Appeals committee at European Open Championships

[RMB1]

We got exactly the same announcement at the Champions' Trophy, so I think it's the standard EBL line ...

Something similar used to appear in the first bulletin of each international championship.

[Jeremy69A]

Something similar used to appear in the first bulletin of each international championship.

 

Appeals used to appear in the bulletins also until they were censored on the grounds, allegedly, that players were appealing to try to get themselves in the bulletin!

[jallerton]

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.

 

I was interested to hear Adam Wildavsky on voice commentary this evening. He has reviewed all ACBL appeals from 2001 onwards and has come to the conclusion that ACBL ACs improve more TD rulings than the other way round. He has kept data on his website to back up his conclusions.

[Zelandakh]

The question in my mind is: if the money that was spent on ACs during that period was instead spent on improving TD performance and, dare I say it, the rulebook itself, would the overall effect be even better?

 

The current situation reminds me of several sports before they became professional. Take tennid before Mcenroe for example. The linesmen were volunteers with little training and often needed to be overruled by the umpire. The umpires in turn were mostly amateur and their rulings could always be overturned by the tournament referee. There was little guidance on which player actions should be punlished and even if a player was, it took so many offences for it to have an effect (point loss) that it was practically impossible for it to happen. Mcenroe effectively forced the governing bodies to professionalise, resulting in a much higher quality of officials and far clearer guidance on what is and is not allowed written into the Laws.

 

The Laws of Bridge are still written as if it was a parlour game, to be played on a river cruise by upper class gentlemen. The training for TDs at the bottom of the game is minimal - quite frankly, reading these forums for a few months is probably more effective. Even at the top level, there is so much room for judgement and debate that any complex ruling is likely to have several possible interpretations and nuances. It is just no way for a modern mind sport to be run.

 

I hear so often how comfortable bridge officials are with things; or how change is not necessary because the members would not like it; or not to fix something that isn't broken. But it is broken, at least in the sense of being a professional sport. Bridge needs a John Mcenroe to shake things up. If the game cannot modernise then it will eventually fade out, just as other popular/fashionable card games of the past have done. To my mind, even if ACs do improve things right now, they are still an impediment to the game moving forwards.

[gnasher]

The question in my mind is: if the money that was spent on ACs during that period was instead spent on improving TD performance and, dare I say it, the rulebook itself, would the overall effect be even better?

It's not really a matter of the TDs' ability to direct. The big problem with getting rid of with ACs is the TDs' bridge ability: most TDs aren't good enough at bridge to judge what a top player would have done. The EBL seem to think that they can make up for this by polling players, but that doesn't get you the same depth of analysis as having a committee of players think about and discuss the board for fifteen minutes.

[Zelandakh]

So allow the TD to consult with the players and have the discussion before the initial ruling in close cases. Or re-write the rules to enable the decisions to be clearer and less open to interpretation. It would surely be better if the discussion could take place without the parties already being known, to avoid any subconscious bias creeping in. It would presumably be even better if the requirement for such nuanced discussion were reduced.

[gnasher]

So allow the TD to consult with the players and have the discussion before the initial ruling in close cases.

So the TD assembles a group of good players, explains the ruling to them, and asks them to discuss it. What's a good word for a group of knowledgeable people who discuss something and then make a collective decision?

 

It seems to me that you're suggesting skipping the TD ruling and referring it directly to the committee. I don't see why you think that better than the current system, but anyway you will still need a committee of players, regardless of what you call it.

 

Or re-write the rules to enable the decisions to be clearer and less open to interpretation.

The problem isn't ambiguity in the rules. If you want the rules to restore equity, someone has to determine what constitutes equity. To do that, they have to be able to judge what a player would or might have done in particular circumstances. To do that well, they have to be able to think how the player thinks.

[Zelandakh]

I am saying that top TDs probably know when they are making a ruling that is likely to end up in committee and can consult on such cases immediately in order to avoid the requirement of doing so later, when it is more likely that the teams involved have gotten hold of some outside expert advice on how to win an appeal. And I am saying that extra TD training and clearer rules in combination with such consultation is likely to result in an overall improvement over time. In the same way as most sports referees are able to do a professional job without having first been top players themselves.

[blackshoe]

The question in my mind is: if the money that was spent on ACs during that period was instead spent on improving TD performance and, dare I say it, the rulebook itself, would the overall effect be even better?

What money? How much are we talking about here?

[aguahombre]

Back when, it was some script for one session's entry fee and a cup of coffee; sometimes not the cup of coffee.

[gnasher]

For EBL and WBF events the Appeals Committee usually comprises people who aren't playing, and some of them are present only for the purpose of hearing appeals. The cost of that is at least their hotel bill, travelling expenses and subsistence. I'm not sure that you could convert that into funds for TD training, though - the host nation may be more willing to provide hotel rooms than actual cash.

