You have been warned

[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.

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.

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.)

Are you seriously suggesting that an AC who ignores this Law is doing something legal?

[Echognome]

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.

Always tough to find the right balance. If you make the penalty too harsh, you will be loathe to find AC's willing to give the penalty in the first place. Also, I like your first type of suggestion better than the second, as the second one adds an additional burden on AC's to determine what type of punishment is the most detrimental to the pair involved. It's also open to abuse in the other direction, albeit unlikely.

 

I'm also not sure it's such a good idea to try to apply penalties going forward. It sounds like a logistical nightmare. Imagine there was a team of six, with players A, B, C, D, E, F with pairs AB, CD, EF. Will the penalty apply to A if he plays on a different team in the next event? Or will it only be when AB play together next? Or only when all six play together next? Just sounds like a super pain to sort out.

[bluejak]

I suppose by "next stanza" I was really thinking of the same event generally. I agree it would not work otherwise.

[Echognome]

I should mention that I like the idea of penalizing different items. The "rich client" will make the monetary penalty trivial, whereas it makes it really painful to the "starving student". Given the game is about bridge, then having bridge score related penalties seems to make sense. In fact, I would think something along the lines of:

 

First frivolous appeal -

1. Warning; and

2. 0.25 green points individually for each player

 

Second frivolous appeal -

1. 1 green point individually; and

2. 3 imps/10% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the board involved for the team, regardless of whether any team member has had a frivolous appeal.

 

Third frivolous appeal -

1. 3 green points individually; and

2. 9 imps/30% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the board involved for the team, regardless of whether any team member has had a frivolous appeal; and

3. Warning about Ethics Committee hearing.

 

Fourth frivolous appeal -

1. Hearing in front of Ethics committee with possible suspension from play.

 

You can fine tune by removing an appeals "demerit" once a year rather than making these lifetime punishments. I believe this would be an effective way to get rid of frivolous appeals.

[nige1]

So that players know what's what and so that regulating authorities don't need to re-invent the wheel, IMO, something similar to the following (default) protocol should be defined in the law-book ...

• It is good that directors consult each other and poll players.
  
• When polling players in UI cases, the director should ask each player two questions
  • What action do you take (without revealing the UI)? then ...
    
  • What action does the UI suggest? This is an attempt to ensure that the UI receiver has at least one permitted logical alternative.
    

  [*] Appeals are also a wonderful institution because

  • They occasionally allow injustices to be rectified.
    
  • When published, they sometimes show players that everyone has done their best to dispense justice.
    
  • They're always an amusing read.
    
  • Careful judgements and close decisions provide a kind of case law.
    

  [*] An official appeals adviser should advise would-be appellants on the basis of the facts as recorded by the director and players.

  [*] Weighted rulings should be appealable because a fraction of a percentage may alter the result of a competition. It is important that the director and committee be kept ignorant of the likely effect of weighting changes.

  [*] The committee should always check with the director that their ruling conforms with the law.

  [*] It's hard to decide what should be the penalty for a frivolous appeal but even if a money fine is no deterrent to the rich, at least it helps to compensate the regulating authority for all the time and hassle.

  [*] The deposit should be returned (or whatever) if any of the following conditions obtain ...

  • The adviser advised that the appeal was justified.
    
  • The committee reasoning or decision differs significantly from the director's (even if it is harsher).
    
  • The committee decision wasn't unanimous.
    
  • The committee vote to keep the deposit wasn't unanimous.
    

[jeremy69]

It's important not to make appeals procedures too bureaucratic/complex especially as some of them are done in a bit of a hurry. Appeals advisers in England have reduced the number of appeals significantly and in practice not all that many deposits are withheld.

Whilst the comments to the effect that the money means nothing to the sponsor and some others my view is that it is generally not £30 but the fact that the argument is so completely dismissed that players don't like.

I don't have a problem trying alternatives. Some would resent removal of green points and others would laugh at you. VP/Matchpoint fines would work in some events but not usually knock outs.

