Law 12C1{c} examples

[blackshoe]

The minutes of the March 2013 meeting of the ACBLLC contains this interesting item:

 

The Commission discussed Law 12c1©. Currently this section is not used in ACBL events. The Commission considered several examples of situations where this section could be used. The Commission noted several potential problems with the use of this section including problems relating to increased appeals and reduced incentives to follow the Laws. The Commission requested additional real-life examples [from whom?] to further consider this issue at its next meeting.

Have those of you with experience with this law seen the problems anticipated here?

[RMB1]

... The Commission noted several potential problems with the use of this section including problems relating to increased appeals and reduced incentives to follow the Laws. ...

Have those of you with experience with this law seen the problems anticipated here?

 

In unauthorised information cases, the whole battle over "Reveley" rulings stems from a desire not to "reduce incentive to follow the Laws".

 

In the simplest case there are two logical alternatives and LA1 is suggested over LA2 by the unauthorised information.

A player, who follows the law, takes LA2 and gets a worse score than if he had taken LA1.

A player, who infracts, takes LA1 and an adjusted score is awarded.

 

If the adjusted score is weighted to include the outcome of both LA1 and LA2, then the infractor (who chose LA1) will still have gained over the player who followed the law.

 

If weighting rulings which include the outcome of illegal action in the weightings are not permitted then the infractor will not gain; in this simple case, the only possible adjusted score is the outcome from the legal action.

[pran]

The minutes of the March 2013 meeting of the ACBLLC contains this interesting item:

The Commission discussed Law 12c1c. Currently this section is not used in ACBL events. The Commission considered several examples of situations where this section could be used. The Commission noted several potential problems with the use of this section including problems relating to increased appeals and reduced incentives to follow the Laws. The Commission requested additional real-life examples [from whom?] to further consider this issue at its next meeting.

Have those of you with experience with this law seen the problems anticipated here?

For what it is worth:

NO - quite the contrary.

[jallerton]

The minutes of the March 2013 meeting of the ACBLLC contains this interesting item:

 

The Commission discussed Law 12c1©. Currently this section is not used in ACBL events. The Commission considered several examples of situations where this section could be used. The Commission noted several potential problems with the use of this section including problems relating to increased appeals and reduced incentives to follow the Laws. The Commission requested additional real-life examples [from whom?] to further consider this issue at its next meeting.

 

Have those of you with experience with this law seen the problems anticipated here?

 

Yes and no.

 

No because Law 12C1c ought to reduce, not increase the number of appeals. If the score is adjusted by the TD, under Law 12C1e, the offending side is more likely to appeal as, if successful, it will change 100% of the unfavourable assigned score into 100% of the table result. If a weighted ruling has been assigned, say 50% of an unfavourable score plus 50% of a more favourable one, then there is less to gain by appealing. Similarly, if the TD decides not to adjust the score in an MI case, the non-offending side is less likely to appeal in 12C1c land as even if the AC agrees that an adjustment should be made, they may only give the NOS a percentage of the successful action.

 

However, the Commission has a good point about the reduced incentives to follow the Laws. Here in 12C1c land, for a UI Law breaker it's a case of "heads I win, tails I break even". When the so-called equity Law is in use, it's therefore more important to use PPs discourage UI Law breaking, in my opinion.

[blackshoe]

Yes and no.

 

No because Law 12C1c ought to reduce, not increase the number of appeals. If the score is adjusted by the TD, under Law 12C1e, the offending side is more likely to appeal as, if successful, it will change 100% of the unfavourable assigned score into 100% of the table result. If a weighted ruling has been assigned, say 50% of an unfavourable score plus 50% of a more favourable one, then there is less to gain by appealing. Similarly, if the TD decides not to adjust the score in an MI case, the non-offending side is less likely to appeal in 12C1c land as even if the AC agrees that an adjustment should be made, they may only give the NOS a percentage of the successful action.

 

However, the Commission has a good point about the reduced incentives to follow the Laws. Here in 12C1c land, for a UI Law breaker it's a case of "heads I win, tails I break even". When the so-called equity Law is in use, it's therefore more important to use PPs discourage UI Law breaking, in my opinion.

Makes sense. Especially that last part. B-)

[Siegmund]

There is less to gain by appealing, but you can appeal on the basis of "the weightings are wrong" and not just on the basis of "you chose the wrong outcome as your 16th-percentile outcome" (if we are still using the "1/3 and 1/6" rule of thumb.) It diminishes the chance of an appeal changing the final outcome of a match - which I suppose cuts down on how many appeals are actually heard, since we just send people away mad when the appeal won't change the outcome. With weightings, everybody can go away mad from every ruling. The ACBL way, one side or the other actually feels like justice was served.