[gnasher]

This is from the CoC for Ostend:

 

19. APPEALS COMMITTEE AND DIRECTORS

 

In reference to sections 33 - 35 of EBL:s General Conditions of Contest, and pursuant to Laws 81B2(k) and 93C3(b), the appeals procedure at these Championships will be different. Instead of a classic Appeals Committee hearing, appeals will be heard by a “Reviewer” appointed by the EBL Appeals Committee.

 

The Reviewer will not engage in a re-evaluation of facts already known to the Tournament Directors at the time of their ruling. The review will be limited to (1) verifying that correct procedures and laws were followed, and/or (2) judging whether new facts presented may reasonably have affected the original ruling. An appeal lodged without new facts, or with no reasonable claim of a flaw in procedures or application of the Laws, will be considered without merit.

 

The detailed procedure for lodging appeals will be published at the latest in the first Daily Bulletin.

[blackshoe]

The purpose of an Appeals Committee is to provide a check on the TD's judgement. This regulation says "we're not going to do that". Well, the drafters opened this door. I hope they're happy with the result. :(

[Vampyr]

The purpose of an Appeals Committee is to provide a check on the TD's judgement. This regulation says "we're not going to do that". Well, the drafters opened this door. I hope they're happy with the result. :(

 

Indeed; 93C3(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.

 

effectively revokes the right to appeal.

 

With regard to the Ostend notice, canny players will soon resort to saying very little to the TD, so that anything they say to the "reviewer" will be "new".

 

What is this "reviewer" supposed to do if there is more than one case? Will there be several of these individuals?

 

What I would really like to know is what the EBL and WBF have against appeals committees.

[nige1]

APPEALS COMMITTEE AND DIRECTORS

In reference to sections 33 - 35 of EBL:s General Conditions of Contest, and pursuant to Laws 81B2(k) and 93C3(b), the appeals procedure at these Championships will be different. Instead of a classic Appeals Committee hearing, appeals will be heard by a "Reviewer" appointed by the EBL Appeals Committee.

The Reviewer will not engage in a re-evaluation of facts already known to the Tournament Directors at the time of their ruling. The review will be limited to (1) verifying that correct procedures and laws were followed, and/or (2) judging whether new facts presented may reasonably have affected the original ruling. An appeal lodged without new facts, or with no reasonable claim of a flaw in procedures or application of the Laws, will be considered without merit.

The detailed procedure for lodging appeals will be published at the latest in the first Daily Bulletin.

Some of the possible drawbacks:

• Freezing known facts begs the question. Often, "facts" are in dispute and director "knowledge" of them flawed :(
• Director rulings are often weighted. Disputed weightings will be even harder to appeal :(
• Unless the reviewer publishes his review process and explains his reasoning, we will no longer be able to refer to good case-law to verify that justice is done and rulings are improving :(
• Unless the reviewer comes from a distant planet where Bridge is unknown, there are likely to be suspicions of bias :(

Nevertheless, we should (grudgingly) suspend judgement until we see how the procedure works in practice :)

[aguahombre]

Unless the reviewer comes from a distant planet where Bridge is unknown, there are likely to be suspicions of bias

If the reviewer knows nothing about Bridge, I doubt bias would be a concern. Sometimes on this planet at the club level we have both problems.

[Finch]

For EBL and WBF events the Appeals Committee usually comprises people who aren't playing, and some of them are present only for the purpose of hearing appeals. The cost of that is at least their hotel bill, travelling expenses and subsistence. I'm not sure that you could convert that into funds for TD training, though - the host nation may be more willing to provide hotel rooms than actual cash.

 

 

Indeed; 93C3(b):effectively revokes the right to appeal.With regard to the Ostend notice, canny players will soon resort to saying very little to the TD, so that anything they say to the "reviewer" will be "new".What is this "reviewer" supposed to do if there is more than one case? Will there be several of these individuals? What I would really like to know is what the EBL and WBF have against appeals committees.

 

I think gnasher has told you.

Whether the EBL/WBF would be better saving on some of their other hotel/entertainment bills is a different discussion.

[Vampyr]

I think gnasher has told you.

Whether the EBL/WBF would be better saving on some of their other hotel/entertainment bills is a different discussion.

 

If it is really a question of cost, (which I think is an appalling reason) they could use players. They could give them a bit of money for giving up their time; it would certainly be a lot less than their entire expenses.

[iviehoff]

This is from the CoC for Ostend:

 

19. APPEALS COMMITTEE AND DIRECTORS

 

In reference to sections 33 - 35 of EBL:s General Conditions of Contest, and pursuant to Laws 81B2(k) and 93C3(b), the appeals procedure at these Championships will be different. Instead of a classic Appeals Committee hearing, appeals will be heard by a “Reviewer” appointed by the EBL Appeals Committee.

 

The Reviewer will not engage in a re-evaluation of facts already known to the Tournament Directors at the time of their ruling. The review will be limited to (1) verifying that correct procedures and laws were followed, and/or (2) judging whether new facts presented may reasonably have affected the original ruling. An appeal lodged without new facts, or with no reasonable claim of a flaw in procedures or application of the Laws, will be considered without merit.

