[Vampyr]

McBruce, on 2013-April-04, 06:41, said:

I think danger lies ahead there: players have enough misconceptions about the Laws to give them the option of forming an AC whenever they think the TD has erred and the TD disagrees.

I don't think that this is much of a danger, since the TD supposedly read the law out of the lawbook in the first place, and can give the book to the player to read for himself. OK, I admit that I don't read every ruling out of the lawbook, mainly for time-saving, since I do almost all of my directing as a playing volunteer. But I would certainly open to the relevant law if a player was doubtful.

In any case, would increasing the deposit be a deterrent to appeals without merit?

[mycroft]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-04, 09:50, said:

In any case, would increasing the deposit be a deterrent to appeals without merit?

That depends. Is it my friends-the-juniors team? Increasing the deposit would be a deterrent to appeals (that's why the AWM scheme got put in in the ACBL replacing monetary deposits), so by its very nature, to appeals without merit - but dropping the speed limit to 10 MPH would certainly cut down on fatal accidents, too. Is it any of the sponsored teams? Well, the sponsor might balk if the deposit went from $50 to $5000, but not likely any less, given that his team is already costing him $250K/year; and if the appeals deposit were $5000, how many appeals would you get that *weren't* from a sponsored team?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-04, 09:50, said:

I don't think that this is much of a danger, since the TD supposedly read the law out of the lawbook in the first place, and can give the book to the player to read for himself. OK, I admit that I don't read every ruling out of the lawbook, mainly for time-saving, since I do almost all of my directing as a playing volunteer. But I would certainly open to the relevant law if a player was doubtful.

In any case, would increasing the deposit be a deterrent to appeals without merit?

I'm afraid your supposition does not reflect my reality. Directors (particularly club directors, but I've seen it in Sectional and Regional level directors too) seem to pride themselves on their ability to rule from memory. As for reading it from the book, I once asked a local club director to do that. She said "I can't. The book is in the car." She refused to go get it. And this was before the rush to get more boards done in three hours. Things are getting somewhat better in this regard - I've actually seen some club directors around here with a lawbook in hand!

In their defense, I have to admit that the players tend to aggravate rather than help the problem. Many players don't have the patience to sit and listen to a reading from the book. "We don't have time for that," they say. They may be right - after all we're trying to cram 26 or 27 boards into three hours, there's almost no "movement time" between rounds, half the field is ahead, pushing the other half by moving before the round is called, the other half is behind because they're slow, and then here comes the director, and he wants to "read it from the book"?! Nay, say the players. Rulings should take at most ten seconds, always be absolutely correct, and always be in my favor. Okay, I exaggerate - but the impatience does exist.

As for increasing deposits, what Mycroft said.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-04, 14:39, said:

As for increasing deposits, what Mycroft said.

I hadn't realised that these warnings had replaced monetary deposits. The solution is simple, really -- make the deposit in the form of VPs or MPs.

As to the problem of directors ruling without the lawbook, well, maybe frequent appeals will do it. But non-adherence to correct procedure seems endemic in the ACBL, and there always seems to be some reason that improvement is impossible.

Please read my comments on this issue as applying to non-ACBL jurisdictions only.

[mycroft]

I will admit that I make more of my rulings without the book than with; but if I have *any* doubt that I know exactly what to do/say, I pull out the book from my back or jacket pocket. More often than Lawbook, however, I have to hunt for my Alert Procedure/GCC. If anyone questions what I'm saying, out comes the Lawbook and I read it from there.

The odd time I need it and it's still in my directing bag because I haven't transferred it to back/jacket pocket yet, I'm embarrassed, but I still ensure it's read - and it's clearly my fault. "It's in the car" is insane. It has to be downloaded, even more so.

I realize that's not the rightest way to do it, as well.

AWMW: apply only at Nationals; 3 in two(?) years lead to a C&E hearing; no idea if the ACBL has specific regulations about frivolous appeals in Regional and lower tournaments, or whether that devolves to the District/Unit/Club; AWMW seem to only be handed out for truly gratuitously frivolous appeals; so as far as I know, only one person even got to 2 in the revolving limit. I don't see more frivolous appeals in the Casebooks (and out of my two, neither was frivolous, even if they were denied), in fact maybe fewer, but that may just be that fewer appeals are being pushed forward (and it's likely the frivolous ones that have been "oh come now, really?"ed out before presentation). 61 from Toronto, 2001 was a watershed alarm.

