Appeals committee at European Open Championships

[iviehoff]

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 depends on the jurisdiction. In some places, eg, Italy, you can appeal any judgment. But typically in Anglo-Saxon legal systems you need a grounds such as new evidence, or mistake of law, or a wrong direction from the judge to the jury.

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.

It does look like someone thinks the TD's judgment is rarely much improved upon by the appeal.

 

I agree with you. The mere possibility of an appeal helps keep TDs honest.

[paulg]

I see from one of the videos from Ostend that the WBF will using the same system in Bali for the World Team Championships (aka Bermuda Bowl), so there will be no appeal committees there.

[nige1]

I see from one of the videos from Ostend that the WBF will using the same system in Bali for the World Team Championships (aka Bermuda Bowl), so there will be no appeal committees there.

It seems premature for the WBF to drop appeal-committees at Bali, without even reviewing the EBL Ostend experience! How's it working at Ostend?

[jhenrikj]

It seems premature for the WBF to drop appeal-committees at Bali, without even reviewing the EBL Ostend experience! How's it working at Ostend?

 

So far, after 8 days of play we have had one review...I do not know the outcome of that review.

 

We also had one or a few cases where the head TD has overruled the floor TD's. The players is mostly satisfied with our rulings.

[nige1]

So far, after 8 days of play we have had one review...I do not know the outcome of that review. We also had one or a few cases where the head TD has overruled the floor TD's. The players is mostly satisfied with our rulings.

Will details of the referee's review be reported in a bulletin or appeal booklet?

 

I hope the referee is independent and doesn't just rubber-stamp directors' decisions.

 

The old appeal process was good for the game. Appeals were a safety-valve. When you got hot under the collar because of an "unfair" adverse ruling, you could let off steam at appeal. You hoped the fresh audience would be free of the director's obvious bias :) After the appeal committee had completed a calm re-examination of facts and arguments, you might be better reconciled to your fate. Sometimes, an appeal committee provided an even more valuable service by arriving at a seemingly perverse ruling that highlighted an area of law as a foul mire in urgent need of a clean-up. Appeals reports and commentaries were educational for players, directors, and law-makers.

[gnasher]

Each day of the pairs had five ten-board sessions, with short breaks between the sessions. In the first session on Wednesday I asked for a ruling about some (alleged) misinformation which (I asserted) had led to my misreading an ending.

 

I spent three of the four breaks receiving a ruling, explaining to two different TDs (one of whom seemed quite busy) why I thought the ruling was wrong, showing them sections of the regulations with which they seemed unfamiliar, being taken to see a third TD to explain it again, finding him busily shoeing players back in for the next session, hurriedly giving one of his colleagues the end position, receiving a new ruling, explaining why I thought that was wrong too, being told that I should be happy with what I'd got but I could talk to the third TD if I wanted, and searching unsuccessfully for him.

 

After the final session, I found him and repeated my explanation of why I thought the ruling was incorrect. Having listened to me, he told me that I'd be justified in asking for a review. He didn't say that I was right, but just that I'd pointed out a matter that they hadn't considered, and which he hadn't been told about. (I didn't, in fact, ask for the review, because we'd missed qualification by more than we could get from the ruling.)

 

In England or America I'd simply have said I wanted to appeal after receiving the first ruling, and used my breaks to buy coffee. Then if I needed to appeal I'd have explained my arguments in a quiet, empty room, to three people whose attention was solely on the matter at hand.

 

So, I'm unconvinced.

[nige1]

[snip] So far in Ostend, only one review has been done, although Grattan Endicott, one of the reviewers, says he knows of four or five cases that probably would have qualified for the procedure. "It's early days," says Endicott, an expert on bridge law and secretary of the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee. "Players have not experienced the new concept." In any case, he says, players in European Bridge League championships have seen the last of appeals committees. "We won't go back," he predicts. "I really think there is something to be gained here." Harris says he has sat on many appeals committees that have upheld TDs' rulings or made only small variations. He says dissatisfaction with the appeals committee process has been brewing for some time, primarily over the way that TDs arrive at decisions and then having them questioned by the committees [/snip]

Grattan Endicott admits that several seemingly eligible cases didn't go to review. This seems to confirm gnasher's experience. David Harris seems to feel that an advantage of the new system is that a committee can no longer question or (even worse?) overturn a director's ruling. Now that a safety-net has been removed, gnasher doubts whether directors are more focussed and taking more care, Brent Manley reports that there has been only one review:

• Did that result in a more timely resolution?
• Was the director's decision upheld?
• Was the deposit retained?
• Has a detailed report been published?
• What is the players' reaction?

