Appeals Committee Education

[wank]

is this thread any more than a baseless rant?

[WellSpyder]

According to Fowler, the verb following "majority of X" is invariably plural but either a singular or a plural verb may be correct after "majority", depending on context.

[Warning - off topic, of interest to pedants only]

 

I don't have a copy of Fowler to hand, but AFAIR he makes a critical distinction over whether the article preceding words like majority or number is definite or indefinite: "a majority are.." but "the majority is..." (This distinction is unfortunately lost in wyman's otherwise really nice chart.)

 

I think the distinction works well, but I find it increasingly difficult to persuade people to use a plural verb when appropriate because they see what looks like a singular noun and think they are being careful when they use a singular verb. But it really doesn't sound right (and therefore isn't right!) to say "a number of people has started playing bridge....".

[campboy]

I don't have a copy of Fowler to hand, but AFAIR he makes a critical distinction over whether the article preceding words like majority or number is definite or indefinite: "a majority are.." but "the majority is..." (This distinction is unfortunately lost in wyman's otherwise really nice chart.)

That's the distinction made (at least in the third edition) for "a/the number of", but there's a separate entry for "majority".

[lamford]

That's the distinction made (at least in the third edition) for "a/the number of", but there's a separate entry for "majority".

The data in the chart are not convincing. If one looks at "a majority is" it is neck and neck with "a majority are", but "the majority is" is well behind "the majority are". "Data are" was well ahead of "Data is", but the latter is closing. Declining standards in education or a more flexible approach to language?

[bluejak]

is this thread any more than a baseless rant?

I would hate to agree with wank in any way, but I do not see the point of this thread either. Surely, to comment sensibly on it, we need to see the hand.

[Vampyr]

I would hate to agree with wank in any way, but I do not see the point of this thread either. Surely, to comment sensibly on it, we need to see the hand.

 

I doni't think that the hand is an issue. I am simply concerned about the fact that appeals committee members do not understand the concept of LAs nor how to apply the Laws concerning them to a ruling. I think that there needs to be some sort of standard, but I have no idea what exactly can be done.

[bluejak]

People who chair ACs generally understand the concept of LAs and generally realise that they should consult the TD on any matter of law they do not understand. If you think that on a specific hand they went completely barmy it is difficult to comment further without seeing the hand. You may, of course, be completely right, but it is difficult to suggest anything further without us being able to evaluate the hand.

[lamford]

People who chair ACs generally understand the concept of LAs and generally realise that they should consult the TD on any matter of law they do not understand. If you think that on a specific hand they went completely barmy it is difficult to comment further without seeing the hand. You may, of course, be completely right, but it is difficult to suggest anything further without us being able to evaluate the hand.

WB 93.4.3(m) states that "once the committee decision has been made then no more discussion is allowed." I think this should be followed, certainly if members of the AC, appellants or defendants, are on this forum. If the L&E confers an exemption to this rule for this forum, then it should be stated.

[Bbradley62]

WB 93.4.3(m) states that "once the committee decision has been made then no more discussion is allowed." I think this should be followed, certainly if members of the AC, appellants or defendants, are on this forum. If the L&E confers an exemption to this rule for this forum, then it should be stated.

Are you suggesting that "the rules" say that when after an appeals committee makes a ruling, no one should discuss it later at the bar, or on the drive on the way home, or in this (or any other) public forum? It seems clear that the meaning of the quoted rule is that once the committee has made its decision, that decision is final and there can be no attempts to make the committee change its ruling.

[lamford]

Are you suggesting that "the rules" say that when after an appeals committee makes a ruling, no one should discuss it later at the bar, or on the drive on the way home, or in this (or any other) public forum? It seems clear that the meaning of the quoted rule is that once the committee has made its decision, that decision is final and there can be no attempts to make the committee change its ruling.

It states "Chairmen of Appeals Committees are to remind both the Committee and the players that once the committee decision has been made then no more discussion is allowed." I think only the L&E can comment on how strictly this is to be interpreted.

[wyman]

Regardless, those of us not bound by the WB may wish to comment on such happenings.

 

This ruling is akin to an American juror commenting after a conviction "there was reasonable doubt as to his innocence, so we had to convict; " it isn't enough to warrant overturning the whole justice system, but it's certainly enough to cause concern.

 

Just as a judge advises and oversees juries, perhaps it would be reasonable to have a TD (who did not make the table ruling) oversee/advise the committee as to relevant law.

[bluejak]

If we are not allowed to discuss cases here then a lot of good advice will not be heard. However, I do not think that is the case.

 

I believe that you are completely misinterpreting the White book advice. The problem comes with people who wish to challenge the AC decisions directly: on occasion they have been very nasty to AC members and have challenged them in person. At least one leading player informed the authorities that he would not sit again because of the attack from one of the players involved.

 

It is not our aim to attack the persons involved. Admittedly some people seem to think it is acceptable to try to work out who is involved: I do not believe that is a good idea. But discussion of real cases has been the mainstay of this and other forums, and I feel it always will be and should be.

[Oof Arted]

Good point, I got my words the wrong way round, now corrected (I think). I clearly need someone to proof-read my posts at this time of night!

 

 

:rolleyes: Perhaps Frances :P

[barmar]

I doni't think that the hand is an issue. I am simply concerned about the fact that appeals committee members do not understand the concept of LAs nor how to apply the Laws concerning them to a ruling. I think that there needs to be some sort of standard, but I have no idea what exactly can be done.