To a large extent, in England, this is a hammer to crack a relatively non existent nut.

[bluejak]

The deposit should be returned (or whatever) if any of the following conditions obtain ...

• 
   
  
• The adviser advised that the appeal was justified.
   
  

No way! The appeals adviser will - obviously - hear what the players say. He cannot be sure it is true or unbiased. It would spoil the whole appeals adviser system if this went through as players would do the obvious.

[shintaro]

[*] The deposit should be returned (or whatever) if any of the following conditions obtain ...

[*] The adviser advised that the appeal was justified.

;)

 

Nigel surely not would you as an appeals adviser know for certain you had been told the 'Whole' and 'correct' facts when you advise someone they should appeal ???

 

<_<

[nige1]

The deposit should be returned (or whatever) if any of the following conditions obtain ...

The adviser advised that the appeal was justified.

No way!  The appeals adviser will - obviously - hear what the players say.  He cannot be sure it is true or unbiased.  It would spoil the whole appeals adviser system if this went through as players would do the obvious.

;) Nigel surely not would you as an appeals adviser know for certain you had been told the 'Whole' and 'correct' facts when you advise someone they should appeal ??? :(

I wonder what Bluejak would consider obvious for players to do :)

Unfortunately, Bluejak and Shintaro both ignore an important qualification in the suggested protocol quoted below with additional emphasis.

[sNIP] The official appeals adviser should advise would-be appellants on the basis of the facts as recorded by the director and players[/sNIP].

IMO the advisor should (crudely and briefly) assess appellants' arguments on the basis of recorded facts. If appellants belatedly want to add more facts to the director's report, then the adviser can send them back to the director to do so.

[bluejak]

Well, if your idea is that an Appeals Adviser should no longer base anything on what they tell him, you are out of your mind. What players want is people to talk to. We have an excellent system here: why ruin it?

[jallerton]

I think Nigel makes a very good point. As an Appeals Adviser, I'd like to receive an unbiased and complete version of the facts, including knowing why the TD ruled the way he or she did. Of course the players will have someone to talk to and they will then be able to receive more sensible feedback.

 

There's nothing worse for an Appeal Adviser than, having advised a pair that they have good grounds for appeal, to discover later that the appeal was frivolous because some pertinent facts available to the TD and the AC had not been mentioned to the Appeals Adviser.

 

One of the stated reasons for the Appeals Adviser system is to reduce the number of frivolous appeals. This objective will not be achieved if the Adviser is given inaccurate or incomplete information.

[duschek]

The deposit should be returned (or whatever) if any of the following conditions obtain ...

• 
   
   
  
• The adviser advised that the appeal was justified.
   
   
  

No way! The appeals adviser will - obviously - hear what the players say. He cannot be sure it is true or unbiased. It would spoil the whole appeals adviser system if this went through as players would do the obvious.

In addition, this would mean that if the appeals advisor believes that the appeal has merit, the appeal can in effect be filed without a deposit (because the appeals advisor has guaranteed that the deposit will be returned anyway). That does not really fit my ideas of the appeals system.

 

The Danish Bridge Federation introduced the appeals advisors practice at the National Championships week this summer. In general, it was very well received by the players. Most league players handle their potential appeals themselves, but many players at the levels below felt much more comfortable in the appeals zone than they used to. We will definitely do that next year too.

 

In one case, the committee withheld the deposit even if the appeals advisor had told the players that they should not lose the deposit. This case elicited opinions to the effect that the deposit should be safe in such cases; so I have already expressed my views on that earlier this year :)

[nige1]

Well, if your idea is that an Appeals Adviser should no longer base anything on what they tell him, you are out of your mind.  What players want is people to talk to.  We have an excellent system here: why ruin it?

