Appeals committee at European Open Championships

[blackshoe]

… it was clear that the appeal would be denied…

I'm confused. What does this mean? That the screener or somebody would suggest the appeal is without merit and the table ruling would be upheld? Or is somebody telling appellants "no, you can't appeal this ruling. Go away"?

[blackshoe]

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?).

The way to fix it is to get the ACBL to stop washing their hands of whatever goes on at clubs. I see a couple of things that intimate that may change, but no change has trickled down to the clubs yet, and until it does players' only option is to vote with their feet. :(

 

Threads drift, that's the nature of the medium. As for relevancy, players who learn how the game is ruled at the poor club level will eventually have to relearn what they "know", because it's all wrong. That can't be good.

 

Which law applies is a judgement matter, so the AC can overturn it. IMO, of course.

[jeffford76]

I'm confused. What does this mean? That the screener or somebody would suggest the appeal is without merit and the table ruling would be upheld? Or is somebody telling appellants "no, you can't appeal this ruling. Go away"?

 

In my case it meant that my appeal was going to be that a particular call was a LA, and that the alternative, more successful call they took was suggested by the UI. At the time of the director ruling they hadn't done a player poll, so this was a reasonable argument. By the time of the screening, they had, and since no one had made the call I thought was a LA, it was clear *to me* I would lose the appeal so I withdrew it.

[JanM]

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

 

So do I.

[blackshoe]

In my case it meant that my appeal was going to be that a particular call was a LA, and that the alternative, more successful call they took was suggested by the UI. At the time of the director ruling they hadn't done a player poll, so this was a reasonable argument. By the time of the screening, they had, and since no one had made the call I thought was a LA, it was clear *to me* I would lose the appeal so I withdrew it.

Then I think "would fail" is better wording than "would be denied". <shrug>

[akwoo]

The way to fix it is to get the ACBL to stop washing their hands of whatever goes on at clubs. I see a couple of things that intimate that may change, but no change has trickled down to the clubs yet, and until it does players' only option is to vote with their feet. :(

 

I admit to having an unusual perspective on this, but:

 

I live in a town so remote that most folks in Western Europe can't really imagine how remote it is. I'm very lucky that we have a weekly game, considering the nearest other game is about 70 miles (i.e. about 100 km) away. We average 2.5 tables or so; we have on rare occasion cancelled because not enough people showed up to make a game. In the last 2 years (since I moved here), we've never had 4 tables.

 

A fair number of rules are very laxly enforced. Frankly we don't want to make things any harder for the old ladies playing than at all possible. I doubt our director has his rule book anywhere closer than his home. No one has ever asked for a ruling on anything other than a revoke, a lead out of turn, an exposed card, or an insufficient bid (and most insufficient bids are simply allowed to be withdrawn with no penalty and no director call). We've never had a UI or MI ruling; I imagine that if someone showed up and started to repeatedly and blatantly take advantage of UI or repeatedly and intentionally failed to alert, instead of making rulings on it, he or she would first be warned and eventually be told he or she wasn't welcome. (Frankly, this makes better sense because some of our old ladies wouldn't know when to suspect misuse of UI and call the director.)

 

If our game were to be "properly run", some of the old ladies would stop playing and we wouldn't have a game at all. I'm happy that the ACBL is letting our director run our game in a way that he judges is best for keeping duplicate bridge in town.

[blackshoe]

There are exceptions to every rule. Your situation is pretty unique. If the alternatives are "ignore (most of) the rules and have a nice little game once a week" and "follow the rules and have no game at all", then I see no problem with the former - as long as any guests are made aware ahead of time of the situation. In most of the ACBL, though, your situation doesn't apply. It's the places whose players are likely, at some point, to go on to tournament play I'm most concerned about.

[bluejak]

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?

Over many many years there has been a shift in decision making. Sixty years ago it was to rule against the offending side and let the AC sort it out. Slowly it has moved more and more towards good TD rulings. This seems an obvious further step in that direction - once you really trust TD rulings ACs become redundant.

 

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.

No "of course" about it: I am not sure you are even right.

 

LAW 93: PROCEDURES OF APPEAL

 

C. Further Possibilities of Appeal

 

3. (b) 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.

 

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.

Sounds reasonable, but I am never sure it is true. If ACs had never been invented, people would take rulings, both good and bad, and complain about them. At club level TDs may be poor, so let us suppose their rulings are 60% correct. ACs will not be wonderful, with little idea of the Laws or what they should be doing. So how correct will their decisions be? 65%? 70%?

