Appeals committee at European Open Championships

[paulg]

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.

Sure, but in a pairs event you can only really ask those players at the end of a session which delays the process and moves it into a more time-critical period as far as the directors (and most players) are concerned. In a major teams event there will be players sitting out a set who are likely to be available to assist a timely ruling.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

Ah, right, so your position is that TDs are likely to produce better appeal decisions than expert players? This is opposite to the opinion of most contributors to this thread.

 

Have you received some appalling decisions from panels of expert players? I have, but I do not envision a system that is likely to work better.

 

Besides, hiring extra TDs exacerbates rather than solves the problem that the EBL are apparently trying to solve.

[Vampyr]

[/size]

Sure, but in a pairs event you can only really ask those players at the end of a session which delays the process and moves it into a more time-critical period as far as the directors (and most players) are concerned. In a major teams event there will be players sitting out a set who are likely to be available to assist a timely ruling.

 

OK, but the problem is that the players who wish to present their case are not available until the end of the session either.

[blackshoe]

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.

 

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.

I agree with your last two paragraphs. I think we're talking at cross purposes in your first. If Gordon is running an event, and Robin is assisting him, then Robin is junior to Gordon for the purposes of that event, regardless of their relative stature in the directing hierarchy generally. Note: that doesn't preclude Gordon from deferring to Robin's judgment in a particular case, but it also means that if Robin makes a ruling, and Gordon thinks he's wrong, it is Gordon's opinion that should prevail.

[nige1]

[sNIP] 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 [/sNIP]

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?

No :) No :) No :)

In practice, IMO, WBF "equity" has little to do with fairness: Currently, the director's primary concern is to restore the status quo --- trying to imagine what might have happened, had no infraction occurred. The director decides whether the victims have done enough to "protect themselves". Also, he estimates how much subsequent damage the victims inflicted on themselves. Finally, in some jurisdictions, the director weights possible outcomes by their probability.

 

All this palaver requires considerable bridge-expertise and judgement skills.

 

IMO, simpler more deterrent rules would make the game more fun for players; also director's rulings would be easier and more consistent.

(Relatively?) "junior" directors would get rulings right more often :)

(Relatively?) "senior" directors would agree among themselves more often :)

[gnasher]

IMO, simpler more deterrent rules would make the game more fun for players and director's rulings would be easier and more consistent.

Assuming screens are in use, there are only two common causes for judgement rulings:

- Forgetting your system, and giving MI

- Thinking, thereby conveying UI

 

Are you proposing to make rules that deter both of these?

[nige1]

Assuming screens are in use, there are only two common causes for judgement rulings:

- Forgetting your system, and giving MI

- Thinking, thereby conveying UI

Are you proposing to make rules that deter both of these?

Current laws are based on the WBF's idea of "equity" (roughly: restoring the status quo). Effectively this often rewards the law-breaker. Taking one of your examples,

• If a player uses UI advantageously and
• His victims notice and call the director and
• The director rules against the law-breaker:
• Even after all this bad luck, the law-breaker is usually no worse off than he would be had he complied with the law!

IMO, rules that go out of their way to reward law-breaking need urgent overhaul.

 

IMO, directors are loth to impose procedural and disciplinary penalties; and players resent being singled out; so more deterrence should be built into the ordinary rules.

 

In the "changing rules and regulations" forum, many have made relevant suggestions; although few focus specifically on screen-law.

 

As you may read there, my own view is that the current laws are too sophisticated and the WBLF could start by simplifying disclosure and UI rules; also scrapping "Protect yourself", "SEWOG", and "Weighting" rules. Others make other worthy suggestions. I accept there's no panacea.

[Vampyr]

As you may read there, my own view is that the current laws are too sophisticated and the WBLF could start by simplifying disclosure and UI rules; also scrapping "Protect yourself", "SEWOG", and "Weighted ruling" rules. Others make other worthy suggestions. I accept there's no panacea.