 

I have a personal bias: I freely admit that I learned to direct from the 1987 lawbook in the ACBL, and felt the "old" Law 12C which survives only in the ACBL was a beautiful encapsulation of the spirit of justice. When I first heard about 12C3 -- as it was called in 1997 -- I said to myself "why on earth would I want to vary an assigned score 'to do equity'? 12C2 defines what equity is in this situation!"

 

It's interesting that the rest-of-world's experience has been positive. (Or they've just gotten used to it, and the attitude toward appeals has changed in the past 17 years for other reasons.) I certainly understand why the ACBL's committee is uneasy about the change.

[blackshoe]

My attitude towards appeals is that any contestant has an unqualified right to appeal any ruling by the director, for any valid* reason. Whether the appeal will "change the outcome" (of what - the board? - the event?) is not relevant, and should not be used to "justify" refusal to hear the appeal.

 

* "Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation."

 

"sanction |ˈsaNG(k)SHən|

noun

1 a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule: a range of sanctions aimed at deterring insider abuse."

 

The threatened penalty, in the ACBL, is apparently an "appeal without merit warning" (AWMW), at least for a first offense. If there are other sanctions for later "appeals without merit", I'm not aware of them. Nor am I aware of a regulation imposing either the AWMW or any further sanction.

 

I've never understood the attitude that "I'm not going to appeal, it won't get me first place" or whatever. I can understand "I'm not going to appeal, it's a waste of time" or "I have to go pick up my kid/husband/prescriptions" or whatever, but I don't necessarily agree with it. If the player has a legitimate need to be somewhere else, fine, but often it's just an excuse. I think that if a player disagrees with a ruling, and it's not just because he's annoyed that he didn't get a favorable one, he ought to appeal it. Particularly if he thinks there's been director error, or bad judgement on the director's part. How else are directors going to learn to make better rulings?

 

I particularly don't like the idea that my partner can quash an appeal because "appealing makes me uncomfortable". :(

[jallerton]

I have a personal bias: I freely admit that I learned to direct from the 1987 lawbook in the ACBL, and felt the "old" Law 12C which survives only in the ACBL was a beautiful encapsulation of the spirit of justice. When I first heard about 12C3 -- as it was called in 1997 -- I said to myself "why on earth would I want to vary an assigned score 'to do equity'? 12C2 defines what equity is in this situation!"

 

It's interesting that the rest-of-world's experience has been positive. (Or they've just gotten used to it, and the attitude toward appeals has changed in the past 17 years for other reasons.) I certainly understand why the ACBL's committee is uneasy about the change.

 

It's not quite 17 years. When the 1997 Laws were introduced, only ACs could "vary an assigned score 'to do equity'". TDs had to rule as in the ACBL and only ACs had the power to assign weighted scores.

[jallerton]

I've never understood the attitude that "I'm not going to appeal, it won't get me first place" or whatever. I can understand "I'm not going to appeal, it's a waste of time" or "I have to go pick up my kid/husband/prescriptions" or whatever, but I don't necessarily agree with it. If the player has a legitimate need to be somewhere else, fine, but often it's just an excuse. I think that if a player disagrees with a ruling, and it's not just because he's annoyed that he didn't get a favorable one, he ought to appeal it. Particularly if he thinks there's been director error, or bad judgement on the director's part. How else are directors going to learn to make better rulings?

 

Sometimes it's better to think of the wider picture. If I appeal a ruling, three AC members, the TD, two opponents and my partner have to give up their time as well. In an EBU event this means that these people have to rush their dinner, go to bed late or go home later than planned, sometimes also delaying other people with whom they have planned to eat/travel/drink. If I know it's not going to affect the result significantly, why should I waste these people's time? I'd rather maintain their goodwill for a more important time.

[blackshoe]

Sometimes it's better to think of the wider picture. If I appeal a ruling, three AC members, the TD, two opponents and my partner have to give up their time as well. In an EBU event this means that these people have to rush their dinner, go to bed late or go home later than planned, sometimes also delaying other people with whom they have planned to eat/travel/drink. If I know it's not going to affect the result significantly, why should I waste these people's time? I'd rather maintain their goodwill for a more important time.

Maybe we should be trying to come up with a more streamlined procedure. Preferably one that doesn't involving asking the director to judge his own previous ruling. Some directors I know wouldn't change their ruling if Edgar Kaplan came down and told them to. But that's a side issue. You're right, I suppose, that one should consider the impact of an appeal on everybody else who will have to be involved. But that still doesn't solve the problem of director education. Or of players having to put up with bad rulings.