Appeals committee at European Open Championships

[Cascade]

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.

 

Is there really any evidence for this? I mean is it really the case that appeals that overturn the director's ruling give worse results (on average).

[aguahombre]

Makes sense to me. If a system of checks and balances sometimes comes up with a verdict we don't approve, eliminate the system.

[McBruce]

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.

 

Before we go too far down this road leaving perhaps the impression that the original TD in the Auken-Monaco incident must have erred somewhere, since the result was overturned, let me remind everyone that (at least according to what I read in the Bulletin) the original TD went over the hand with the players and asked where they thought they might have been damaged, and at that time the defenders thought they might have led a heart instead of a spade. The original ruling seems to have been based on a player poll of some sort, result stands, we don't think anyone would choose to lead a heart with correct information. It was after the segment and the dinner break that they appealed this ruling, focusing now on South's carding. The original TD may not even have been on duty by the time this new information came to light. There's very little here to point at a bad initial ruling by the TD. The non-offenders felt that there simply wasn't time to consider all the effects of the misinformation right away and came up with something later that the committee agreed with (I do too), but that the original TD never heard about.

 

I can tell you from my very limited experience directing clubs and sectionals that the vast majority of 'steaming' players who hotly demand an appeal of a TDs ruling are not asking for a new set of ears to hear the story the TD has been given and make a judgment. Usually they simply disagree with the ruling and have invented all sorts of new (usually bogus) information that wasn't presented at the table to support their case. That's not the way ACs are supposed to work: it's a waste of everyone's time to get an appeal committee together and hear someone claim that "I was always planning to bid on, even before my partner hesitated," or "this TD always rules against me," or some even sillier argument refuted by the hand records. Such appeals should be handled by the DIC before a committee even gets formed. There are very, very few appeals at sectionals or regionals that hinge only on a decision based on judgment and do not try to change the basic facts to spin it for the appealing side. When we get one we are happy to set up an AC, and a good Director will try to learn from the decision if his ruling is overturned.

 

Are there TDs at sectionals and regionals and club games who make mistakes, sometimes very basic mistakes? Of course there are, myself included -- but at tournaments there should always be a DIC present (or a suitable TD who can be contacted if needed) who has enough experience to review the case, sort things out with the players, and go over the mistake with the TD, if the ruling actually is incorrect: quite often the ruling is correct but the explanation leaves a bit to be desired. I think most DICs I have worked under have given me enough rein to make mistakes that I could learn from, while making it clear that I shouldn't be making any judgment rulings without consulting other TDs. Can a new TD learn the mistakes to avoid without being allowed some latitude to possibly make them? Perhaps, but not as easily.

 

At the club level it is much harder to get mistaken rulings corrected, because many club TDs are running a business and know that many club players (paying customers) just want a pleasant game without the hassle of rules arguments. A judgment-only ruling by a club TD is only rarely heard by a committee.

 

I would imagine every TD has been through this no-win situation that happened to me about a year ago. A new N-S pair in the game, a youngish couple with no masterpoints, but enough bridge experience to have a good time and not hold up the room, until North clearly used UI after 1♥ - 4♠ - ...Pass - Pass, bidding on with a 2=5=4=2 15 count that nobody in the world would take for a spin at the 5 level and finding a miracle dummy. The opponents, as far as I was able to determine, were perfectly polite as they called the Director when play ended, and even said as they explained the situation that they understood that the N-S pair was new. But to the North player this was like suddenly being called a cheater (of course this did not happen) just at the moment of her Greatest Result Ever, and there was just no way to avoid an ugly scene. As a TD you learn to handle these as best you can, using all the diplomacy and sympathy you can possibly muster -- but there are some situations that a new player will not accept. Even after allowing a few rounds to go by before returning to try to calmly explain that no accusations had been made or insinuated, this player had made the unbreakable decision never to return to the club, perhaps never to play duplicate bridge--even while admitting that my explanation was correct and reasonable and that the opponents had in fact not been at all abusive as it seemed at the time!

 

I adjusted the score and they never returned. Some club TDs would find a reason not to adjust, deluding themselves from the real reason: "we want them to come back."

