Appeals committee at European Open Championships

[gnasher]

According to Sabine Auken in this interview, "there will not be an appeals committee at the European Championships in in Ostend later this year". Is this true, and if so what will there be instead?

[Vampyr]

My guess is that they will be sending their appeals to these forums :)

[mjj29]

Yes, that is true. You will be able to send the case to a referee if you believe there has been an error in applying the law or in procedure, but it's expected that the TDs present (who are required to consult with players) will give a reasonable judgement, assuming that correct procedure has been followed. This is what the WBF have also started doing in their tournaments

[wank]

i hate this. as the likes of maradonna or messi don't choose to become football referees, the helgemos of this world don't become directors. there are plenty of directors who are pretty decent players but you'll never get any directors who're as good as the top players. they can't then be expected to necessarily understand all the subtleties of a situation on which they're called to rule at the highest level. this change smacks of a certain arrogance.

 

as for the consultations, players when they're consulted never expend as much effort as they would if they were playing the hand, or if they were on a committee.

[gnasher]

This is what the WBF have also started doing in their tournaments

Maybe the WBF should bring their Code of Practice for Appeals Committees up to date then: "The World Bridge Federation recognizes that there can be circumstances in which an appeal may be made to an officially appointed individual, but regards this as unacceptable at international level ..."

[mjj29]

i hate this. as the likes of maradonna or messi don't choose to become football referees, the helgemos of this world don't become directors. there are plenty of directors who are pretty decent players but you'll never get any directors who're as good as the top players. they can't then be expected to necessarily understand all the subtleties of a situation on which they're called to rule at the highest level. this change smacks of a certain arrogance.

 

as for the consultations, players when they're consulted never expend as much effort as they would if they were playing the hand, or if they were on a committee.

Why not as if they were on the committee? You consult players to make up for the directors not being Zia, but bear in mind that we're not talking about random club or national congress directors, these are the best in Europe and bridge judgement is part of that. Of course with less of a back stop directors need to be more careful about who they poll and making sure those players give it proper consideration. That is part of this change.

 

also, most of these rulings will be weighted on the judgement part so small differences in judgement will only result in small differences in scores anyway. It would be different in a jurisdiction like the ACBL.

 

Lastly, we are just bringing Europe in line with the WBF in this case. They think this is fine (and many of their top directors are also in the EBL)

[gordontd]

i hate this. as the likes of maradonna or messi don't choose to become football referees, the helgemos of this world don't become directors. there are plenty of directors who are pretty decent players but you'll never get any directors who're as good as the top players. they can't then be expected to necessarily understand all the subtleties of a situation on which they're called to rule at the highest level. this change smacks of a certain arrogance.

What makes you think the reviewers will be directors and not players?

[blackshoe]

My question would be "why?" Do the WBF and the EBL feel that the right to appeal should not exist? If so, why not? if not, what is their rationale?

[gnasher]

My question would be "why?"

That would be my second question, but my first question is still "What?" That is, will appeals on judgement matters be heard by a committee of directors, by a single director, by a single player, or by nobody? The last of these would be illegal, of course.

[RMB1]

That would be my second question, but my first question is still "What?" That is, will appeals on judgement matters be heard by a committee of directors, by a single director, by a single player, or by nobody? The last of these would be illegal, of course.

 

As described at the EBL TD course in January, the "appeal" will be a review process by one person. If the reviewer finds that there were procedural deficiencies in the original ruling, then the reviewer will redo the ruling by consulting players (and others reviewers?).

 

The nature of the panel of reviewers had not been decided. It would not be a TD at the event but it could be a TD (like a third/fourth umpire in cricket) whose did not get involved in table ruling but whose sole role was to act as reviewer. Otherwise the reviewers would be non-player non-TD such as those who currently chair appeals committees.

 

(I want to make some remark linking this to the date, while there is 30 minutes left for April Fools.)

[Vampyr]

The nature of the panel of reviewers had not been decided.

 

Maybe it will be an appeals committee.

[gnasher]

As described at the EBL TD course in January, the "appeal" will be a review process by one person. If the reviewer finds that there were procedural deficiencies in the original ruling, then the reviewer will redo the ruling by consulting players (and others reviewers?).

So there is no scope for the reviewer to overrule the original director on a matter of fact or judgement?

[RMB1]

So there is no scope for the reviewer to overrule the original director on a matter of fact or judgement?

