Appeals committee at European Open Championships

[jallerton]

I think Andy's story points strongly towards what I have been saying regarding ACs, that we need to invest in our TDs and bring the standard up to a professional level. If TDs are too busy organising the tournament to spend the time and concentration needed on making rulings then something is going wrong. The answer is still to make a bigger effort to make the initial TD rulings correct rather than just accept that TDs are too busy to get everything right and bring in additional players to act as referees.

 

That's not necessarily the correct conclusion to draw.

 

TDs have many tasks to perform. Organising the tournament is a fundamental one and it's fairly easy to predict the amount of time which will be needed to achieve this. It's not possible to predict how many judgement rulings the TD will be asked to make, nor how complex those cases might be. In practice, a lot of judgement rulings are fairly easy to get right fairly quickly, in the sense that most decent TDs (or Referees) will reach the same conclusion. Most of these "easy" judgement rulings are not appealed.

 

The problem comes when the judgement issues are complex. The players don't necessarily have time at the table to explain their case to the TD, and the TD might not have the time (or possibly the bridge expertise) to cross-examine the players. One flaw with the procedure is that usually only one particular TD attends the table and hears the players' arguments. Of course, he will consult with other TDs, but those other TDs will have heard the players' arguments second or third hand. If the original TD didn't take in or understand everything that was said to him, or failed to ask an important question, then the whole team of TDs is ruling with incomplete information.

 

Contrast that with an AC. The AC will hear the facts and details of the original ruling from the TD, then the AC will hear from the appellants and their opponents. All of the AC membes can communicate with all of the players and makes an informed judgement based on what they have heard directly from the players themselves. Meanwhile, the players will feel reassured that they have made their points to the people who were responsible for taking the final decision.

[Zelandakh]

Saying that the organisation gets in the way is just a reinforcement of the issue at hand imho. This is one reason FIFA brought in the fourth official, to handle the admin tasks and let the referee and assistants get on with the job of officiating the game itself. On the issue of complex rulings, what if the TD training involved being able to tell the difference between a simple ruling and one that required further analysis? Then times can be set aside for additional information can be collected in these cases. In other words, give the TD team the same benefits that an AC have for the initial (and final) ruling.

[gnasher]

Saying that the organisation gets in the way is just a reinforcement of the issue at hand imho. This is one reason FIFA brought in the fourth official, to handle the admin tasks and let the referee and assistants get on with the job of officiating the game itself. On the issue of complex rulings, what if the TD training involved being able to tell the difference between a simple ruling and one that required further analysis? Then times can be set aside for additional information can be collected in these cases. In other words, give the TD team the same benefits that an AC have for the initial (and final) ruling.

Consider this scenario: a player asks for a ruling, the TD judges that it's simple, and the TD gives a ruling without further analysis. However, the player believes that it's a complex ruling. What happens next?

[Zelandakh]

We improve the training so that the TDs become better at recognising the difference, or we explain to the player why (s)he is wrong. Clearly, not every player is going to be satisfied with every ruling.

[gnasher]

So you want a relatively junior TD to judge whether he's competent to make a given ruling?

[Zelandakh]

I want the junior TD doing the movement and the senior TDs doing the rulings. Why do we have trainees at top events anyway?

[aguahombre]

I want the junior TD doing the movement and the senior TDs doing the rulings. Why do we have trainees at top events anyway?

Another labelling problem. Junior does not mean trainee; senior does not mean more Bridge savvy than Junior. Junior might have more playing experience or be an avid student of laws and rulings, while Senior might be an excellent leader/organizer with unknown Bridge judgement.

[gnasher]

"Relatively junior" means "relatively junior", not "junior".

[aguahombre]

"Relatively junior" means "relatively junior", not "junior".

Actually "junior" is relative, and relatively junior is redundant.

[Vampyr]

Saying that the organisation gets in the way is just a reinforcement of the issue at hand imho. This is one reason FIFA brought in the fourth official, to handle the admin tasks and let the referee and assistants get on with the job of officiating the game itself. On the issue of complex rulings, what if the TD training involved being able to tell the difference between a simple ruling and one that required further analysis? Then times can be set aside for additional information can be collected in these cases. In other words, give the TD team the same benefits that an AC have for the initial (and final) ruling.

 

So, keep the appeals process the same but use TDs on the panels instead of expert players -- and this is supposed to be an improvement? LOL what happens if there is more than one appeal?

 

The solution is simple, really. Don't pay expenses for a special panel; use volunteer players like in the EBU. They don't even have to be volunteers, strictly speaking; giving them a small fee for serving on a committee would save a lot over paying the expenses of dedicated committee members.

[Vampyr]

We improve the training so that the TDs become better at recognising the difference, or we explain to the player why (s)he is wrong. Clearly, not every player is going to be satisfied with every ruling.

 

This "training" is an illusion. What they would need to be trained in is becoming expert bridge players. This takes many years, and most people do not achieve it.

 

Actually "junior" is relative, and relatively junior is redundant.

 

Some of the worst nonsense I have seen on these forums in recent months, and that is saying something.