 

The point I'm trying to make with this true tale is that if we establish a procedure by which club TDs rulings contrary to law can be appealed and scores changed, the net effect is more negative than positive. Perhaps the best remedy is to accept the unjust result (it is only a club game after all) and have the Unit Recorder look into the situation and speak to the Director after some time has passed. Once, as editor of the Unit newsletter I ran an article about a particularly bad ruling at a club, no names, no identification of the club, but even this was enough to stir up a lot of bad feeling. Of course the club manager remembered the deal and assumed he was being slandered, and demanded equal space in the next issue. (I wriggled out of that one somehow, I forget how, too long ago.) It seems likely to me that we will see a few more ACs demanded at the regional/sectional/club level, as players read about the Auken-Monaco decision and assume that an AC is a "right." I'm sure few of these will have merit.

[Vampyr]

At the club level it is much harder to get mistaken rulings corrected, because many club TDs are running a business and know that many club players (paying customers) just want a pleasant game without the hassle of rules arguments. A judgment-only ruling by a club TD is only rarely heard by a committee.

 

I think that it is bad policy for the proprietor of a club to act as director as well.

 

In any case, a club that doesn't really have the time or resources to convene a committee can have a policy of appeals by telephone consultation.

 

In response to more of the above post, a different decision by the appeals committee should not imply that the TD decision was wrong. A TD cannot look into a judgment matter in the kind of detail and with the kind of questioning and listening to testimony that a committee does.

[Mbodell]

Is there really any evidence for this? I mean is it really the case that appeals that overturn the director's ruling give worse results (on average).

 

There is data. One could argue for bias in the data collection, but I think http://tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/NAC_Summaries.htm gives a pretty good summary that on balance AC improve things, and more over, AC of players improve things more than AC of TD.

[jallerton]

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.

 

What makes the EBL directors the best in Europe? I'm sure that they are all experts in how the Laws operate, but are they all experts at playing bridge?

 

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.

 

Different countries have different legal systems, but often higher courts rule mainly on matters of law. In bridge, appeals on matter of Law are heard by the Chief TD, because it is acknowledged that the (Chief) TD is the authority on the Laws. Appeals on a matter of bridge judgement are heard by an appeals committee, presumably because it is acknowledged that no TD is an authority on bridge judgement. Sometimes a further appeal can be made to the National Authority; in the EBU at any rate, the National Authority tends to only consider appeals on a matter of Law or principle; this is vaguely analogous to the higher courts in some national legal systems.

[jallerton]

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.

 

I object to this post. You make it sound as though every appeals committee member is corrupt. When I (and most people I know are the same) serve on appeals committee, I make an unbiased decision based on the facts of the case and the arguments presented by the TD and the players. I don't care who the players are; I know that one side (sometimes both) may turn out to be unhappy with the final outcome, but so what? That is normal in any arbitration process.

 

In any case, your "everyone knows everyone else" arguments also apply to TDs.

 

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?

 

Does national level count as a high level? I have reviewed hundreds of appeals cases in the EBU. I don't always agree with the AC's decisions by any means, but overall there are considerably more TD rulings which are improved by the AC than the other way round.

[Zelandakh]

I object to this post. You make it sound as though every appeals committee member is corrupt.

I hope not. Justin is a young talented player but I would still be surprised if he succumbed to the bias that I put forward for the hypothetical footballer. Similarly, it may be that Messi would referee the Spanish cup final in a perfectly unbiased way. I do not know. I doubt you know for sure if subconscious biases have crept in on occasion, even on ACs where you have served. Most people do not even realise when they are subject to them themselves - the human brain is very good at rationalising these things. That is a common theme of UI cases too, no? The point here is that current players are (imho at least) the most likely group to be subject to such circumstances.

 

Corruption is a very different matter. Here the case for ACs is, imho, stronger, not weaker, since it is probably easier and more effective to bribe a single DIC or Appeals Guru than an AC. Luckily bridge does not yet, afaik, attract enough money to interest any big players in the criminal community. If it did then the move towards a more professional system of rulings and appeals might be considered more urgent, and top TDs might get paid enough to make a comfortable living as professional referees.

[McBruce]

I think that it is bad policy for the proprietor of a club to act as director as well.

 

In any case, a club that doesn't really have the time or resources to convene a committee can have a policy of appeals by telephone consultation.

 

In response to more of the above post, a different decision by the appeals committee should not imply that the TD decision was wrong. A TD cannot look into a judgment matter in the kind of detail and with the kind of questioning and listening to testimony that a committee does.

 

In many once-a-week games in this region, the club-owner-director (and often fill-in-player) is the norm and the unwritten rule is to not call the TD unless someone needs medical attention (or the bridge infraction equivalent). :) There's little that can be done in ACBL-land about the type of rulings they are capable of on a bad day.