I think social pressure, as well as better delivery education of the TDs, as well as "talk to the DIC, who can say the same thing I just said in a different way you might understand" procedures, have helped. Note I'm not saying here anything about the quality of the rulings - what do I know from that? I just try to do the right thing and apply the Law as best I can on each ruling, and see where it goes from there.

[jeffford76]

mycroft, on 2013-April-04, 16:40, said:

I don't see more frivolous appeals in the Casebooks (and out of my two, neither was frivolous, even if they were denied), in fact maybe fewer, but that may just be that fewer appeals are being pushed forward (and it's likely the frivolous ones that have been "oh come now, really?"ed out before presentation).

They have a procedure in place where both sides of an appeal are expected to meet with a screener prior to the actual appeal. A couple nationals ago I was informed at this meeting that a player poll had been done since the initial ruling, and it was clear that the appeal would be denied given the (surprising to me) results, so we withdrew our appeal. At the most recent nationals a ruling in our favor was appealed and at the screening meeting the screening director made clear to the other side that while they were legally entitled to appeal, they didn't have a case and would almost certainly receive an AWMW, and one of them decided to withdraw. Amusingly both cases were auctions where our side opened 1NT, and the opponents didn't agree on whether they were playing "systems on" after a penalty X.

It would be interesting to see the statistics on how many cases are "appealed", but don't make it to an actual committee.

[mjj29]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-05, 10:01, said:

It would be interesting to see the statistics on how many cases are "appealed", but don't make it to an actual committee.

If by "appealed" you mean "one of the sides says 'that's completely ridiculous! I would always have done this! I'm obviously going to appeal if you rule that'", then IME nearly all of them q-:

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-04, 14:39, said:

I'm afraid your supposition does not reflect my reality. Directors (particularly club directors, but I've seen it in Sectional and Regional level directors too) seem to pride themselves on their ability to rule from memory. As for reading it from the book, I once asked a local club director to do that. She said "I can't. The book is in the car." She refused to go get it. And this was before the rush to get more boards done in three hours. Things are getting somewhat better in this regard - I've actually seen some club directors around here with a lawbook in hand!

If you have a club being run in such an incompetent fashion, I think the appeal process is the least of your problems, and it's certainly not where you should be looking to fix it.

This thread was started to talk about the process at championships -- is poor club-level directing really relevant? I think it's reasonable to expect that practically all rulings in a championship event will be made in accordance with the laws, and appeals will almost always be on matters of judgement. In fact, this supposition is apparently built into the Laws, where 93B2 says that an AC can't overrule the director on a point of law (but does that mean they can't overrule him if he applies the wrong law?).

[lamford]

barmar, on 2013-April-05, 10:20, said:

I think it's reasonable to expect that practically all rulings in a championship event will be made in accordance with the laws

Not so. In Poznan the Chief TD made an error with a revoke ruling, and the AC failed to overturn it.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2013-April-05, 10:30, said:

Not so. In Poznan the Chief TD made an error with a revoke ruling, and the AC failed to overturn it.

I said "practically all". Even experienced TDs are still human and sometimes make mistakes. But it's reasonable to assume that they will make far fewer.

I also suspect that some types of infractions are also less common in championship bridge, because the players pay more attention: calls/plays out of turn, insufficient bids, revokes. Not nonexistent, of course, but much less frequent.

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-05, 10:01, said:

… it was clear that the appeal would be denied…

I'm confused. What does this mean? That the screener or somebody would suggest the appeal is without merit and the table ruling would be upheld? Or is somebody telling appellants "no, you can't appeal this ruling. Go away"?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-April-05, 10:20, said:

If you have a club being run in such an incompetent fashion, I think the appeal process is the least of your problems, and it's certainly not where you should be looking to fix it.

