[bluecalm]

Quote

But if there's only one LA, you don't need to know what the UI suggests.

This is a bit off-topic I think and minor point but at least where I live deciding if something is or isn't LA is costly (you have to find players of similar level for a poll) while deciding if UI suggests given action is either done by TD alone or after some consultations if he is not sure but it's usually much simpler issue and it's decided before the poll to decide what is and isn't LA is run. Procedures may vary though and I think it really doesn't matter, TD should just do whatever leads to resolving the problem faster.

Quote

The problem with the Appeals Committees is that they are made up of players - players who, no matter how expert and how experienced, are friendly (or not friendly) with the competitors from years of playing with them and against them

I think this is very good point. Players, however good and experienced they might be, are almost never unbiased, often lack full understanding of bridge laws and almost always lack experience with difficult cases.

[mycroft]

mikeh, on 2012-May-17, 11:55, said:

But you are missing, I think, the main purpose of the current appeal process.

Appeals are rarely, if ever, about the Law, which is the area of expertise of the directors.

Appeals are about bridge judgment

Please note, I do not at all disagree with Mike's argument (save that, when I see questionable appeals judgements, they're usually not judgement related objections, but come down to a (willful?) blindness to the Lawful criteria they are judging against). However:

Quote

and the idea of a panel of tournament directors being considered my peers, as bridge players, is laughable...

Well, one I work with was our district's GNT Flight A winner in very recent memory. Another has played professionally in the U.S. Team Trials (in very recent memory). Another played on Fred's Canadian Junior Teams (although he no longer either directs or plays seriously). Several others play honestly at "in contention to win regional Flight A" level. And that's only those I've seen play.

Am I your bridge peer? No. Would I be asked a question *as your peer*? No. Would I be asked as to whether "his peers said <this>" is an LA? Yes. But although I do say, jokingly, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, go into administration." - that doesn't mean I can't, with I think some justification, disagree with "laughable." Especially because players a good deal less competent than you (except in their own eyes, of course) make that same argument.

We also, I think, have a good idea who *is* a peer of most of the people we direct for; and at least in my case, if I don't, I know who I can ask who will.

[mycroft]

MrAce, on 2012-May-17, 11:47, said:

Appeals have the luxury to sit down and think for hours and hours before they reach an agreement, a T.D will never have this luxury.

Actually, frequently the AC has less time than the TD did to make their judgement ruling. I certainly have both had and used "hours and hours", coming back and asking questions (on the players' break), and re-polling on different judgement issues. The AC starts at 2300 or so, and stays up as long as someone who wants to get home/whose spouse wants to get home/needs to be ready to play at 0900/whatever feels like it. I've also had 2 minutes, of course!

Quote

-People who are complaining or defending themselves about a board at the table will NEVER have the luxury of fully analysing the hand before they complain or defend themselves against the complaint, at the table. It definetely needs some time to fully investigate the actions in this board and express your side of the story to whomever is making the final decision.

Note that this is sometimes also a downside of ACs - we all play better with coaching and 2 hours to find defences/find arguments as to why those defences are "obvious" than we do at the table. The AC has to deal with even more of that than the TD. I think they do a pretty good job at that, frankly.

Quote

Imo those who are against A.C are trying to get rid of something that doesnt work perfect, instead of fixing it. I have ideas about how to fix it, i wont write in detail but mainly there should not be anyone in the committee who is a contender. In fact committee members should be professionalls who are dedicated, trained and paid just for this job. To start with, it can be seasoned Tournament Directors who are retired or promoted to this position after working in the field for long time as T.D. In each major event 3 or 5 of them should be paid just for showing up and waiting to be called to duty if needed.

Having just argued that TDs can, in fact, if they're not me, be good enough players to be peers of many more than think so, this may seem disingenuous, but if they're paid to *only* be AC members, they will eventually not be good enough players to be useful in this role - especially if they are retired TDs (Note the average age of players. Note also the average age of TDs, many of whom become TDs after playing for several years, after retiring from their real job. Imagine how old retired senior TDs are!)