 

I direct at a club which has about 100-120 tables a week and no situation involving an appeal has come up in five years. Players at the club level tend to accept it and move on. One way to reduce the litigation is to offer to post a ruling here and change it if it is clear that I'm wrong. Other TDs have called for assistance to ACBL TDs in the area (not in the recent past though, as far as I know). But it's a good option.

 

As for learning from a AC ruling, I think it's possible, especially if the AC bases its decision on some factor the TD had not considered. Often we are huddled around a hand record and someone remembers that two sections need to be told to skip a table next round, or there is an announcement scheduled soon from the local organizers, or some other technical matter than can distract us from thinking about the ruling. If the AC comes up with something we couldn't see on the floor, we might remember this next time. But I agree that when it is judgment, an AC overturn is usually not implication that the TD should have ruled differently.

[Cyberyeti]

In many once-a-week games in this region, the club-owner-director (and often fill-in-player) is the norm and the unwritten rule is to not call the TD unless someone needs medical attention (or the bridge infraction equivalent). :) There's little that can be done in ACBL-land about the type of rulings they are capable of on a bad day.

 

I direct at a club which has about 100-120 tables a week and no situation involving an appeal has come up in five years. Players at the club level tend to accept it and move on. One way to reduce the litigation is to offer to post a ruling here and change it if it is clear that I'm wrong. Other TDs have called for assistance to ACBL TDs in the area (not in the recent past though, as far as I know). But it's a good option.

 

I only play at my club once or twice a month, and I've had at least 2 and possibly more hands that have needed appeal over the last few years, and have dealt with other appeals where they've asked for my opinion (they play twice a week, about 10 tables). Part of the problem in our club is that the (volunteer) director always plays and there is a tearing hurry to get away at the end, meaning that if the director hasn't played the board, stuff tends to be rushed and not adequately considered.

[barmar]

I make an unbiased decision based on the facts of the case and the arguments presented by the TD and the players.

You may think so, but you're probably wrong. I've read quite a bit about brain science and decision making, and scientists have found numerous subconscious and subliminal influences that we're totally oblivious to; it's really hard to avoid them. Read books like "Thinking Fast and Slow" or "Predictably Irrational".

[blackshoe]

Let me just make comments on a few points.

 

Before we go too far down this road leaving perhaps the impression that the original TD in the Auken-Monaco incident must have erred somewhere…

I wasn't talking about that incident, and I accept your description of it.

 

I can tell you from my very limited experience directing clubs and sectionals that the vast majority of 'steaming' players who hotly demand an appeal of a TDs ruling are not asking for a new set of ears to hear the story the TD has been given and make a judgment. Usually they simply disagree with the ruling and have invented all sorts of new (usually bogus) information that wasn't presented at the table to support their case.

Such appeals rate an AWMW. Unfortunately, if there's ever anything more than a warning in the ACBL, I'm unaware of it - and I doubt it's because players take a warning to heart and don't make any more meritless appeals. From where I sit, in the ACBL the AWMW has no teeth, and it needs some.

 

Are there TDs at sectionals and regionals and club games who make mistakes, sometimes very basic mistakes? Of course there are, myself included -- but at tournaments there should always be a DIC present (or a suitable TD who can be contacted if needed) who has enough experience to review the case, sort things out with the players, and go over the mistake with the TD, if the ruling actually is incorrect: quite often the ruling is correct but the explanation leaves a bit to be desired. I think most DICs I have worked under have given me enough rein to make mistakes that I could learn from, while making it clear that I shouldn't be making any judgment rulings without consulting other TDs. Can a new TD learn the mistakes to avoid without being allowed some latitude to possibly make them? Perhaps, but not as easily.

At the Sectionals around here, I've never seen more than one TD, except very rarely when there's a trainee. If that TD makes telephone consultations I've never seen or heard about it. Of course, the one TD we usually get here, Bernie Gorkins, is very good. I've never had occasion to complain about one of his rulings, and ACs, IME, have been rare. As for the new TD learning by making mistakes, of course that's the best way. Although I had a ruling at a Regional a year or two ago that, well, I thought the TD had overlooked something, so I asked her "what about Law XX?" (I don't remember the details). She said, rather huffily, "Don't quote law numbers at me!" and stomped off. I was inclined to appeal; my partner, always prepared to avoid anything that might be unpleasant, wasn't. But later, I saw our TD sitting at an empty table reading her law book. Later still, she came and apologized to me, and told me I was right. What I don't remember is whether she changed her ruling, but in the end I just accepted her apology and moved on. To the best of my knowledge she didn't consult with anybody else about that ruling, either at the table or later.