This sounds quite like an English judicial review proceding, with one significant exception. In the case of a judicial review proceding, if someone uses the correct rule on the correct facts, and takes an egregiously bad action in relation to those facts and procedures ("no reasonable man could have done it"), they will have it sent back. Here, even egregiously bad rulings will survive, provided they have been related to the correct law and correct facts. It completely changes the role of the AC from playing judgment expert (on which it will now defer to the TD) to legal expert (whereas previously it deferred to the TD for that).

[barmar]

Isn't this also similar to appeals in US courts of law? IANAL, but my understanding is that appeals are not usually permitted to present new evidence, but are supposed to address mistakes in procedure during the earlier trial.

[iviehoff]

Isn't this also similar to appeals in US courts of law? IANAL, but my understanding is that appeals are not usually permitted to present new evidence, but are supposed to address mistakes in procedure during the earlier trial.

The US is 50-odd different jurisdictions, many of them with practices that wouldn't pass scrutiny at the European Court of Human Rights if they were this side of the Atlantic. As this article makes clear, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_procedure_in_the_United_States appeal procedures do vary considerably from state to state, so I'm not sure if one can generalise to "the US".

 

It would be a perverse jurisdiction which did not allow appeal on the grounds of new evidence: it would leave considerably more innocent people mouldering away in prison than are there already. But I expect such perverse jurisdictions can be found. DNA evidence demonstrating innocence has been an important process in releasing the long-jailed innocents (from cases before DNA analysis was routine) in many states of the US, and that is precisely the situation of presenting new evidence in an appeal. However some states, to be found among the usual suspects, have taken measures to prevent convicted people presenting such evidence, no doubt relying on the thought that they only prosecuted people who deserved to be locked up, even if they were innocent of the specific crime they were convicted for.

[blackshoe]

Here, even egregiously bad rulings will survive, provided they have been related to the correct law and correct facts. It completely changes the role of the AC from playing judgment expert (on which it will now defer to the TD) to legal expert (whereas previously it deferred to the TD for that).

I wonder how this change fits in with Law 93B3. It sounds like the only thing a "reviewer" can do, given this law, is to recommend that a ruling be changed. And I think that calling an appeal based on disagreement with the TD's bridge judgment "without merit" is way over the top.

 

In effect this regulation is a big step toward giving us a new Law 92 and a new Law 93:

 

Law 92: The decision of the table TD is final.

Law 93: deleted.

 

Simple, precise, and very hard to misinterpret. But I don't think it's the right way to go.

[barmar]

It would be a perverse jurisdiction which did not allow appeal on the grounds of new evidence: it would leave considerably more innocent people mouldering away in prison than are there already. But I expect such perverse jurisdictions can be found.

Maybe it depends on jurisdiction, but I thought those were usually "retrials", not "appeals".

 

FindLaw

An appeal is a review of the trial court's application of the law. There is no jury in an appeal, nor do the lawyers present witnesses or, typically, other forms of evidence. The court will accept the facts as they were revealed in the trial court, unless a factual finding is clearly against the weight of the evidence.

JustAnswer Legal

A retrial implies the evidence and the case will be presented again in the court. It is a completely new trial. An appeal involves a procedure to check whether the trial court has made any error. The higher court, in which the appeal is made, will re-examine the same evidence to rule out any errors or oversight of law. There is no new evidence that is presented in court.

[iviehoff]

Maybe it depends on jurisdiction, but I thought those were usually "retrials", not "appeals".

I think we are quibbling over the meaning of words. The important thing is that there is a mechanism for reviewing the original verdict when new evidence is presented. In a colloquial sense that is an appeal, even if a jurisdiction calls it something else.

 

Here in England what actually happens when there is new evidence you first have to get the original conviction quashed before it can be retried. You can only do that in an appeal court. You first have to apply for leave to appeal - there is no time limit when the grounds are new evidence. Then the appeal is heard, and the appeal court decides whether in view of the new evidence the original conviction is safe or unsafe. If it is unsafe, it quashes the original conviction. The appeal court may then order a retrial, or it may simply leave the verdict quashed without ordering a retrial if in fact it is clear that the prosecution case is completely destroyed. However even when a retrial is ordered, it only proceeds if the prosecution still thinks there remains a good chance of a guilty verdict given the new evidence - retrials do not always proceed.

[blackshoe]

In bridge, when a contestant feels that the TD's bridge judgment in a particular case is flawed, that contestant has (in theory) the right to appeal the TD's decision on that basis. There need not, according to the Laws, be any new evidence. In sounds to me like "real life" legal proceedings don't offer that option. It also seems to me there's a movement afoot to take away that option in bridge by regulation. As I said earlier, the drafters of our current laws opened that door — but I don't have to like it. I don't like it, on principle. I think people ought to be able to appeal the TD's judgment. But I daresay nobody cares what I think.