I think they may understand the concept, but worded the ruling poorly. What they probably meant was "not an allowed Logical Alternative".

[blackshoe]

It does seem an odd way to phrase it, if in fact they meant "the player selected a called which could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative".

[lamford]

It does seem an odd way to phrase it, if in fact they meant "the player selected a called which could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative".

A member of the AC has clarified that the AC chairman intended to write "Pass is not a logical alternative that may be chosen over others since it is demonstrably suggested by the UI".

[Finch]

I've been away from tournaments for a while, so I may not be up on current lingo, but I would always equate "fine" with "financial penalty".

 

Oddly enough, I was surprised to hear the phrase "in the money" used in ACBL tournaments to mean "getting masterpoints", whereas I have always used it literally in bridge events. Not that the money is very much.

[barmar]

Now that I think about it some more, I think they may be confusing between LA meaning "the possible calls you might consider absent the UI" versus "the calls that are allowed after having received UI".

 

It does seem to be a common confusion about the UI laws. Essentially, it puts the cart before the horse. The laws say that you first enumerate the LAs, then remove the ones that are demonstrably suggested, and can choose among the remainder. With the confusion, you view the process as remove actions that are demonstrably suggested, and the LAs are the remainder (to these people, it would be more sensible if LA stood for Legal Alternatives).

 

Except for the incorrect terminology of the ruling, it seems like the end result is the same, so is it really that important an issue?

[mycroft]

If what they meant was "bidding is a Logical Alternative, and passing was suggested by the UI, so we are adjusting the score based on bidding", then it's fine.

 

If what they meant was "passing was an LA suggested by the UI, so we are adjusting the score", it's not fine - *unless there's another alternative to passing that is Logical* - and in that case, it should be phrased that way.

 

Unfortunately, there are those - including some on Appeals Committees (though the last 15 years have been spent trying to educate, or trying not to include on future ACs, those people), who skip one of the steps, usually "the UI suggested X; adjust because the player did X." Usually X is "bid", not "pass", of course, but the same "oh dear, did they misspeak, or is this what they actually meant?" applies when one sees the quote.

[jallerton]

WB 93.4.3(m) states that "once the committee decision has been made then no more discussion is allowed." I think this should be followed, certainly if members of the AC, appellants or defendants, are on this forum. If the L&E confers an exemption to this rule for this forum, then it should be stated.

 

If you think this rule should be interpreted in the way you suggest, why on this thread have you posted the AC's written comments and (at least implicity) criticised the lack of detail in explaining the AC's decision?

 

If your partner thinks this rule should be interpreted in the way you suggest, why has she made a public criticism of the AC in the opening post of this thread? Moreover, it's not as if she has given anonymity to the people she has criticised. In a couple of other recent threads, the opening poster was widely reprimanded for giving away identifying information about the parties involved.

[Vampyr]

In a couple of other recent threads, the opening poster was widely reprimanded for giving away identifying information about the parties involved.

 

There has been such criticism, but it was not of me.

[lamford]

If you think this rule should be interpreted in the way you suggest, why on this thread have you posted the AC's written comments and (at least implicity) criticised the lack of detail in explaining the AC's decision?

 

If your partner thinks this rule should be interpreted in the way you suggest, why has she made a public criticism of the AC in the opening post of this thread? Moreover, it's not as if she has given anonymity to the people she has criticised. In a couple of other recent threads, the opening poster was widely reprimanded for giving away identifying information about the partieinvolved.

My partner does not think the rule should be interpreted in the way I suggest. Bluejak has since clarified that discussion of any part of the AC ruling is permitted in this forum, and I accept that "no discussion is permitted" means "discussion is permitted provided it is not head-to-head". I now agree with this interpretation, but it was not what the WB said.

 

A member of the AC kindly sent an (unsolicited) email to both Vampyr and me to give further details of the AC ruling, and I wrote:

 

"A member of the AC has clarified that the AC chairman intended to write "Pass is not a logical alternative that may be chosen over others since it is demonstrably suggested by the UI".

 

I had already written that I did not think that the original wording being wrong was a big thing. I don't think there is any reference to any member of the AC in this thread. Of course, the bridge grapevine spreads news fast.

[aguahombre]

This is very cute.

Even more cute at the bottom of the graph. "Raw data is...."

[Finch]

My partner does not think the rule should be interpreted in the way I suggest. Bluejak has since clarified that discussion of any part of the AC ruling is permitted in this forum, and I accept that "no discussion is permitted" means "discussion is permitted provided it is not head-to-head". I now agree with this interpretation, but it was not what the WB said.

 

A member of the AC kindly sent an (unsolicited) email to both Vampyr and me to give further details of the AC ruling, and I wrote:

 

"A member of the AC has clarified that the AC chairman intended to write "Pass is not a logical alternative that may be chosen over others since it is demonstrably suggested by the UI".

 

I had already written that I did not think that the original wording being wrong was a big thing. I don't think there is any reference to any member of the AC in this thread. Of course, the bridge grapevine spreads news fast.

 

It was not unsolicited.

[lamford]

It was not unsolicited.

It was in the sense of "given or done voluntarily". I wanted to stress that I had not corresponded with an AC member myself. There was no sugggestion that the email was unwelcome, and I apologise if I gave that impression.