 

At the club level it is much harder to get mistaken rulings corrected, because many club TDs are running a business and know that many club players (paying customers) just want a pleasant game without the hassle of rules arguments. A judgment-only ruling by a club TD is only rarely heard by a committee.

What club TDs often overlook is that in their rush to appease the OS in a case, they have really annoyed the NOS. Or vice versa. I think it's much better to give good rulings, even "against" long term customers or friends, and let the chips fall where they may, but I've been unable to convince the local club owner/directors of that. A couple of years ago, I was accused of deliberately hesitating in order to induce declarer to take a finesse. I.e., of cheating. The director's reaction to this accusation from one of her long term customers and friends was "we're just going to let that slide". I was so angry that I had to leave the table until I calmed down. She didn't care.

 

I adjusted the score and they never returned. Some club TDs would find a reason not to adjust, deluding themselves from the real reason: "we want them to come back."

Been there, done the adjustment, had them not return (not my club - they, or rather he, came back to the game when the owner decided to take over directing it again. About a month or so later, she shut the game down as it was barely breaking even - which was the situation I dealt with for two years. As for deluding themselves, whatever the reason, I've seen that happen too.

 

The point I'm trying to make with this true tale is that if we establish a procedure by which club TDs rulings contrary to law can be appealed and scores changed, the net effect is more negative than positive. Perhaps the best remedy is to accept the unjust result (it is only a club game after all) and have the Unit Recorder look into the situation and speak to the Director after some time has passed. Once, as editor of the Unit newsletter I ran an article about a particularly bad ruling at a club, no names, no identification of the club, but even this was enough to stir up a lot of bad feeling. Of course the club manager remembered the deal and assumed he was being slandered, and demanded equal space in the next issue. (I wriggled out of that one somehow, I forget how, too long ago.) It seems likely to me that we will see a few more ACs demanded at the regional/sectional/club level, as players read about the Auken-Monaco decision and assume that an AC is a "right." I'm sure few of these will have merit.

Such a procedure is already established. Precedent has established, at least in Rochester NY, that an appeal can be made in a club game, and it will be heard by a committee. NO club has established any regulation that says otherwise. Appeals are rare because nobody cares. "It's only a club game". "It won't affect the final standings." "I don't want to have to deal with it". All of these, it seems to me, are bogus excuses. If you truly believe the director's ruling is wrong, you should appeal, regardless of any of these excuses.

 

Contestants do have a right to appeal, at least as the laws stand now. This is a privilege really, a legal right that can be taken away by legislation. However, because they have this legal right, IMO they also have a moral right to an unbiased hearing. If all appeals are heard by the club owner, who is frequently the table TD as well, and who is concerned that his customers don't leave him, can any appeal be unbiased? If the answer to this question is no, is the right move to abolish appeals because they can't be unbiased anyway? I haven't addressed the question of biased appeals committees, because I think (I hope) those are very rare.

 

This is, IMO, a thorny problem. I don't really have a good answer, although I suspect that better and continuing education of all TDs, at all levels, is a step in the right direction.

[blackshoe]

I think that it is bad policy for the proprietor of a club to act as director as well.

And yet that seems to be the norm in North American clubs.

 

In any case, a club that doesn't really have the time or resources to convene a committee can have a policy of appeals by telephone consultation.

With whom? I've offered my services in that regard. No one has taken me up on it. I do get the occasional question on a point of law when I happen to be playing where and when it comes up. IAC, no club around here has such a policy. Occasionally, one particular owner/TD here will call HQ when she has a question. Sometimes she gets a correct answer to her question, sometimes she doesn't. For a while, the latter seemed more frequent.

 

In response to more of the above post, a different decision by the appeals committee should not imply that the TD decision was wrong. A TD cannot look into a judgment matter in the kind of detail and with the kind of questioning and listening to testimony that a committee does.

I agree.

[McBruce]

Let me just make comments on a few points.

Me too. This is getting interesting and I always enjoy your posts.

 

From where I sit, in the ACBL the AWMW has no teeth, and it needs some.

In the rare case that someone gets a Zero Tolerance ticket at a Regional, the form (which actually looks a bit like a traffic ticket) is waved about with pride after the game. (I guess this is half-bad, half-good: the small matchpoint fine is ignored but the offender rarely offends again when he knows this will mean expulsion.) I talked to someone who was told to speak into a tape recorder at an NABC with his reasons for appealing and told the next day he had earned an AWMW. He practically bragged about this, but I suspect the next time he tries to appeal something at an NABC he may be asked for a deposit in advance. Other than that I know little about ACBL AWMWs.