 

There is a lot of fuss and wasted time in appeals. I do not believe that they are justified and as soon as they consigned to history, the better.

 

[sorry, Nigel, for not following the EBU line: I shall try harder in future. :lol: ]

 

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!

An AC can recommend a TD to overturn his ruling on a point of Law or Regulation. The EBU considers he should normally do so unless he can demonstrate to the AC why he is right and they are wrong.

 

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.

There is no "simple" answer, certainly not the MP/VP solution. Shortly I shall be directing the Schapiro Spring 4s. There have been several tense appeals when the final score is 2 imps to one side, and the side being eliminated will appeal anything it can think of. Do you think that the chance of losing imps matters?

 

Everyone seems to think one way is best: I don't. The possibilities seem to me to be:

 

1 Money deposits, as in the EBU. The obvious disadvantage is that some people can afford them much more than others: no sponsor at the Schapiro Spring 4s is going to let a £30 deposit put him off appealing. But a team of four juniors in a local EBU event might. The advantage is that no-one, even the millionaires, likes losing money.

 

2 PPs, as in the ABF. The obvious disadvantage is that if it does not matter, as above, it does not stop meritless appeals at all. The advantage is that in some cases it might be critical and thus dissuade.

 

3 AWMWs, as in the ACBL. The obvious disadvantage is that they don't seem to work! No-one in the ACBL has ever had any further action from getting them. The advantage might be that they are working: no-one has ever had further action because they are not pushing meritless appeals.

 

4 Master points, tried nowhere. The obvious disadvantage is that lots of people don't care about them. The advantage is that many people do care!

 

I have made two suggestions over the years: no-one liked either!

 

1 Choice. Give the AC a choice of which of the above four to apply. But the AC might not know, so it is probably a bad idea.

 

2 Package. This is the one I like! Give them a package of disincentives: so in the EBU if an appeal is deemed frivolous, a team or pair will lose £15 and 1 VP/6 imps/20% of a top and a National Master Point and gain an AWMW. :)

[barmar]

4 Master points, tried nowhere. The obvious disadvantage is that lots of people don't care about them. The advantage is that many people do care!

Probably similar to money. A GLM with 15,000 masterpoints isn't going to sweat losing a dozen or so. And in lower-level events, where the payout to the winners is only in the single digits, it would hardly seem fair to charge double digits for appeals, but anything less would have no teeth at all.

[gnasher]

I'm told that in the ACBL there is such a thing as a Flight-B pro. Presumably such players would actually wish to keep their masterpoint total down, so as to remain eligible for their chosen profession. We wouldn't want to create a perverse incentive for frivolous appealing.

[mycroft]

There are already cases where ACBL Masterpoints are recommended/required to be taken away (upon conviction for various ethical or "failing to care about other contestants, repeatedly, after instruction and request" infractions). I suggested to our BoD member that something had to be put in there that these masterpoint reductions were *NOT* to apply to eligibility maximums or masterpoint level categories (no "failing to wash or change clothes for an entire regional to get back into Flight B" or to compete in the 200-300 MP race instead of the 300-500). I don't think that was put in; I think I should rattle his cage about it again.

 

Having said all that, I have not heard of any C&E rulings that have awarded a penalty that leads to masterpoint reduction; but I wouldn't hear of it, either.

[nige1]

Everyone seems to think one way is best: I don't. The possibilities seem to me to be:

1. Money deposits, as in the EBU. The obvious disadvantage is that some people can afford them much more than others: no sponsor at the Schapiro Spring 4s is going to let a £30 deposit put him off appealing. But a team of four juniors in a local EBU event might. The advantage is that no-one, even the millionaires, likes losing money.
2. PPs, as in the ABF. The obvious disadvantage is that if it does not matter, as above, it does not stop meritless appeals at all. The advantage is that in some cases it might be critical and thus dissuade.
3. AWMWs, as in the ACBL. The obvious disadvantage is that they don't seem to work! No-one in the ACBL has ever had any further action from getting them. The advantage might be that they are working: no-one has ever had further action because they are not pushing meritless appeals.
4. Master points, tried nowhere. The obvious disadvantage is that lots of people don't care about them. The advantage is that many people do care!

I have made two suggestions over the years: no-one liked either!