This thread was started to talk about the process at championships -- is poor club-level directing really relevant? I think it's reasonable to expect that practically all rulings in a championship event will be made in accordance with the laws, and appeals will almost always be on matters of judgement. In fact, this supposition is apparently built into the Laws, where 93B2 says that an AC can't overrule the director on a point of law (but does that mean they can't overrule him if he applies the wrong law?).

The way to fix it is to get the ACBL to stop washing their hands of whatever goes on at clubs. I see a couple of things that intimate that may change, but no change has trickled down to the clubs yet, and until it does players' only option is to vote with their feet.

Threads drift, that's the nature of the medium. As for relevancy, players who learn how the game is ruled at the poor club level will eventually have to relearn what they "know", because it's all wrong. That can't be good.

Which law applies is a judgement matter, so the AC can overturn it. IMO, of course.

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-05, 12:00, said:

I'm confused. What does this mean? That the screener or somebody would suggest the appeal is without merit and the table ruling would be upheld? Or is somebody telling appellants "no, you can't appeal this ruling. Go away"?

In my case it meant that my appeal was going to be that a particular call was a LA, and that the alternative, more successful call they took was suggested by the UI. At the time of the director ruling they hadn't done a player poll, so this was a reasonable argument. By the time of the screening, they had, and since no one had made the call I thought was a LA, it was clear *to me* I would lose the appeal so I withdrew it.

[JanM]

gnasher, on 2013-April-02, 09:05, said:

I do, in the category of rulings that require bridge judgement.

So do I.

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-05, 15:41, said:

In my case it meant that my appeal was going to be that a particular call was a LA, and that the alternative, more successful call they took was suggested by the UI. At the time of the director ruling they hadn't done a player poll, so this was a reasonable argument. By the time of the screening, they had, and since no one had made the call I thought was a LA, it was clear *to me* I would lose the appeal so I withdrew it.

Then I think "would fail" is better wording than "would be denied". <shrug>

[akwoo]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-05, 12:09, said:

The way to fix it is to get the ACBL to stop washing their hands of whatever goes on at clubs. I see a couple of things that intimate that may change, but no change has trickled down to the clubs yet, and until it does players' only option is to vote with their feet.

I admit to having an unusual perspective on this, but:

I live in a town so remote that most folks in Western Europe can't really imagine how remote it is. I'm very lucky that we have a weekly game, considering the nearest other game is about 70 miles (i.e. about 100 km) away. We average 2.5 tables or so; we have on rare occasion cancelled because not enough people showed up to make a game. In the last 2 years (since I moved here), we've never had 4 tables.

A fair number of rules are very laxly enforced. Frankly we don't want to make things any harder for the old ladies playing than at all possible. I doubt our director has his rule book anywhere closer than his home. No one has ever asked for a ruling on anything other than a revoke, a lead out of turn, an exposed card, or an insufficient bid (and most insufficient bids are simply allowed to be withdrawn with no penalty and no director call). We've never had a UI or MI ruling; I imagine that if someone showed up and started to repeatedly and blatantly take advantage of UI or repeatedly and intentionally failed to alert, instead of making rulings on it, he or she would first be warned and eventually be told he or she wasn't welcome. (Frankly, this makes better sense because some of our old ladies wouldn't know when to suspect misuse of UI and call the director.)

If our game were to be "properly run", some of the old ladies would stop playing and we wouldn't have a game at all. I'm happy that the ACBL is letting our director run our game in a way that he judges is best for keeping duplicate bridge in town.

[blackshoe]

There are exceptions to every rule. Your situation is pretty unique. If the alternatives are "ignore (most of) the rules and have a nice little game once a week" and "follow the rules and have no game at all", then I see no problem with the former - as long as any guests are made aware ahead of time of the situation. In most of the ACBL, though, your situation doesn't apply. It's the places whose players are likely, at some point, to go on to tournament play I'm most concerned about.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-31, 12:20, said:

My question would be "why?" Do the WBF and the EBL feel that the right to appeal should not exist? If so, why not? if not, what is their rationale?