 

...I thought the TD had overlooked something, so I asked her "what about Law XX?" (I don't remember the details). She said, rather huffily, "Don't quote law numbers at me!" and stomped off. I was inclined to appeal; my partner, always prepared to avoid anything that might be unpleasant, wasn't. But later, I saw our TD sitting at an empty table reading her law book. Later still, she came and apologized to me, and told me I was right. What I don't remember is whether she changed her ruling, but in the end I just accepted her apology and moved on. To the best of my knowledge she didn't consult with anybody else about that ruling, either at the table or later.

I freely admit that I don't know all of the Laws by number either, but if a player quoted one I would certainly look it up. Even if I don't have the book with me I have a copy on my iPod Touch, although I might need the actual book if I ever get to direct at an NABC, based on the ACBL's electronic devices policy. I'm not a big fan of the type of behavior you describe from this TD. I suspect she did consult with someone who pointed out that you may be right and she should look up that Law! One thing I sometimes find difficult in a busy tournament situation is keeping track of several rulings where the TDs have been consulting, and there are times where I have changed some scores after several rounds, and then had trouble tracking down everyone involved. She probably changed the score and told your opponents but forgot to let you know.

 

A couple of years ago, I was accused of deliberately hesitating in order to induce declarer to take a finesse. I.e., of cheating. The director's reaction to this accusation from one of her long term customers and friends was "we're just going to let that slide". I was so angry that I had to leave the table until I calmed down. She didn't care.

The C-word, unless it is clearly spoken in a joking manner, is the nuclear option in games where I direct: if you use the C-word, you take it back and apologize or you don't play any further, and the Unit CD&E (Conduct, Deportment and Ethics, although the middle one seldom gets cases) committee chair gets a full report. But it's a different situation when the complaint describes, or tries to describe, what happened and merely insinuates, without saying so directly, that there was cheating. There is a difference between a direct accusation of cheating, and what you need to say to let the TD know your impression of what happened. Some are better at this than others at phrasing it delicately and separating fact from opinion, others are so sure they've been robbed that what sounds like a cheating accusation is just a bungled attempt at describing what happened. The TD certainly has to get in there and calm things down before things get ugly, and "we're just going to let that slide" was probably meant as an attempt in that general direction, although not a very good one.

 

Precedent has established, at least in Rochester NY, that an appeal can be made in a club game, and it will be heard by a committee. NO club has established any regulation that says otherwise. Appeals are rare because nobody cares. "It's only a club game". "It won't affect the final standings." "I don't want to have to deal with it". All of these, it seems to me, are bogus excuses. If you truly believe the director's ruling is wrong, you should appeal, regardless of any of these excuses.

You're ahead of us then, although I imagine if there were more appeals at club games some sort of committee might be formed. As our Unit's IMP League commissioner for many years I set up several appeal committees and there was even an AC consisting of the Unit Board for an appeal committee to decide a championship match at one point. I am surprised that Rochester NY has sectional tournaments run by only one TD; your metro area is about half the population of Vancouver BC's but our sectionals, until very recently, had two or three TDs each session (for 30-45 tables per session: with scoring machines we can handle that many usually with only two TDs). We are actually pretty lucky to be in an area that has always had many excellent ACBL TDs, and I myself am quite fortunate to have been able to associate with great regional staffs in my Daily Bulletin work in District 19 even before I became an ACBL TD.

 

Contestants do have a right to appeal, at least as the laws stand now. This is a privilege really, a legal right that can be taken away by legislation. However, because they have this legal right, IMO they also have a moral right to an unbiased hearing. If all appeals are heard by the club owner, who is frequently the table TD as well, and who is concerned that his customers don't leave him, can any appeal be unbiased? If the answer to this question is no, is the right move to abolish appeals because they can't be unbiased anyway? I haven't addressed the question of biased appeals committees, because I think (I hope) those are very rare.

 

This is, IMO, a thorny problem. I don't really have a good answer, although I suspect that better and continuing education of all TDs, at all levels, is a step in the right direction.