[blackshoe]

[snip long journey to nowhere]

 

(I didn't, in fact, ask for the review, because we'd missed qualification by more than we could get from the ruling.)

 

In England or America I'd simply have said I wanted to appeal after receiving the first ruling, and used my breaks to buy coffee. Then if I needed to appeal I'd have explained my arguments in a quiet, empty room, to three people whose attention was solely on the matter at hand.

 

So, I'm unconvinced.

So am I.

 

I do understand, I think, why you declined to ask for a review, but I don't think I agree with the reasoning. Here you have a situation where the TO has decided that the TDs in this event are so competent that ACs are not necessary, and yet you had to go through three different TDs, and get two different rulings, not to mention the impression that the TDs involved, or some of them at least, were unfamiliar with the regulations in force, finally to be told asking for a review would be justified. More than justified, it seems to me. Your experience indicates that the TO was wrong in its assessment of the expertise of its TDs. Had I been the appellant, I think I would consider it a duty to the game to ask for a review - and to pursue it further if I felt the reviewer also came to a wrong ruling. I would not consider the fact that a correct ruling wouldn't change my standing in the event to be relevant. Maybe I'm too idealistic. ;)

[aguahombre]

[*]What is the players' reaction?

*/Does the TO care what anyone thinks?

[Finch]

Richard Harris

 

You mean David Harris

[axman]

Each day of the pairs had five ten-board sessions, with short breaks between the sessions. In the first session on Wednesday I asked for a ruling about some (alleged) misinformation which (I asserted) had led to my misreading an ending.

 

I spent three of the four breaks receiving a ruling, explaining to two different TDs (one of whom seemed quite busy) why I thought the ruling was wrong, showing them sections of the regulations with which they seemed unfamiliar, being taken to see a third TD to explain it again, finding him busily shoeing players back in for the next session, hurriedly giving one of his colleagues the end position, receiving a new ruling, explaining why I thought that was wrong too, being told that I should be happy with what I'd got but I could talk to the third TD if I wanted, and searching unsuccessfully for him.

 

After the final session, I found him and repeated my explanation of why I thought the ruling was incorrect. Having listened to me, he told me that I'd be justified in asking for a review. He didn't say that I was right, but just that I'd pointed out a matter that they hadn't considered, and which he hadn't been told about. (I didn't, in fact, ask for the review, because we'd missed qualification by more than we could get from the ruling.)

 

In England or America I'd simply have said I wanted to appeal after receiving the first ruling, and used my breaks to buy coffee. Then if I needed to appeal I'd have explained my arguments in a quiet, empty room, to three people whose attention was solely on the matter at hand.

 

So, I'm unconvinced.

 

When I am in the Groove I will commit upwards of 4 blunders and a dozen major errors during a session. When partner does almost as well I expect to score better than 65%.

 

On a memorable occasion I estimated that my play was flawless [could not be improved upon] which scored 36%. Coincident to that session I was worrying about a myriad of problems. In other words, I was distracted.

 

With those memories in mind I might believe that the effect of your TD caused distraction had everything to do with failure to qualify.

[nige1]

You mean David Harris

Sorry all. Thank you, Frances. Corrected above.

[jallerton]

In England or America I'd simply have said I wanted to appeal after receiving the first ruling, and used my breaks to buy coffee. Then if I needed to appeal I'd have explained my arguments in a quiet, empty room, to three people whose attention was solely on the matter at hand.

 

So, I'm unconvinced.

 

Did you get the impression that the TDs were making more of an effort to get the ruling right in the first place, e.g. by telling the players how they were minded to rule, listening to further arguments and being prepared to reconsider? In other words, if this had happened two years ago, would the TD have just informed you of his initial ruling and advised you of your right to appeal?