The reviewer must first find fault with the process. If the TD did not ask the enough/right questions then he could find new evidence and new facts. If the TD did not consult or did not ask the right questions when consulting, then the reviewer can do new consulting and arrive at different judgement.

[jallerton]

Will the players be given a full account of what evidence was gathered by the TDs and what reasoning they applied in arriving at their decision?

 

Will the players who wish to appeal be permitted or encouraged to make representations to the 'reviewer'?

[nige1]

Appeal committees are necessary.

• to allow players to exorcise their demons.
• to audit and independently check directors' decisions.
• to right wrongs and uphold the law.
• to create a kind of unofficial case-law.
• to publicise difficult points of law
• to draw law-makers attention to legal-anomalies.
• to do justice and demonstrate justice being done.

What can be done to facilitate quicker, more timely decisions? Perhaps

• Mandate that the director record relevant evidence when called about an alleged infraction and document his reasons for his ruling, at the time.
• Facilitate the speedy collection of written evidence from players, as soon as an appeal is mooted.
• Allow appellants to run the written evidence quickly past an on-tap appeal-advisor.
• Make sure enough appropriate committee-members are available (on-line if necessary).
• Consider delaying the start of the next session until after the appeal is heard.

But I guess that most of that is done already.

[Vampyr]

But I guess that most of that is done already.

 

Not for long, though. Apparently.

 

There is a chance, though, that nothing will change. The "reviewer" seems to have the same function as current appeal advisors or "cuddlies", and his consultations may be lengthy and detailed enough that he will want to make representations to all of his consultees at the same time (and of course receive players' testimony at the same time as well).

[Vampyr]

The reviewer must first find fault with the process.

 

So if players ask for an appeal the appeal may be refused outright?

 

Jeffrey's questions:

Will the players be given a full account of what evidence was gathered by the TDs and what reasoning they applied in arriving at their decision?

 

I think that this would be entirely necessary, if only for the players to discover whether they had the new strange grounds required for an appeal.

 

Will the players who wish to appeal be permitted or encouraged to make representations to the 'reviewer'?

 

I don't see how it could be otherwise without seriously compromising the players' right of appeal.

 

Though I can read the writing on the wall, and I suppose that this right will disappear in the next revision of the Laws. The seriousness of this mistake cannot be overstated.

 

I guess I know where this is coming from. I have received far more truly appalling committee rulings than merely bad, fair or good ones put together. Even so, I think that the right of recourse when the director gets it wrong is a fundamental part of having a sensible game.

[Zelandakh]

In my view, the sooner bridge can move away from ACs and towards an independent body checking the performance of TDs the better. To take wank's football example, would any Madrid fan feel comfortable with Messi refereeing a Copa del Rey Classico final? How about a young talented English player refereeing a match between Man U and Barnsley? Would it not be in the player's interest to be favourable towards a potentially lucrative future employer?

 

The bridge community is a pretty small one. Everyone knows everyone else. I am sure that many go drinking together and often have regular contact. And it would certainly not hurt a young professional to get on the right side of a major sponsor. And that is just natural psychology, perhaps subconscious. The system is also very open to "you scratch my back" arrangements, where regulars on ACs actively agree to support each other on close cases.

 

Forget club rulings for a moment here. At the high levels of the game, how many truly believe that ACs perform better than TDs on average? And if they are not better, why should there be a right of recourse for a potentially poor TD ruling but not for a bad AC decision?

 

Far from seeing this as a mistake, I think this is a positive step towards bringing bridge into the second half of the 20th century. It would be nice if bridge could make it into the 21st century during my lifetime too, but I am not holding my breath on that one. It would take the regulating bodies to give as much weight to the ideas of 20 year olds as to 60 year olds, and that is just too big a stretch I think.

[gnasher]

At the high levels of the game, how many truly believe that ACs perform better than TDs on average?

I do, in the category of rulings that require bridge judgement.

[barmar]

Hasn't The Bridge World been pushing for this for years in the editorial pages? Players should play, directors direct. In the real world, if you want to appeal a court decision, you take it to higher court, not a panel of citizens.

[blackshoe]

If you give the higher court the authority to decide what it will and will not consider, the right to appeal becomes nonsense. This is the current situation wrt appeals to the national authority, at least in the ACBL (which is de facto the national authority in the US, in spite of the existence of the USBF).

[mycroft]

...of course, it is the prime method of "higher courts" in Common Law-based countries. They can review the appeal documents, and refuse to hear it. "Denied certiorari" is the U.S. Supreme Court's version of this - and that's their entire explanation.