Over many many years there has been a shift in decision making. Sixty years ago it was to rule against the offending side and let the AC sort it out. Slowly it has moved more and more towards good TD rulings. This seems an obvious further step in that direction - once you really trust TD rulings ACs become redundant.

gnasher, on 2013-April-01, 03:14, said:

That would be my second question, but my first question is still "What?" That is, will appeals on judgement matters be heard by a committee of directors, by a single director, by a single player, or by nobody? The last of these would be illegal, of course.

No "of course" about it: I am not sure you are even right.

Quote

LAW 93: PROCEDURES OF APPEAL

C. Further Possibilities of Appeal

3. (b) 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, on 2013-April-02, 17:12, said:

We apparently agree that what the WBF is doing is probably good for world championship level bridge. Equally, what the EBL is doing may be good for top level bridge in the EBL. Similar actions may even be good for top level bridge in the ACBL. But when you get below the top level, even at the Regional level, and especially at the club level, the quality of directing cannot support it. There has to be some reasonable way to appeal bad rulings at these levels - including bad rulings on points of law rather than judgment.

Sounds reasonable, but I am never sure it is true. If ACs had never been invented, people would take rulings, both good and bad, and complain about them. At club level TDs may be poor, so let us suppose their rulings are 60% correct. ACs will not be wonderful, with little idea of the Laws or what they should be doing. So how correct will their decisions be? 65%? 70%?

There is a lot of fuss and wasted time in appeals. I do not believe that they are justified and as soon as they consigned to history, the better.

[Sorry, Nigel, for not following the EBU line: I shall try harder in future. ]

McBruce, on 2013-April-04, 06:41, said:

I am baffled by the last sentence of 93B1, which says that if the TD makes a ruling based on Law or regulation you can appeal this to the committee, which according to 93B3 is forbidden to overrule the TD on a point of Law or regulations!

An AC can recommend a TD to overturn his ruling on a point of Law or Regulation. The EBU considers he should normally do so unless he can demonstrate to the AC why he is right and they are wrong.

Vampyr, on 2013-April-04, 14:54, said:

I hadn't realised that these warnings had replaced monetary deposits. The solution is simple, really -- make the deposit in the form of VPs or MPs.

There is no "simple" answer, certainly not the MP/VP solution. Shortly I shall be directing the Schapiro Spring 4s. There have been several tense appeals when the final score is 2 imps to one side, and the side being eliminated will appeal anything it can think of. Do you think that the chance of losing imps matters?

Everyone seems to think one way is best: I don't. The possibilities seem to me to be:

1 Money deposits, as in the EBU. The obvious disadvantage is that some people can afford them much more than others: no sponsor at the Schapiro Spring 4s is going to let a £30 deposit put him off appealing. But a team of four juniors in a local EBU event might. The advantage is that no-one, even the millionaires, likes losing money.

2 PPs, as in the ABF. The obvious disadvantage is that if it does not matter, as above, it does not stop meritless appeals at all. The advantage is that in some cases it might be critical and thus dissuade.

3 AWMWs, as in the ACBL. The obvious disadvantage is that they don't seem to work! No-one in the ACBL has ever had any further action from getting them. The advantage might be that they are working: no-one has ever had further action because they are not pushing meritless appeals.

4 Master points, tried nowhere. The obvious disadvantage is that lots of people don't care about them. The advantage is that many people do care!

I have made two suggestions over the years: no-one liked either!

1 Choice. Give the AC a choice of which of the above four to apply. But the AC might not know, so it is probably a bad idea.

2 Package. This is the one I like! Give them a package of disincentives: so in the EBU if an appeal is deemed frivolous, a team or pair will lose £15 and 1 VP/6 imps/20% of a top and a National Master Point and gain an AWMW.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 10:34, said:

4 Master points, tried nowhere. The obvious disadvantage is that lots of people don't care about them. The advantage is that many people do care!

Probably similar to money. A GLM with 15,000 masterpoints isn't going to sweat losing a dozen or so. And in lower-level events, where the payout to the winners is only in the single digits, it would hardly seem fair to charge double digits for appeals, but anything less would have no teeth at all.

[gnasher]

I'm told that in the ACBL there is such a thing as a Flight-B pro. Presumably such players would actually wish to keep their masterpoint total down, so as to remain eligible for their chosen profession. We wouldn't want to create a perverse incentive for frivolous appealing.