I suggest that the adviser base his advice on recorded facts, in the light of appellant's concerns and arguments. This involves the appellants talking to the adviser and the adviser listening to them. If Bluejak missed this implication, then I apologise for not making it clearer. I applaud the idea of advisers. I feel, however, that the protocol for retaining or returning deposits can be made more consistent and appear fairer to players.

[nige1]

In addition, this would mean that if the appeals advisor believes that the appeal has merit, the appeal can in effect be filed without a deposit (because the appeals advisor has guaranteed that the deposit will be returned anyway). That does not really fit my ideas of the appeals system.

I would be interested in Duschek's reasons for his view. My reasoning is:

If the independent adviser is privy to the recorded facts and the director's reasoning, he should be able to consider the appellant's arguments and to offer excellent impartial advice, quite quickly. He will usually agree with the director. Then most would-be appellants will withdraw their appeal, saving time and hassle. Otherwise, however, if the adviser deems the case to have merit, I feel that he should encourage hesitant appellants to go ahead, both to clarify seemingly murky law and to prevent apparent injustice. I surmise that players consider it unfair for the committee to keep the appellants' deposit as well as ruling against them, in such circumstances.

[blackshoe]

I suppose it's a matter of regulation, since the laws themselves don't say anything about deposits. Actually, what the law says is that players have a right to appeal, that an initial appeal shall be made through the director, that the initial appeal shall be heard by a committee if one is available, otherwise by the director, and that

The Regulating Authority may establish procedures for further appeals after the foregoing procedures have been exhausted. Any such further appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation.

So it seems to me that a regulation that requires a deposit for an initial appeal is illegal, as is one that gives the initial committee authority to withhold such deposit.

 

Be that as it may, Nigel's surmise may be correct, but players who take that attitude misunderstand the purpose of the deposit, which as I understand it is to avoid wasting peoples' time with appeals that aren't going to get anywhere. IOW, if an appeal is deemed without merit, it is a given that the appellant will be "ruled against". So it's completely illogical to feel put upon when one's appeal is deemed without merit, one is "ruled against" (which is certain to happen) and one's deposit is kept.

[jeremy69]

I'm not sure we should worry too much about kept deposits. They are only kept when

a. the issue is completely clear cut

b. the committee are unanimous and arrive at their decision quickly

 

and

c. they have regard to the epxerience of the players so those not used to the procedure or tournaments are treated more gently.

 

Not all that many deposits are kept.

 

I think that the role of the adviser is to talk over the case and offer some advice. He is not there to make a ruling. The practicalities also militate against some of what is being said. I ask for a ruling half way through the session. The TD comes back 3 rounds later having consulted. I then say I would like to speak to an adviser. The TD then writes it up for the appeal to be heard, if going ahead ,after play has finished.

I have come across situations when the facts presented to an adviser and what comes out at appeal are significantly different but on the whole it seems to make silly appeals go away to a large extent.

[duschek]

In addition, this would mean that if the appeals advisor believes that the appeal has merit, the appeal can in effect be filed without a deposit (because the appeals advisor has guaranteed that the deposit will be returned anyway). That does not really fit my ideas of the appeals system.

I would be interested in Duschek's reasons for his view.

The committee members are there to make a ruling, based on their judgement. In this process, they determine whether the appeal has merit, also based on their judgement.

 

If the appeals advisor happens to judge differently from the committee members (which will be a rare occurrence), the committee members should not be prevented from issuing a clear statement of their opinion about the decision to appeal, i.e., keeping the deposit.

 

In addition, suppose the appeals advisor believes that the appeal has merit based on certain arguments that the appellants for some reason fail to present to the committee. The committee members wonder why on earth the appeal was filed at all on those grounds and keep the deposit with the appeals advisor not being at fault.

[duschek]

The Regulating Authority may establish procedures for further appeals after the foregoing procedures have been exhausted. Any such further appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation.

So it seems to me that a regulation that requires a deposit for an initial appeal is illegal, as is one that gives the initial committee authority to withhold such deposit.