 

How would you suggest simplifying disclosure and UI rules? I can understand that more announcements might be simpler, in a way, but since announcements aren't really appropriate for actions beyond the first round of bidding, more of them would not have a big impact. Did you have something else in mind?

 

"Protect yourself" is often a bad thing for the NOs, and rewards sloppy disclosure. But I can't agree with you on anything else. Do you not think that weighted rulings are often a good approximation of the likelihood of what might have happened? I think it is worth remembering that getting rid of the concept of SEWoG may encourage people to do ridiculous things in the expectation of getting a double shot.

I accept there's no panacea.

 

No indeed, but the main development being discussed in this thread is definitely a move in the wrong direction.

[blackshoe]

IMO, directors are loth to impose procedural and disciplinary penalties; and players resent being singled out; so more deterrence should be built into the ordinary rules.

Your first item is a problem with directors, not with the laws. The tools are there. I'm not sure why "players resent being singled out" should be a problem. You screw up, you pay the price. Don't like that? Don't screw up.

[nige1]

How would you suggest simplifying disclosure and UI rules? I can understand that more announcements might be simpler, in a way, but since announcements aren't really appropriate for actions beyond the first round of bidding, more of them would not have a big impact. Did you have something else in mind?

I'm a convert to announcements and I've made other relevant suggestions that Vampyr has already ridiculed :)

"Protect yourself" is often a bad thing for the NOs, and rewards sloppy disclosure. But I can't agree with you on anything else. Do you not think that weighted rulings are often a good approximation of the likelihood of what might have happened?

Perhaps, but they aren't deterrent. The law-breaker doesn't always get the worst likely result. For example, if a would-be UI user, instead complies with the law, he usually fares worse. At the Peebles Congress, I asked players how many UI transgressions are noticed, reported, and attracted an adverse ruling. Their estimates varied between 1% and 50%. So most such law-breakers seem to make a good long-term profit. And law-abiding players suffer a handicap.

I think it is worth remembering that getting rid of the concept of SEWoG may encourage people to do ridiculous things in the expectation of getting a double shot.

A dangerous tactic when the director may disagree that there's been an infraction. Anyway there's nothing intrinsically unfair or immoral about a double-shot. There's just a silly law against it.

No indeed, but the main development being discussed in this thread is definitely a move in the wrong direction.

I too feel that Appeals-committees are better than Referees but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

[axman]

How would you suggest simplifying disclosure and UI rules?

 

 

 

A necessary [but not sufficient] condition for progress is to change [a] NT to the lowest denomination and change the scoring of NT tricks to 40, minor tricks to 30, and major tricks to 20.

[nige1]

IMO, directors are loth to impose procedural and disciplinary penalties; and players resent being singled out; so more deterrence should be built into the ordinary rules.

Your first item is a problem with directors, not with the laws. The tools are there. I'm not sure why "players resent being singled out" should be a problem. You screw up, you pay the price. Don't like that? Don't screw up.

In previous posts, Blackshoe has remarked on the mind-set of directors on such issues. Perhaps some are concerned about possible slander actions. It's more practical to change the rules than to organise brain-transplants for directors. Even if the former entails brain-transplants for rule-makers :(

[Vampyr]

Anyway there's nothing intrinsically unfair or immoral about a double-shot.

 

No, but you don't want people doing truly ridiculous things so that they will get a very lucky, very unlikely top if it works out, with no risk attached.

[Vampyr]

A necessary [but not sufficient] condition for progress is to change [a] NT to the lowest denomination and change the scoring of NT tricks to 40, minor tricks to 30, and major tricks to 20.

 

Have we moved on from appeals committees to Christmas parties?

[nige1]

Anyway there's nothing intrinsically unfair or immoral about a double-shot. There's just a silly law against it.

No, but you don't want people doing truly ridiculous things so that they will get a very lucky, very unlikely top if it works out, with no risk attached.