1. Choice. Give the AC a choice of which of the above four to apply. But the AC might not know, so it is probably a bad idea.
2. Package. This is the one I like! Give them a package of disincentives: so in the EBU if an appeal is deemed frivolous, a team or pair will lose £15 and 1 VP/6 imps/20% of a top and a National Master Point and gain an AWMW. :)

IMO, a pair/team with a rolling history of unsuccessful appeals above a published threshold should have their appeal automatically refused. (Currently, there is insufficient consistency in AWMWs or deposit-retentions for them to be used as criteria). Naturally, you would be allowed an unlimited number of successful appeals.

[nige1]

An independent TD panel (with a fresh set of TDs) might be OK. Provided that the evidence and reasons for important panel-rulings were published and reviewed as now happens for appeal-committees. A player, who can't understand a TD ruling, would still want his day in court. Appeal decisions, especially reports from top-level events, draw attention to legal anomalies; and educate those, like myself, who don't understand Bridge-law. The danger is that TD-panels might simply rubber-stamp TD-decisions. If appeals become pointless, some of us would learn to live without them; but we would remain annoyed and ignorant.

[Zelandakh]

I have made two suggestions over the years: no-one liked either!

Another idea that I have never heard put forward (and therefore is also probably disliked by everyone) would be appeal limits as in American football or tennis. A player only gets a certain number of unsuccessful appeals in a year. Longer major events might have separate quotas, although this would make frivolous appeals more attractive. So, for example, a player might only be allowed 1 unsuccessful appeal for a given set of events. In the first round of a Team KO, they make a successful appeal. No problem here. In the semi-final they are lose and decide to appeal a decision that swung a lot of IMPs. This they lose. Now the team may not make any further appeals in the following events.

 

But overall, I think that working towards removing appeals completely is probably the better solution. That also has the benefit of encouraging better TDs at all levels; which might eventually improve the club experience for large numbers of bridge players. We can but hope.

[gnasher]

But overall, I think that working towards removing appeals completely is probably the better solution. That also has the benefit of encouraging better TDs at all levels

 

Will it necessarily have that effect? I agree that some directors might try harder if they knew that theirs was the final decision, but for others the knowledge that their decision wasn't subject to review might make them less diligent. A good director, of course, would do his best regardless of the existence of an appeals procedure.

[Zelandakh]

Why do you think that "their decision wasn't subject to review" necessarily follows from "theirs was the final decision", Andy? There is no reason (besides money and effort I guess) why TD decisions cannot be reviewed without overturning them in an attempt to improve accountability and quality, as happens in most major sports.

[gnasher]

Why do you think that "their decision wasn't subject to review" necessarily follows from "theirs was the final decision", Andy? There is no reason (besides money and effort I guess) why TD decisions cannot be reviewed without overturning them in an attempt to improve accountability and quality, as happens in most major sports.

 

By "subject to review" I meant "subject to review and amendment".

 

Anyway, disregarding the vocabulary, if you replace the current system of

Director's ruling, followed by final appeal if requested, later followed by review of appeal's committee decision

with

Director's final ruling, later followed by review of director's decision

You reduce the incentive for a lazy TD to do his job properly, whilst greatly increasing the number of rulings that have to be reviewed.

[gordontd]

By "subject to review" I meant "subject to review and amendment".

 

Anyway, disregarding the vocabulary, if you replace the current system of

Director's ruling, followed by final appeal if requested, later followed by review of appeal's committee decision

with

Director's final ruling, later followed by review of director's decision

You reduce the incentive for a lazy TD to do his job properly, whilst greatly increasing the number of rulings that have to be reviewed.

I don't see how that follows, especially since the review process will mean that the director might be told to go back and do it again, rather than the AC doing it on his behalf.

[bluejak]

Another idea that I have never heard put forward (and therefore is also probably disliked by everyone) would be appeal limits as in American football or tennis. A player only gets a certain number of unsuccessful appeals in a year. Longer major events might have separate quotas, although this would make frivolous appeals more attractive. So, for example, a player might only be allowed 1 unsuccessful appeal for a given set of events. In the first round of a Team KO, they make a successful appeal. No problem here. In the semi-final they are lose and decide to appeal a decision that swung a lot of IMPs. This they lose. Now the team may not make any further appeals in the following events.

In my County my partner and I play in about forty weekend events a year: the better players in the County otherwise tend to play in three or four. So we are ten times as likely to disagree with a ruling.