[aguahombre]

Some of the worst nonsense I have seen on these forums in recent months, and that is saying something.

In other words, you didn't comprehend it.

[nige1]

This [TD] "training" is an illusion. What they would need to be trained in is becoming expert bridge players. This takes many years, and most people do not achieve it.

Unfortunately, the EBL and WBF seem to have made up their minds on this appeals-committee issue. Perhaps, now, we should constructively argue about how to mitigate the bad effects of that decision, rather than try vainly to close the stable-door.

What can be done to make director-decisions easier and more consistent? In particular, less dependent on judgement and less dependent on bridge-expertise?

IMO, the WBFLC should abandon its so-called "equity" principle and reverse its policy of devolving responsibility to local regulators/directors; then start a project to structure, simplify, objectify and clarify universal Bridge rules that are more comprehensive, consistent, deterrent, easy to understand, and easy to enforce.

[Cyberyeti]

In other words, you didn't comprehend it.

No it's just rubbish. Number of years for example purposes only.

 

There is not a day when you clock up 5 years service that you move from junior to senior. 0-3 years could be considered junior, 9 years plus could be considered senior, 3-5 (or 0-5) as relatively junior is not silly. Ditto if you have a scale with 6 or 8 ranks,

[aguahombre]

A comparative adjective compares. Sorry, I thought this was obvious.

[Vampyr]

A comparative adjective compares. Sorry, I thought this was obvious.

 

LOL "junior" is not a comparative adjective. "Relatively junior" does imply comparison, as it means "more junior than another, say, director". A director can have considerable experience and not be in the "junior" category at all but still be relatively junior compared to others.

 

And you are right, I don't understand why someone would post utter rubbish.

[blackshoe]

From the Oxford American Dictionary:

 

junior |ˈjo͞onyər|

adjective

1 of, for, or denoting young or younger people: junior tennis.

• of or for students in the third year of a course lasting four years in college or high school: his junior year in college.

• (often Junior ) [ postpositive in names ] denoting the younger of two who have the same name in a family, esp. a son as distinct from his father: John F. Kennedy Junior.

• Brit.of, for, or denoting schoolchildren between the ages of 7 and 11.

2 low or lower in rank or status: Virginia's junior senator | part of my function is to supervise those junior to me.

noun

1 a person who is a specified number of years younger than someone else: he's five years her junior.

• a student in the third year of college or high school.

• (in sports) a young competitor, typically under sixteen or eighteen.

• informal used as a nickname or form of address for one's son.

2 a person with low rank or status compared with others.

3 a size of clothing for teenagers or slender women.

 

Note definition 2 under both adjective and noun.

 

Example: The DIC is senior; all other TDs at the event are junior (some may or may not be more junior than others).

[aguahombre]

Similar for Webster's. I assumed those folks conversant in both English and American would know that, but I was wrong.

[Zelandakh]

This "training" is an illusion. What they would need to be trained in is becoming expert bridge players. This takes many years, and most people do not achieve it.

Then follow the F1 example and have one or more expert advisors on call and available to the TD team. Why should these be included in an AC decision but not to the TD? You and Andy seem to have the mentality that the TD is an initial arbiter, an administrator who does their best, and the AC is the final authority. I would like to change that so that the TD is the referee, only with the caveat that they should have all tools at their disposal to make sure that decisions are right the first time.

[gnasher]

Unfortunately, the EBL and WBF seem to have made up their minds on this appeals-committee issue. Perhaps, now, we should constructively argue about how to mitigate the bad effects of that decision, rather than try vainly to close the stable-door.

If they're going to do it this way, they should have a panel of TDs whose job is solely to make rulings. These TDs shouldn't be involved in microphone-management, crowd control, responding to director calls, or anything else that might distract them.

 

They should be selected for their directing expertise and understanding of the rules, but also for their ability as bridge players. At a European or World Championship we can't expect to find TDs of comparable bridge ability to the players, but the aim should be to get as close as possible.

 

They should converse directly with the players involved, in an environment which is conducive to discussion, and for as long as is necessary for the players to make their case, the TDs to understand it, and the TDs to discuss it with the players.

 

They should write down their understanding of the facts, the procedure they followed, the details of any poll they conducted (including the question, the answers, the number of players polled, and the nationalities of the players polled), the Laws applied, and their ruling. This information should be given to the players, so that they can sensibly judge whether to request a review.

 

What can be done to make director-decisions easier and more consistent? In particular, less dependent on judgement and less dependent on bridge-expertise?

TDs supplement their bridge expertise by polling players. That can work very well, as long as the right question is asked and the right players are polled.

 

I don't think the EBL directors have got this quite right yet. In the ruling that I described here, I understand that a poll was conducted to find out whether I should have asked for clarification of the opponents' leads, but not to find out what I would have done in the ending with correct information, or whether I had committed a SEWoG in reaching this ending.

In the one poll that was carried out, one of the pollees was David Burn. Whilst I welcome (whilst simultaneously ridiculing) the suggestion that Burn is one of my peers, I don't think I should be expected to know as much about people's habits in filling in a convention card as a man who has coached, captained and played in England teams on numerous occasions.