 

Not saying that the real world should have anything to do with bridge regulation, but the precedent is there. You can appeal, and the appeals process can look at it and say "not going to hear this one." There has to *be* an appeals process, but you're not guaranteed by Law the right to anything other than "Okay, you appealed. We don't see any reason to do anything."

 

I do like what the WBF does say; "We have the best TDs in the world, and some of the best players in the world now and in previous that they can and do consult with on judgement and bridge-at-WC-level issues. You *can* appeal, but the presumption will be that the TD was right." i.e. it's a "reverse onus" situation - you have to prove that the ruling was wrong, not just show that there are alternatives or ask for a review.

 

On the other hand, they can do that *because* for the world championships, they *do* recruit the best of the world's TDs to run it (including their abililty to find the right people to consult and knowledge of how best to do the consult). How far down to devolve this is an open problem.

 

(I do love the "did you ask somebody who can *play*?" question, in the games I direct - because the people who really are experts don't ask it that way. The ones who do are definitely in the "those who can, do. those who can't, teach. those who can't teach, go into administration" camp. Of course, I also know that the TDs I usually consult with have more playing experience than these people do and some of the results to prove it (or willingness of much better players than the complainer to play with them when they can get out from directing, or both) and are likely equally better players than the complainer (that one's not an equivalence by any means, as we all know). They *also* know what the Law says better than the complainer... A simple "yes, I consulted with several very Flight A players, including (current accomplishments I know about)" is what usually is *said*, however.)

[paulg]

I presume that the EBL is emboldened by the fact that there were only twenty appeals at the last European Opens, of which the director's decision was only overturned twice (2011 Appeals - PDF). On the other hand, they only kept the deposit twice suggesting that the remaining appeals all had merit - perhaps they chose to overlook this :)

[blackshoe]

...of course, it is the prime method of "higher courts" in Common Law-based countries. They can review the appeal documents, and refuse to hear it. "Denied certiorari" is the U.S. Supreme Court's version of this - and that's their entire explanation.

 

Not saying that the real world should have anything to do with bridge regulation, but the precedent is there. You can appeal, and the appeals process can look at it and say "not going to hear this one." There has to *be* an appeals process, but you're not guaranteed by Law the right to anything other than "Okay, you appealed. We don't see any reason to do anything."

 

I do like what the WBF does say; "We have the best TDs in the world, and some of the best players in the world now and in previous that they can and do consult with on judgement and bridge-at-WC-level issues. You *can* appeal, but the presumption will be that the TD was right." i.e. it's a "reverse onus" situation - you have to prove that the ruling was wrong, not just show that there are alternatives or ask for a review.

 

On the other hand, they can do that *because* for the world championships, they *do* recruit the best of the world's TDs to run it (including their abililty to find the right people to consult and knowledge of how best to do the consult). How far down to devolve this is an open problem.

Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin verb certiorare ("to inform, apprise, show"). A writ of certiorari is a document issued by the SC to a lower court (usually a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals) demanding the records of a trial so that the SC can review (and possibly but not necessarily overturn) the lower court's judgment. When a party wants the SC to review a case, they petition the court to issue a writ of certiorari, but the Court is not required to do so. So it's not "you don't have certiorari," it's "your petition for a writ of certiorari is denied." Note that denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is not a statement that the lower court's judgment was correct.

 

Interestingly, originally everyone was entitled, as a matter of right, to have his case reviewed by the SC. In the nineteenth century this became too cumbersome - there was a backlog of several years of cases at the SC - so the writ was introduced. With further increases in court cases in the twentieth century, the right (I would call it a privilege, rather than a right, since IMO governments can't take away true rights) has been pretty much eliminated in favor of the current system. This analogy thus fails wrt bridge, since the bridge community is getting smaller, not larger.

 

We apparently agree that what the WBF is doing is probably good for world championship level bridge. Equally, what the EBL is doing may be good for top level bridge in the EBL. Similar actions may even be good for top level bridge in the ACBL. But when you get below the top level, even at the Regional level, and especially at the club level, the quality of directing cannot support it. There has to be some reasonable way to appeal bad rulings at these levels - including bad rulings on points of law rather than judgment.

[lalldonn]

I find this change quite welcome. The fewer appeals committees the better as far as I'm concerned. I think, on average, they do nothing to improve director rulings, despite the logic that they should.