[gnasher]

Did you get the impression that the TDs were making more of an effort to get the ruling right in the first place, e.g. by telling the players how they were minded to rule, listening to further arguments and being prepared to reconsider? In other words, if this had happened two years ago, would the TD have just informed you of his initial ruling and advised you of your right to appeal?

I got the impression that they were trying hard to get it right, but that they thought the best way to do this was through extensive discussions amongst themselves, rather than by listening to arguments. I thought that their communications and their fact-finding left something to be desired.

 

The first ruling came quickly and without any discussion beyond what was said at the table. One of the more junior TDs took the request for a ruling and delivered the ruling, but the actual decision was made by a senior TD without any direct discussion with the players. He seemed not to have considered all of what I'd said to the TD at the table; I don't know why not.

 

When I objected to the first ruling, the senior TD was certainly willing to listen to me, but he was also trying to run a bridge event. I got just enough of his time for me to convince him that I had a case.

 

I understand that the second ruling was made by a group of senior TDs, including the one I'd been dealing with, who communicated their findings to me. When I objected to this second ruling, he listened sceptically, and made it clear that he wasn't going to pass on my comments to his colleagues.

 

I don't know about two years ago, but compared with ten years ago this was both much better and much worse: the TDs were taking more care over their rulings than they used to, and presumably getting more of them right; but it's much harder to present a case to a panel of TDs who have other jobs to do, are scattered all over the building, and who are often not particularly strong players, than to do the same thing to a normal appeals committee.

[gnasher]

Grattan Endicott admits that several seemingly eligible cases didn't go to review.

I don't think that's a problem in itself, or not a new problem anyway. The players could have had the cases reviewed, but chose not to. That may have been because the result was irrelevant, or because they preferred to have dinner, or because they don't want to risk the deposit, or because they didn't understand the rules well enough to know that they had a good case. This might be unsatisfactory, but it's no different from what happens with appeals.

 

A more interesting statistic would be: In how many cases did the TDs follow the correct procedure and apply the correct laws, but give a poor ruling? Those are the cases where the new system will lead to miscarriages of justice, because there is now no appeal against such rulings.

 

In the future, another interesting statistic will be: In the cases where the review was upheld, causing the TDs to have to revisit their ruling, how often did they then change their ruling? Perhaps I'm misjudging the directing staff, but I suspect that this will be a fairly small number.

Edited June 30, 2013 by gnasher

[gnasher]

Brent Manley reports that there has been only one review:

• Was the director's decision upheld?
• Was the deposit retained?

I was told, by one of the directors involved, that the decision was upheld but the deposit was returned.

[Finch]

We had two rulings in Ostend.

 

On the first one, a defender was misinformed about the meaning of the auction and let a playless 3NT through. He claimed he would have defended differently if correctly informed. The TD gave 8 players the defensive problem with the MI and they all defended correctly anyway; he then told them the real meaning of the auction and 6 of the pollees said it made no difference; two said that the MI had made the defence slightly harder. He ruled 80% of table result and 20% of one off. The TD showed us the names of the people he had polled. I recognised most of them, and I would have said they possibly weren't peers of the player although obviously they were playing in the same event. I thought the ruling was possibly a bit generous to us (the offending side) but certainly reasonable and he appeared to have done a sensible job. My only caution is that we hadn't really considered how the play would have gone on correct defence, and perhaps two off was likely or at least possible - 1NT had made 7 tricks at the other table. However the non-offending side were (we were told) happy with the ruling.

 

The second one was a hesitation blackwood hand. This was (IMO) a clearcut case. The TD took the grand slam away. When he gave us the ruling, we pointed out that adjusting the 6S+1 was incorrect as the line for 13 tricks involved risking going off in small slam. He agreed he hadn't thought about this, and changed his ruling to 6S making exactly.

 

What these two cases had in common, and differently to gnasher's case, is that the ruling "problem" itself was simple to explain and the putative play of the hand not so interesting.