It surprises me that the WBF-LC seem to imply that the first appeal should be for free, as I believe it is normal to require a deposit for the first appeal (it certainly has always been the case in Denmark).

 

However, does the following save the day?

 

With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws.

which I basically read as "Law 93 applies except the RA decides otherwise."

[blackshoe]

However, does the following save the day?

 

With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws.

which I basically read as "Law 93 applies except the RA decides otherwise."

Quite possibly. IAC, as you say, RAs have been doing what they do, and they aren't gonna stop just 'cause I say so. ;)

[nige1]

Be that as it may, Nigel's surmise may be correct, but players who take that attitude misunderstand the purpose of the deposit, which as I understand it is to avoid wasting peoples' time with appeals that aren't going to get anywhere. IOW, if an appeal is deemed without merit, it is a given that the appellant will be "ruled against". So it's completely illogical to feel put upon when one's appeal is deemed without merit, one is "ruled against" (which is certain to happen) and one's deposit is kept.

Blackshoe misunderstands me. I wrote about cases where the adviser judges that the appeal has merit.

 

Notwithstanding, I doubt Blackshoe's claim that if the adviser advises against the appeal, then the committee will always rule against the appellants -- although, obviously that is a likely outcome.

[blackshoe]

Notwithstanding, I doubt Blackshoe's claim that if the adviser advises against the appeal, then the committee will always rule against the appellants -- although, obviously that is a likely outcome.

That's not what I said. Rather, if the appeal is judged (by the AC, whose job it is to make that judgment) to be without merit, then the AC will rule against the appellants. I would add that I find it highly unlikely that an AC would rule for the appellants and still call the appeal "without merit".

[mycroft]

What about when the advisor says "I don't expect you'll win this. I don't *think* it's a slamdunk, there are issues, but I would seriously think about it before appealing"? If that's "well, no, he didn't say 'I think you've got a case', or 'you have to appeal this, it's wrong', but he didn't say it was necessarily 'frivolous', so it's safe", then change the wording (either way) until you have a case.

 

Appeals advisors, at least when I've been (a highly unofficial, we don't have the post here) one, do tend to say things other than "yes" or "no". And they also make it clear that they may be missing something.

[blackshoe]

I must withdraw my earlier comment on the legality of sanctions for certain appeals. I missed Law 92A:

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.

The emphasis is mine.

[bluejak]

Just in time, blackshoe: I nearly posted that without reading to the end of the thread.

 

:)

 

Players like to talk to Appeals Advisers. The make their case without any need to worry about the effect of this, and get advice. They give him a one-sided view, of course. Why deny them this?

 

If th Appeals Advisers were to decide an appeal had merit and that would be final then the players would tell the Appeals Adviser some tale or other that would mean he would say it had merit.

 

Furthermore, how on earth can the Appeals Adviser be certain he is right in every case without hearing all the evidence? So this would mean the appeal would have to be heard twice.

 

We have a working system: let us not change it for something that will ruin the impartiality and quality of advice given and persuade players to tell lies which will benefit themselves.

[nige1]

Players like to talk to Appeals Advisers. The make their case without any need to worry about the effect of this, and get advice. They give him a one-sided view, of course. Why deny them this?

If the Appeals Advisers were to decide an appeal had merit and that would be final then the players would tell the Appeals Adviser some tale or other that would mean he would say it had merit.

Furthermore, how on earth can the Appeals Adviser be certain he is right in every case without hearing all the evidence?  So this would mean the appeal would have to be heard twice.

We have a working system: let us not change it for something that will ruin the impartiality and quality of advice given and persuade players to tell lies which will benefit themselves.

OK. One more time B)

The appellants should have a chance to give their "one-sided view" to the adviser provided it is based on the recorded facts. The adviser need not "hear the appeal". Nor need he be "certain he is right". Appellants would be encouraged to consult by the knowledge that they won't lose their deposit if they can persuade the adviser that their case has merit. More consultation means fewer appeals.