But there is a risk: Vampyr snipped my previous sentence.

A dangerous tactic when the director may disagree that there's been an infraction.

[blackshoe]

In previous posts, Blackshoe has remarked on the mind-set of directors on such issues. Perhaps some are concerned about possible slander actions. It's more practical to change the rules than to organise brain-transplants for directors. Even if the former entails brain-transplants for rule-makers :(

I have never heard of a director in the US being concerned about a slander suit, in spite of our reputation for being a litigious society. However, the slander laws in England are different from ours, so I suppose it might be a concern there.

 

It's not, or at least should not be, a matter of brain transplants. It's a matter of education.

[gnasher]

I too feel that Appeals-committees are better than Referees but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

The EBL hasn't replaced appeals committes with referees. They have replaced them with reviewers. In bridge, an appeals committee and a referee have the same power, including the right to overrule a TD on matters of judgement - a refereee is effectively a one-man appeals committee. An EBL reviewer can rule only on whether the TD followed proper procedure and applied the correct laws.

[blackshoe]

The word "referee" is not used in the laws, as far as I can see, so I don't know where you get the idea that a referee is a one man appeals committee. Some regulation somewhere?

[gnasher]

The word "referee" is not used in the laws, as far as I can see, so I don't know where you get the idea that a referee is a one man appeals committee. Some regulation somewhere?

It's used in the English regulations, and I parochially assumed that it was used elsewhere too.

 

But anyway, the term "referee" usually means someone who applies and enforces the rules. My point was that this is not the functionof the EBL reviewer.

[blackshoe]

It's used in the English regulations, and I parochially assumed that it was used elsewhere too.

Okay, Brittanicus. B-)

 

WB 93.2: A Referee is an Appeals Committee of one.

 

But anyway, the term "referee" usually means someone who applies and enforces the rules. My point was that this is not the functionof the EBL reviewer.

Fair enough.

 

I would submit that since the function of a reviewer is not "to apply and enforce the rules", to disallow appeals simply because you have a reviewer is illegal. Specifically, it violates Laws 80B2{f} and 92A. But I suppose the 500 pound canary will sit wherever it likes. :(

[Vampyr]

But there is a risk: Vampyr snipped my previous sentence.

 

No and yes, because I was discounting those cases where it is not clear that there was an infraction.

[nige1]

No and yes, because I was discounting those cases where it is not clear that there was an infraction.

There'd be no perceived risk for you if you knew beforehand that directors would agree an infraction that damaged you. I don't remember such a case.

[nige1]

The EBL hasn't replaced appeals committes with referees. They have replaced them with reviewers. In bridge, an appeals committee and a referee have the same power, including the right to overrule a TD on matters of judgement - a refereee is effectively a one-man appeals committee. An EBL reviewer can rule only on whether the TD followed proper procedure and applied the correct laws.

The word "referee" is not used in the laws, as far as I can see, so I don't know where you get the idea that a referee is a one man appeals committee. Some regulation somewhere?

It's used in the English regulations, and I parochially assumed that it was used elsewhere too. But anyway, the term "referee" usually means someone who applies and enforces the rules. My point was that this is not the functionof the EBL reviewer.

Okay, Brittanicus. B-)

Sorry, I mean a reviewer not a referee --

and certanly not a relative of an appellant :)

although appellant is probably no longer the correct term either :(

[gnasher]

I would submit that since the function of a reviewer is not "to apply and enforce the rules", to disallow appeals simply because you have a reviewer is illegal. Specifically, it violates Laws 80B2{f} and 92A.

 

Law 93C3(b) makes it legal: 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.

[blackshoe]

Law 93C3(b) makes it legal: 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.

Ah, right, I'd forgotten about that little knife in the back. Player, you have a right to appeal - except when we decide you don't. :( :(

 

I'd really like to ask the Drafting Subcommittee what the Hell they were thinking when they drafted this piece of... legislation.