Contestants have a right to appeal, but not necessarily a right to an appeal committee, unless one is available and will not delay the event (93A paraphrased). I am baffled by the last sentence of 93B1, which says that if the TD makes a ruling based on Law or regulation you can appeal this to the committee, which according to 93B3 is forbidden to overrule the TD on a point of Law or regulations! Maybe this is the small difference in our opinions on ACs: I have the notion that they should be ruling almost exclusively on cases where there is a judgment call made by the TD, whereas you seem to feel that at the club level there are often times where one should be able to appeal a Director's error in law to an AC. I think danger lies ahead there: players have enough misconceptions about the Laws to give them the option of forming an AC whenever they think the TD has erred and the TD disagrees. The TD is supposed to know the Laws, or at least be able to find the right ones and use them properly. If a TD disagrees with a player about a Laws ruling, I think it is best to consult another TD or some authority and make sure the ruling is correct, rather than ask an AC to do your job for you.

[blackshoe]

Me too. This is getting interesting and I always enjoy your posts.

Thanks. B-)

 

In the rare case that someone gets a Zero Tolerance ticket at a Regional, the form (which actually looks a bit like a traffic ticket) is waved about with pride after the game. (I guess this is half-bad, half-good: the small matchpoint fine is ignored but the offender rarely offends again when he knows this will mean expulsion.) I talked to someone who was told to speak into a tape recorder at an NABC with his reasons for appealing and told the next day he had earned an AWMW. He practically bragged about this, but I suspect the next time he tries to appeal something at an NABC he may be asked for a deposit in advance. Other than that I know little about ACBL AWMWs.

AWMWs are not the same thing as ZT penalties - although I admit I've not seen an AWMW form, so it may well say a second warning risks expulsion, although I doubt it.

 

I freely admit that I don't know all of the Laws by number either, but if a player quoted one I would certainly look it up. Even if I don't have the book with me I have a copy on my iPod Touch, although I might need the actual book if I ever get to direct at an NABC, based on the ACBL's electronic devices policy. I'm not a big fan of the type of behavior you describe from this TD. I suspect she did consult with someone who pointed out that you may be right and she should look up that Law! One thing I sometimes find difficult in a busy tournament situation is keeping track of several rulings where the TDs have been consulting, and there are times where I have changed some scores after several rounds, and then had trouble tracking down everyone involved. She probably changed the score and told your opponents but forgot to let you know.

Possible. Not good, but possible - and understandable.

 

I'm not sure, but I don't think the ED policy applies to staff.

 

 

The C-word, unless it is clearly spoken in a joking manner, is the nuclear option in games where I direct: if you use the C-word, you take it back and apologize or you don't play any further, and the Unit CD&E (Conduct, Deportment and Ethics, although the middle one seldom gets cases) committee chair gets a full report. But it's a different situation when the complaint describes, or tries to describe, what happened and merely insinuates, without saying so directly, that there was cheating. There is a difference between a direct accusation of cheating, and what you need to say to let the TD know your impression of what happened. Some are better at this than others at phrasing it delicately and separating fact from opinion, others are so sure they've been robbed that what sounds like a cheating accusation is just a bungled attempt at describing what happened. The TD certainly has to get in there and calm things down before things get ugly, and "we're just going to let that slide" was probably meant as an attempt in that general direction, although not a very good one.

Oh, I'm sure the TD wanted to calm things down - although I was quite calm until she said what she did. As for the player, I quoted her verbatim: "he deliberately hesitated in order to induce me to take the finesse". This is a very experienced player. I can't see this as a bungled attempt at phrasing; she said exactly what she meant to say.

 

You're ahead of us then, although I imagine if there were more appeals at club games some sort of committee might be formed. As our Unit's IMP League commissioner for many years I set up several appeal committees and there was even an AC consisting of the Unit Board for an appeal committee to decide a championship match at one point. I am surprised that Rochester NY has sectional tournaments run by only one TD; your metro area is about half the population of Vancouver BC's but our sectionals, until very recently, had two or three TDs each session (for 30-45 tables per session: with scoring machines we can handle that many usually with only two TDs). We are actually pretty lucky to be in an area that has always had many excellent ACBL TDs, and I myself am quite fortunate to have been able to associate with great regional staffs in my Daily Bulletin work in District 19 even before I became an ACBL TD.

