Cascade]

For example, if a ruling is given and a weighted score of 65-35 was given by the TD, to appeal it to try and get a weighting of [say] 75-25 would be considered meritless in England/Wales because the authority has said so. In another jurisdiction this may not be the case.

There is no legal basis for this arbitrary rule.

 

"A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at

his table by the Director. Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be

the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation." 92A

 

"3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned

by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule

the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of

his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the

Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)" 93B3

 

Clearly a 65-35 ruling is a matter of discretion and judgement and not of law and regulation so it is allowed to be appealed.

 

It is not enough for the regulating authority ahead of time to say that any such appeals lack merit.

 

Appeals actually have to "lack merit" for 92A to be properly adhered to.

 

If 65-35 does not reflect the actual probabilities of the case at hand then the appellents would have a valid case for appeal. Note that 93B3 specifically gives the committee power to exercise such weighted rulings which clearly implicitly would include varying the weightings given by the director if they consider that those weightings are in error.

[bluejak]

All rules are arbitrary: please do not start this game again.

 

There is a basis: an authority has said it is so: that is a basis.

 

It is also totally reasonable and obvious, but that is a different matter.

[jeremy69]

The WBF have just repeated this warning in the bulletin today for those starting in the transnational teams and in my view it is a heavy handed threat to reduce the number of appeals. There is already a deposit to deter frivolous appeals and speaking as someone who won a medal in a European transnational on an appeal I wouldn't have wanted the committee on that occasion to assume the TD was right no matter how many colleagues he had consulted nor would I willingly sit around for hours whilst an appeal was decided so it would be a serious case which affected the result before I appealed and trying to deter me in this fashion is an abuse of process. For one thing those consulted for the most part simply want you to go away and not to have to think about the hand so the answer they give is not necessarily their best shot and given the circumstances in which they are asked I'm not surprised.

[gnasher]

I can think of two cases at WBF events where a poor ruling was changed by the Chief TD, after the players had initiated an appeal and handed over a deposit, but before the Appeals Committee knew anything about it. That might lead the committee to have an excessively rosy view of the quality of the directors.

[nigel_k]

I don't understand why it's a good process for the director to canvass a bunch of experienced players of his own choosing when the appeals committee are put there to do the same job. And in the appeal, the players get to put their case, instead of relying on the director to accurately put it for them in an informal chat situation without the players even present.

 

I get the impression this is all a contortion to avoid the director feeling bad when their ruling is overturned.

[bluejak]

Appeals Committees are not there to do the same job. They are there to review rulings. Unlike the 1950s and 1960s [and, I am afraid, a little later than that in North America] TDs are expected to do their job and give rulings properly.

[blackshoe]

When a TD polls players, he is not putting anyone's case for a particular action, he's presenting a situation and asking what the players polled would do, without (if he's doing it right) any hints about what actually happened at the table, or about any player's opinion of what should happen now.

[aguahombre]

those who feel that the current situation amounts to intimidation are right. The purpose is to deter AC's from happening. This is wrong. At this level, perhaps "appeal without merit" should be what is discarded. Let them have their day in court. There will still be damned few anyway.

[nigel_k]

When a TD polls players, he is not putting anyone's case for a particular action, he's presenting a situation and asking what the players polled would do, without (if he's doing it right) any hints about what actually happened at the table, or about any player's opinion of what should happen now.

Often system and style is a factor. The TD needs to ask what the person polled would do if playing the same system as the pair at the table and in possession of the inferences available to that pair.

 

When you get back the director's ruling there is no way of knowing how well all of that was communicated. The process is much too opaque.

[bluejak]

That is a communication issue. Good TDs, who have used a player poll, say so. But even if they do not say so nothing in this thread has really shown me why TDs using player polls is so much worse than ACs merely using their own ideas.

[jeremy69]

nothing in this thread has really shown me why TDs using player polls is so much worse than ACs merely using their own ideas.

 

Appeal committees aren't perfect but what is wrong is that

1. Polls are an inadequate sample

2. They are taken by TD's who may not present the facts in the best way

3. They often invovle players with an interest

4. The players are involved in their own world and often don't want to give the time/brain power to work out what to do.

 

That doesn't mean they should not be used but there are drawbacks IMO

[bluejak]

Of course there are drawbacks but this still does not give any reason to suppose that ACs are so much better. It is just as easy to list the drawbacks of ACs who do not use polls.

[mycroft]

Yes, we want to deter frivolous appeals, if for no other reason than it costs the organizers money, either from needing more people to be on hand for appeals committees (of a skill level at least comparable to the event) - and there's a limit to how much they'll do anything out of the goodness of their hearts - or from the extra cost of salaries/room costs/people not coming for the next event.

 

The fact that even meritable (i.e. coin-flip, give or take) appeals can trigger "the game should be won at the table, not three hours afterward in the committee room" - if it really is a coin-flip situation, the grumbling will happen no matter which way the appeal goes! - added to the fact that ACs have been known to come up with clearly bad rulings in clearly frivolous situations (well, I guess they weren't frivolous, were they?) (so have TDs; that's why the review needs to be available. But these *are* the best) means that some pressure to limit appeals should exist. If, despite that pressure, you think it's a miscarriage of justice, okay, appeal.