Panels we use now do (in non-NABC events), in fact, poll players at the appellant's level when they themselves are not. That applies when they are clear C players or when they're pros playing in the Loser Swiss, or anything in between.

Note that I am not saying in any way that the current Appeals system is perfect. I just can't see removing it as a net win, and I can't see any reasonable way (save some really good and consistent education and case law - note: not precedent, but precedent that has been reviewed and found valid. There's a *lot* of bad precedent out there!) to improve it that doesn't introduce or exascerbate other flaws. And while publicising judgements is poison, and causes many problems, the alternative is, again, worse.

[MrAce]

mycroft, on 2012-May-17, 14:22, said:

Actually, frequently the AC has less time than the TD did to make their judgement ruling. I certainly have both had and used "hours and hours", coming back and asking questions (on the players' break), and re-polling on different judgement issues. The AC starts at 2300 or so, and stays up as long as someone who wants to get home/whose spouse wants to get home/needs to be ready to play at 0900/whatever feels like it. I've also had 2 minutes, of course!

This is why an AC must be formed by people who are doing it as a job, not by people who are doing a sacrifice from their personal time as a charity duty.

mycroft, on 2012-May-17, 14:22, said:

Note that this is sometimes also a downside of ACs - we all play better with coaching and 2 hours to find defences/find arguments as to why those defences are "obvious" than we do at the table. The AC has to deal with even more of that than the TD. I think they do a pretty good job at that, frankly.

Either you did not understand what i intended to say, or more likely my english described it poorly as usual. Since i seem to be missing the relevance in your reply.

mycroft, on 2012-May-17, 14:22, said:

Note that I am not saying in any way that the current Appeals system is perfect. I just can't see removing it as a net win, and I can't see any reasonable way (save some really good and consistent education and case law - note: not precedent, but precedent that has been reviewed and found valid. There's a *lot* of bad precedent out there!) to improve it that doesn't introduce or exascerbate other flaws. And while publicising judgements is poison, and causes many problems, the alternative is, again, worse.

Yes, we seem to both agree that the alternative is worse. Putting 1 man under the pressure of making a decision, that will decide who wins the BB or USA team trials, is not gonna work well. Its unfair too, imo. Those who are against AC, need to come up with something better than just saying "Let the TD's choice be final" imo.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2012-May-17, 11:58, said:

The problem with the Appeals Committees is that they are made up of players - players who, no matter how expert and how experienced, are friendly (or not friendly) with the competitors from years of playing with them and against them. So, instead of having some neutral party (TDs) make a binding ruling, it is a group of players acting as an Appeals Committee making the binding ruling. THIS is where the poison comes from.

Why wouldn't TDs be friendly (or not friendly) with the competitors as well, due to years of interacting with them as TDs? I've been going to NABCs for years, and I think most of the TDs who direct the regional events there know me, and I've probably gone out to dinner with a couple of them. And I know that all our local TDs know me by name.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2012-May-17, 19:45, said:

Why wouldn't TDs be friendly (or not friendly) with the competitors as well, due to years of interacting with them as TDs? I've been going to NABCs for years, and I think most of the TDs who direct the regional events there know me, and I've probably gone out to dinner with a couple of them. And I know that all our local TDs know me by name.

Of course TDs can be friendly with players who they work with for years.

However, if a TD gets a reputation for not being objective when it comes to making rulings for certain players, his effectiveness as a TD (and possibly his job) will be in jeopardy. That is not true about players who serve on an appeals committee.

[MrAce]

barmar, on 2012-May-17, 19:45, said:

Why wouldn't TDs be friendly (or not friendly) with the competitors as well, due to years of interacting with them as TDs? I've been going to NABCs for years, and I think most of the TDs who direct the regional events there know me, and I've probably gone out to dinner with a couple of them. And I know that all our local TDs know me by name.

And a TD will never have a personal conflict of interest in a decision. Competitors will always have some amount of conflict of interest. Even when the match is final match and the competitor in appeal is already out of the event for various reasons.