Don't get me wrong - clubs here don't have predesignated committees. If one is needed, it's ad hoc. Come to think of it, I haven't seen a committee formed at a club in the last couple of years. Could be no one's asked for one, could be any appeals were handled by the TD or a couple of TDs. Our largest club (30-40 tables) has two TDs - the club owner and her husband. He's a former air traffic controller, nothing fazes him. It's fun to watch him work. :)

 

Contestants have a right to appeal, but not necessarily a right to an appeal committee, unless one is available and will not delay the event (93A paraphrased). I am baffled by the last sentence of 93B1, which says that if the TD makes a ruling based on Law or regulation you can appeal this to the committee, which according to 93B3 is forbidden to overrule the TD on a point of Law or regulations! Maybe this is the small difference in our opinions on ACs: I have the notion that they should be ruling almost exclusively on cases where there is a judgment call made by the TD, whereas you seem to feel that at the club level there are often times where one should be able to appeal a Director's error in law to an AC. I think danger lies ahead there: players have enough misconceptions about the Laws to give them the option of forming an AC whenever they think the TD has erred and the TD disagrees. The TD is supposed to know the Laws, or at least be able to find the right ones and use them properly. If a TD disagrees with a player about a Laws ruling, I think it is best to consult another TD or some authority and make sure the ruling is correct, rather than ask an AC to do your job for you.

I think you've misunderstood me. IMO the requirement to have an on site committee review a TD's ruling on a matter of law is intended to reduce the number of cases that get forwarded to the NA. After all, while the AC cannot overturn such a ruling, they can recommend that the TD change it. If the AC's logic is right, then the TD ought to recognize that, and then only a stubborn and irrational TD would refuse to change the ruling. Also IMO, having a committee review the TD's ruling is not "asking an AC to do your job for you". Not if you're doing it right (procedurally, and as best you can legally) in the first place, which, again IMO, every TD should strive to do.

[Vampyr]

I think danger lies ahead there: players have enough misconceptions about the Laws to give them the option of forming an AC whenever they think the TD has erred and the TD disagrees.

 

I don't think that this is much of a danger, since the TD supposedly read the law out of the lawbook in the first place, and can give the book to the player to read for himself. OK, I admit that I don't read every ruling out of the lawbook, mainly for time-saving, since I do almost all of my directing as a playing volunteer. But I would certainly open to the relevant law if a player was doubtful.

 

In any case, would increasing the deposit be a deterrent to appeals without merit?

[mycroft]

In any case, would increasing the deposit be a deterrent to appeals without merit?

That depends. Is it my friends-the-juniors team? Increasing the deposit would be a deterrent to appeals (that's why the AWM scheme got put in in the ACBL replacing monetary deposits), so by its very nature, to appeals without merit - but dropping the speed limit to 10 MPH would certainly cut down on fatal accidents, too. Is it any of the sponsored teams? Well, the sponsor might balk if the deposit went from $50 to $5000, but not likely any less, given that his team is already costing him $250K/year; and if the appeals deposit were $5000, how many appeals would you get that *weren't* from a sponsored team?

[blackshoe]

I don't think that this is much of a danger, since the TD supposedly read the law out of the lawbook in the first place, and can give the book to the player to read for himself. OK, I admit that I don't read every ruling out of the lawbook, mainly for time-saving, since I do almost all of my directing as a playing volunteer. But I would certainly open to the relevant law if a player was doubtful.

 

In any case, would increasing the deposit be a deterrent to appeals without merit?

I'm afraid your supposition does not reflect my reality. Directors (particularly club directors, but I've seen it in Sectional and Regional level directors too) seem to pride themselves on their ability to rule from memory. As for reading it from the book, I once asked a local club director to do that. She said "I can't. The book is in the car." She refused to go get it. And this was before the rush to get more boards done in three hours. Things are getting somewhat better in this regard - I've actually seen some club directors around here with a lawbook in hand!

 

In their defense, I have to admit that the players tend to aggravate rather than help the problem. Many players don't have the patience to sit and listen to a reading from the book. "We don't have time for that," they say. They may be right - after all we're trying to cram 26 or 27 boards into three hours, there's almost no "movement time" between rounds, half the field is ahead, pushing the other half by moving before the round is called, the other half is behind because they're slow, and then here comes the director, and he wants to "read it from the book"?! Nay, say the players. Rulings should take at most ten seconds, always be absolutely correct, and always be in my favor. B-) Okay, I exaggerate - but the impatience does exist.

 

As for increasing deposits, what Mycroft said.

[Vampyr]

As for increasing deposits, what Mycroft said.

 

I hadn't realised that these warnings had replaced monetary deposits. The solution is simple, really -- make the deposit in the form of VPs or MPs.

 

As to the problem of directors ruling without the lawbook, well, maybe frequent appeals will do it. But non-adherence to correct procedure seems endemic in the ACBL, and there always seems to be some reason that improvement is impossible.