 

The problem with "deposits" in any event prestigious enough to bring sponsors to the table is that there just isn't a deposit level that will matter to the person paying his team $0.5m to play 5 weeks this year that won't "intimidate" the non-sponsored teams more than a "we bring the best TDs in the world here, and they take extra-special care to get sufficient evidence to make the right judgement ruling" note in the bulletin.

 

Of course, a suitable deposit (that won't stop a litigious Mr. Sponsor from appealing anything that has any measurable chance, of course) of "enough to pay the AC for their time with a round or two in the bar" has its merits. Just don't count on it to be a deterrent to frivolous appeals (and realize it will be a deterrent to some meritorious appeals for teams that are already budgeting to the last $5).

[Trinidad]

I think that it is important that any team can appeal a TD decision if they feel "wronged". Deposits are a good way to prevent frivolous appeals.

I agree that financial deposits don't work for the simple fact that a dollar doesn't have the same value for all the players.

 

Therefore the deposit should be something that is of equal value to all the players. Why not make the deposit 1 or 2VP? If the appeal had merit (even if it was lost), the deposit is returned, just like now. If the appeal didn't have merit, the VPs are forfeited.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

In England players love Swiss tournaments, because for every match won or drawn you get 0.25 of a national master point, familiarly called a "quarter-green". People love playing for quarter-greens. If a pair or team lying second from bottom gets a ruling and loses their match 11-9 they can appeal to try to get the quarter-green, and if the appeal is frivolous, who cares? Losing 11-8 or 11-7 is just the same number of quarter-greens.

 

Furthermore, a pretty ethical well-known pair brought a clearly frivolous appeal against one of my rulings in the Shapiro Spring Fours. They lost, and the sponsor lost his 30 GBP. But if there had been an imp penalty, what difference? They had just lost a k/o match: who cares whether they lost by 3 imps or 10 imps? [it was quite clear from the pair's demeanour what they thought of the appeal.]

 

The statements as to the best method of controlling frivolous appeals are nearly always that some specific method is best. But it demonstrably is untrue: no one method works in every case.

 

My suggestion in England/Wales is that one of the following two methods is tried:

 

If an appeal is determined to be frivolous, then the pair involved and/or their captain should lose

• 10 GBP, and
  
• one national master point [1 green point], and
  
• one "appeal without merit warning", and
  
• 3 imps/10% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the board involved, and
  
• 3 imps/10% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the next stanza the contestant plays
  

The idea, obviously, is try to find something they will not like. The second possibility is to allow the AC to decide between them, so the AC can apply:

• 30 GBP, OR
  
• three national master points [3 green points], OR
  
• one "appeal without merit warning", and
  
• 9 imps/30% of a top/1.5 VPs applied to the board involved, OR
  
• 9 imps/30% of a top/1.5 VPs applied to the next stanza the contestant plays
  

An "appeal without merit warning" would trigger an investigation if a player gets two in a year. or three in three years. There would be possible further penalties.

[peachy]

I think that it is important that any team can appeal a TD decision if they feel "wronged". Deposits are a good way to prevent frivolous appeals.

I agree that financial deposits don't work for the simple fact that a dollar doesn't have the same value for all the players.

 

Therefore the deposit should be something that is of equal value to all the players. Why not make the deposit 1 or 2VP? If the appeal had merit (even if it was lost), the deposit is returned, just like now. If the appeal didn't have merit, the VPs are forfeited.

 

Rik

IMO, there should be no deposits. Money is a deterrent only to those who don't have much to spread around. It would be unfair to virtually deny only the poorer folks the ability to appeal a table ruling.

 

Warnings and VP penalties, maybe progressive, for repeated meritless appeals should do the job.

[gerry]

All rules are arbitrary: please do not start this game again.

 

There is a basis: an authority has said it is so: that is a basis.

 

It is also totally reasonable and obvious, but that is a different matter.

Absolute total complete and utter nonsense.

 

If you don't want Appeal Committees changing directors' decisions then rewrite the laws to say so.

 

Either throw the Laws out and let Regulating Authorities make all the rules as it suits them or follow the laws as written.

 

I must say that I am heartily sick of reading posts defending regulations that are unambiguously illegal.

 

Hence the vehemence.

[MFA]

All rules are arbitrary: please do not start this game again.

 

There is a basis: an authority has said it is so: that is a basis.

 

It is also totally reasonable and obvious, but that is a different matter.

Absolute total complete and utter nonsense.

 

If you don't want Appeal Committees changing directors' decisions then rewrite the laws to say so.

 

Either throw the Laws out and let Regulating Authorities make all the rules as it suits them or follow the laws as written.

 

I must say that I am heartily sick of reading posts defending regulations that are unambiguously illegal.

 

Hence the vehemence.

I don't see any reason why this practice should be illegal. :)

 

The appeal option is there. It is only natural and sensible that if more compentence is put in to the TD's rulings in the first place then their assessments and decisions will have more weight in a following AC. It would be a bad AC if it didn't care at all about the polls made by the TDs (for instance).

 

I don't see anything wrong either in openly announcing this sensible practice.