 

By contrast, in Eilat last year we were given a dreadful ruling by a TD which made no sense. When challenged on it, he admitted he hadn't thought very hard about it "because it was obviously not going to make any difference". We lost the match - a KO - by 1 imp. When we then pointed out why his ruling was impossible, he agreed that was the case but said if he considered it in more detail he would come up with a more detailed weighted result that would have exactly the same imp consequences. And we were explicitly told that because of this there was obviously no point in appealing.

 

While I am in favour of retaining ACs to keep some disinterested control over the odd power-mad TD, I do agree that the old-fashioned EBL way (where non-players were paid to attend only to sit on ACs) was not necessarily best, because the AC members were often noticeably worse players than the best of those in the tournament.

[blackshoe]

While I am in favour of retaining ACs to keep some disinterested control over the odd power-mad TD, I do agree that the old-fashioned EBL way (where non-players were paid to attend only to sit on ACs) was not necessarily best, because the AC members were often noticeably worse players than the best of those in the tournament.

When I read this, what ran through my mind was "my screwdriver is broken". No matter. I shall buy a sledgehammer." :P

[nige1]

By contrast, in Eilat last year we were given a dreadful ruling by a TD which made no sense. When challenged on it, he admitted he hadn't thought very hard about it "because it was obviously not going to make any difference". We lost the match - a KO - by 1 imp. When we then pointed out why his ruling was impossible, he agreed that was the case but said if he considered it in more detail he would come up with a more detailed weighted result that would have exactly the same imp consequences. And we were explicitly told that because of this there was obviously no point in appealing.

Such cases help us to understand the administrative argument for both Weighted scores and the new Referee system :)

[Zelandakh]

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.

[Vampyr]

The answer is still to make a bigger effort to make the initial TD rulings correct

 

I can't imagine what this effort would consist of, or that it would be successful.

 

I also don't know how TDs who are not expert players can possibly get better at ruling in judgment situations.

[Zelandakh]

Let me give you an example. Rugby referees have to make judgement decisions on scrums. The vast majority of referees have never played front row at all, let alone at the highest level. And yet they are required to make judgement calls on this part of the game. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong, as front-row specialists are often quick to point out. And yet it does not detract from the game as a whole and top level referees do receive training and advice on how to sort these things out and have been supported by rule changes that make these decisions (slightly) easier. I see no reason why bridge cannot support top level TDs to become, in effect, prfessinal quality referees. Yes, sometimes they will make mistakes but if the quality is high this will not detract from the game any more than an undeserved penalty "under the posts" does in rugby. And it is not like ACs do not make mistakes so things will even themselves out providing the TD level is high enough.

[Vampyr]

Sorry, you have lost me. I do not think that judging rugby scrums has anything to do with the thinking of those in the scrum, and in fact can be judged by inspection if the vantage point is suitable. What the players' peers would do in the same situation is not considered.

 

Still, I would like to know what form you think this training would take.

 

Rule changes, by the way, have made many TD decisions harder.

[paulg]

Let me give you an example. Rugby referees have to make judgement decisions on scrums. The vast majority of referees have never played front row at all, let alone at the highest level. And yet they are required to make judgement calls on this part of the game. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong, as front-row specialists are often quick to point out. And yet it does not detract from the game as a whole and top level referees do receive training and advice on how to sort these things out and have been supported by rule changes that make these decisions (slightly) easier. I see no reason why bridge cannot support top level TDs to become, in effect, prfessinal quality referees. Yes, sometimes they will make mistakes but if the quality is high this will not detract from the game any more than an undeserved penalty "under the posts" does in rugby. And it is not like ACs do not make mistakes so things will even themselves out providing the TD level is high enough.

I think most people would feel that this supports Stefanie's argument :) Refereeing at the highest levels often determines the result of the game and they make a huge number of mistakes, certainly enough for ten or more appeals per game. However it is not practical for the game to stop at every incident nor investigate afterwards, so they cope as best they can. It is also noticeable that referees in the Northern Hemisphere interpret the laws very differently from those in the South, making it difficult for teams who travel.

[jallerton]

It is also noticeable that referees in the Northern Hemisphere interpret the laws very differently from those in the South, making it difficult for teams who travel.

 

Sounds like the equivalent of bridge TDs travelling to/from the ACBL.