BBO Discussion Forums: Appeals committee at European Open Championships - BBO Discussion Forums

 aguahombre, on 2013-July-04, 11:57, said:

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.

From the Oxford American Dictionary:

Quote

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).

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

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-04, 10:52, said:

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.

 nige1, on 2013-July-04, 11:27, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

 Zelandakh, on 2013-July-05, 00:56, said:

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?

 nige1, on 2013-July-04, 11:27, said:

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.

 nige1, on 2013-July-04, 11:27, said:

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.

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.

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-04, 16:42, said:

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.

 paulg, on 2013-July-05, 03:16, said:

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.

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.

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-05, 05:14, said:

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.

 Zelandakh, on 2013-July-05, 05:38, said:

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.

 paulg, on 2013-July-05, 06:17, said:

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

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-05, 05:14, said:

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, on 2013-July-04, 11:27, said:

 gnasher, on 2013-July-05, 01:35, said:

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

 nige1, on 2013-July-05, 13:46, said:

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?

 gnasher, on 2013-July-06, 03:12, said:

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.

 nige1, on 2013-July-06, 07:58, said:

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.

Quote

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

 nige1, on 2013-July-06, 07:58, said:

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.

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-06, 08:52, said:

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

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-06, 08:52, said:

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.

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-06, 08:52, said:

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.

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-06, 08:52, said:

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