 

There was another hand where my English partner asked for a ruling, The TD conducted a poll to determine what she might have bid without misinformation, opposite a splinter. The players he polled were all Polish. That strikes me as rather poor practice, since bidding styles are different in different countries.

 

IMO, the WBFLC should abandon its so-called "equity" principle

You mean it should aim to make its rulings unfair? Should they require rulings to be biased in a particular direction, or should that be a matter for the TD's discretion?

[gnasher]

Then follow the F1 example and have one or more expert advisors on call and available to the TD team. Why should these be included in an AC decision but not to the TD? You and Andy seem to have the mentality that the TD is an initial arbiter, an administrator who does their best, and the AC is the final authority. I would like to change that so that the TD is the referee, only with the caveat that they should have all tools at their disposal to make sure that decisions are right the first time.

All that I (and, I assume, Jeffrey) want is rulings that are equitable. You're suggesting a method which will less often produce an equitable ruling than the current system, because:

- It allows a single TD to judge whether he is competent to make the ruling personally, or whether he should refer it to his more expert colleagues. There is no appeal against this single TD's decision. If he misjudges his own competence we end up with a poor ruling.

- If the TD refers the ruling to his colleagues, they have to judge whether to make the ruling themselves or to consult their expert advisers. There is no appeal against their decision. If they misjudge their own competence we end up with a poor ruling.

 

Anyway, how would you envisage this panel of expert advisers working? Would they be participants in the event, or brought to the event specifically to act as expert advisers? Would they speak directly to the players? Would they discuss the ruling amongst themselves, or would each be consulted separately?

 

Finally, how does your suggestion improve on the current system?

[paulg]

Unfortunately, the EBL and WBF seem to have made up their minds on this appeals-committee issue.

One would hope that the EBL will examine how the new process worked in Ostend and then make a decision on when it is appropriate. Whether they have sufficient information and feedback to make such a decision would be my concern, especially if they do not read this forum.

 

It is my expectation that this process will work best at restricted events, such as the Bali and the European Teams Championships. These events are easier to run and the majority of players are well known. As most teams consist of six players, there will often be players available to poll who would be peers of those under judgement.

 

Where I expect it works less well are in pairs events, where no players are sitting out, and open events where there is a complete range of abilities.

 

What can be done to make director-decisions easier and more consistent? In particular, less dependent on judgement and less dependent on bridge-expertise?

IMO, the WBFLC should abandon its so-called "equity" principle and reverse its policy of devolving responsibility to local regulators/directors; then start a project to structure, simplify, objectify and clarify universal Bridge rules that are more comprehensive, consistent, deterrent, easy to understand, and easy to enforce.

I'm pretty sure that many of these were objectives of the 2007 law makers. But your aims look pretty simple and I expect will be achieved in the 2217 (sic) laws.

[Zelandakh]

What I am suggesting is along the lines of your previous post, where the directors making the rulings concentrate on getting this right without distractions and are given all available tools to be sure their decisions are correct. For events such as the BB, expert advisors could probably be selected from countries that did not qualify (but may, for example, be in the Transnationals). I think it is very unusual for every World Class player to be competing at the same time, especially if you include players who are still World Class but have chosen to go into (semi-)retirement.

 

It is better than the current system because rulings will generally be made during, or immediately after, a session, without the need for arranging an AC at a later time, such as at the end of the day and without the possibility of players involved in a tournament and who may be friends of the involved parties making the final decision. Most importantly, you lose the times when the winner of (or qualifier from) an event is changed after the "final" scores due to a controversial "midnight AC" decision. That is not only frustrating for the players involved but also for those following an event.

 

Obviously the most important thing is that the end result is of the highest quality possible and I would not choose to remove the Appeals process if there was evidence that any replacement system had a negative impact. But working towards the goal of removing ACs is the right direction for bringing bridge into the 21st century, of this I am confident.

[Vampyr]

Example: The DIC is senior; all other TDs at the event are junior (some may or may not be more junior than others).

 

And obviously some are more senior than others; in any case there is no reason to assume that the other directors are referred to or considered "junior" and I do not think that they are. Robin is not a "junior" TD and he does not become one when Gordon is running an event.

Where I expect it works less well are in pairs events, where no players are sitting out, and open events where there is a complete range of abilities.

 

 

It is very rarely the case that players who have played a board are unduly influenced by that fact when they are making a ruling.

 

Anyway all of the suggestions for doing away with Appeals Committees seem instead to recommend doing the same thing as now but with a panel of TDs rather than expert players. Besides being more expensive (the extra TDs would have to be paid more than just their expenses) this will result in poorer rulings.

[Zelandakh]

Why would asking experts without their knowing the parties involved and before those parties have taken "legal" advice on presenting their case result in poorer rulings? It is nonsense - if the TD team has access to the same level of information as the AC then they can make at least as good a decision; and this will be free from the natural biases that occur within a small community such as that of bridge experts.