 

Please read my comments on this issue as applying to non-ACBL jurisdictions only.

[mycroft]

I will admit that I make more of my rulings without the book than with; but if I have *any* doubt that I know exactly what to do/say, I pull out the book from my back or jacket pocket. More often than Lawbook, however, I have to hunt for my Alert Procedure/GCC. If anyone questions what I'm saying, out comes the Lawbook and I read it from there.

 

The odd time I need it and it's still in my directing bag because I haven't transferred it to back/jacket pocket yet, I'm embarrassed, but I still ensure it's read - and it's clearly my fault. "It's in the car" is insane. It has to be downloaded, even more so.

 

I realize that's not the rightest way to do it, as well.

 

AWMW: apply only at Nationals; 3 in two(?) years lead to a C&E hearing; no idea if the ACBL has specific regulations about frivolous appeals in Regional and lower tournaments, or whether that devolves to the District/Unit/Club; AWMW seem to only be handed out for truly gratuitously frivolous appeals; so as far as I know, only one person even got to 2 in the revolving limit. I don't see more frivolous appeals in the Casebooks (and out of my two, neither was frivolous, even if they were denied), in fact maybe fewer, but that may just be that fewer appeals are being pushed forward (and it's likely the frivolous ones that have been "oh come now, really?"ed out before presentation). 61 from Toronto, 2001 was a watershed alarm.

 

I think social pressure, as well as better delivery education of the TDs, as well as "talk to the DIC, who can say the same thing I just said in a different way you might understand" procedures, have helped. Note I'm not saying here anything about the quality of the rulings - what do I know from that? I just try to do the right thing and apply the Law as best I can on each ruling, and see where it goes from there.

[jeffford76]

I don't see more frivolous appeals in the Casebooks (and out of my two, neither was frivolous, even if they were denied), in fact maybe fewer, but that may just be that fewer appeals are being pushed forward (and it's likely the frivolous ones that have been "oh come now, really?"ed out before presentation).

 

They have a procedure in place where both sides of an appeal are expected to meet with a screener prior to the actual appeal. A couple nationals ago I was informed at this meeting that a player poll had been done since the initial ruling, and it was clear that the appeal would be denied given the (surprising to me) results, so we withdrew our appeal. At the most recent nationals a ruling in our favor was appealed and at the screening meeting the screening director made clear to the other side that while they were legally entitled to appeal, they didn't have a case and would almost certainly receive an AWMW, and one of them decided to withdraw. Amusingly both cases were auctions where our side opened 1NT, and the opponents didn't agree on whether they were playing "systems on" after a penalty X.

 

It would be interesting to see the statistics on how many cases are "appealed", but don't make it to an actual committee.

[mjj29]

It would be interesting to see the statistics on how many cases are "appealed", but don't make it to an actual committee.

If by "appealed" you mean "one of the sides says 'that's completely ridiculous! I would always have done this! I'm obviously going to appeal if you rule that'", then IME nearly all of them q-:

[barmar]

I'm afraid your supposition does not reflect my reality. Directors (particularly club directors, but I've seen it in Sectional and Regional level directors too) seem to pride themselves on their ability to rule from memory. As for reading it from the book, I once asked a local club director to do that. She said "I can't. The book is in the car." She refused to go get it. And this was before the rush to get more boards done in three hours. Things are getting somewhat better in this regard - I've actually seen some club directors around here with a lawbook in hand!

If you have a club being run in such an incompetent fashion, I think the appeal process is the least of your problems, and it's certainly not where you should be looking to fix it.

 

This thread was started to talk about the process at championships -- is poor club-level directing really relevant? I think it's reasonable to expect that practically all rulings in a championship event will be made in accordance with the laws, and appeals will almost always be on matters of judgement. In fact, this supposition is apparently built into the Laws, where 93B2 says that an AC can't overrule the director on a point of law (but does that mean they can't overrule him if he applies the wrong law?).

[lamford]

I think it's reasonable to expect that practically all rulings in a championship event will be made in accordance with the laws

Not so. In Poznan the Chief TD made an error with a revoke ruling, and the AC failed to overturn it.

[barmar]

Not so. In Poznan the Chief TD made an error with a revoke ruling, and the AC failed to overturn it.

I said "practically all". Even experienced TDs are still human and sometimes make mistakes. But it's reasonable to assume that they will make far fewer.

 

I also suspect that some types of infractions are also less common in championship bridge, because the players pay more attention: calls/plays out of turn, insufficient bids, revokes. Not nonexistent, of course, but much less frequent.