 

I don't think your approach is fair since it penalises people for playing more.

[Jeremy69A]

Assuming we are only talking about appeals in high level events such as EBL or WBF championships then we should first look at some reasons which are little to do with bridge. At an open championship such as Poznan in 2011 it is not uncommon to have about a dozen appeal committee members. Some of them will have other jobs so are not there solely to hear appeals but some are and by the time you have finished with travel, subsistence and accommodation it is an expensive business to have appeal committees. I am not suggesting that whether we have them or not should be a matter of cost nor that the EBL/WBF have been much moved by wasting money in the past but it is nonetheless something to be considered.

Secondly there is the EBL/WBF total disregard for the players. In Dublin at the captain's meeting an official stood up and said that he expected there would be few or no appeals because the teams had access to the best TDs in Europe(true not wholly relevant) and they consulted and they got it right so you should expect to lose your deposit. Personally I thought this was a dreadful thing to say and I wouldn't want this person as the reviewer although he might well end up being so.

When considering a process of course you want one to ensure that decisions are likely to be correct if at all possible and I would expect TDs at the event to rarely get the law wrong and get a lot of judgement rulings right but there is also the matter of justice being seen to be done. I can think of two rulings I have been involved in, one in Lille in 1998 and one in Antalya in 2007 when the TD gave a ruling that could have been bettered by a passing ice cream salesman and both were overturned by an appeal committee. THe second involved the disposition of a gold medal so it is pretty unlikely that there was no consultation. In both cases it was not just a matter of law. I've no idea what would have happened if a reviewer had handled it but I would not have much confidence.

Appeal committees can and do get it wrong but they give a useful air of neutrality and independence which we should be loathe to lose especially if they are abolished by organisations who regard the players as people to be tolerated rather than valued.

We are having a discussion about no appeal committees at the forthcoming European Open Championships Ostend in just under two months yet there is actually no announcement to that effect nor any regulations or playing conditions on the official site so we are reliant on word of mouth from people who were, say, at the EBL TDs course or have read it elsewhere to know this. I don't think the failure to let people know is an oversight it is more of the "why do they need to know" attitude which prevails. In Lille last year, for example, the regulations were not on the website on the day before the championship although, of course, you did get a pack of them with the bag given to participants. Why not? They could not be bothered to do so and then made bellicose statements about how unwise it was to consider appealing.

[nige1]

In my County my partner and I play in about forty weekend events a year: the better players in the County otherwise tend to play in three or four. So we are ten times as likely to disagree with a ruling. I don't think your approach is fair since it penalises people for playing more.

The procedure would be fairer if the criterion were not just the absolute number of unsuccessful appeals in the last (rolling) year but also the percentage of appeals that were unsuccessful (as I've previously suggested). Also, pairs and teams change so you would have to consider the average of all players in the partnership/team.

[gnasher]

I don't see how that follows, especially since the review process will mean that the director might be told to go back and do it again, rather than the AC doing it on his behalf.

I was talking about Zelandakh's suggestion of "removing appeals completely", where TDs' rulings would be "reviewed without overturning them".

[gnasher]

Assuming we are only talking about appeals in high level events such as EBL or WBF championships then we should first look at some reasons which are little to do with bridge. At an open championship such as Poznan in 2011 it is not uncommon to have about a dozen appeal committee members. Some of them will have other jobs so are not there solely to hear appeals but some are and by the time you have finished with travel, subsistence and accommodation it is an expensive business to have appeal committees.

Even if we did away with appeals committees, I suspect that most of those people would still be there with some other job title.

[Jeremy69A]

Even if we did away with appeals committees, I suspect that most of those people would still be there with some other job title.

 

I suspect you are right. The number of head cooks and emeritus bottle washers present is quite extraordinary. For the first time that I have noticed in Dublin last year there was a sign that the organisers had noticed external austerity.

[Finch]

Secondly there is the EBL/WBF total disregard for the players. In Dublin at the captain's meeting an official stood up and said that he expected there would be few or no appeals because the teams had access to the best TDs in Europe(true not wholly relevant) and they consulted and they got it right so you should expect to lose your deposit. Personally I thought this was a dreadful thing to say and I wouldn't want this person as the reviewer although he might well end up being so.

 

We got exactly the same announcement at the Champions' Trophy, so I think it's the standard EBL line rather than any one particular official. It shocked me too. (As did the ruling we were given later in the event.)