[mycroft]

There are already cases where ACBL Masterpoints are recommended/required to be taken away (upon conviction for various ethical or "failing to care about other contestants, repeatedly, after instruction and request" infractions). I suggested to our BoD member that something had to be put in there that these masterpoint reductions were *NOT* to apply to eligibility maximums or masterpoint level categories (no "failing to wash or change clothes for an entire regional to get back into Flight B" or to compete in the 200-300 MP race instead of the 300-500). I don't think that was put in; I think I should rattle his cage about it again.

Having said all that, I have not heard of any C&E rulings that have awarded a penalty that leads to masterpoint reduction; but I wouldn't hear of it, either.

[nige1]

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

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

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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!

• 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.
• 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.

IMO, a pair/team with a rolling history of unsuccessful appeals above a published threshold should have their appeal automatically refused. (Currently, there is insufficient consistency in AWMWs or deposit-retentions for them to be used as criteria). Naturally, you would be allowed an unlimited number of successful appeals.

[nige1]

An independent TD panel (with a fresh set of TDs) might be OK. Provided that the evidence and reasons for important panel-rulings were published and reviewed as now happens for appeal-committees. A player, who can't understand a TD ruling, would still want his day in court. Appeal decisions, especially reports from top-level events, draw attention to legal anomalies; and educate those, like myself, who don't understand Bridge-law. The danger is that TD-panels might simply rubber-stamp TD-decisions. If appeals become pointless, some of us would learn to live without them; but we would remain annoyed and ignorant.

[Zelandakh]

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

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

Another idea that I have never heard put forward (and therefore is also probably disliked by everyone) would be appeal limits as in American football or tennis. A player only gets a certain number of unsuccessful appeals in a year. Longer major events might have separate quotas, although this would make frivolous appeals more attractive. So, for example, a player might only be allowed 1 unsuccessful appeal for a given set of events. In the first round of a Team KO, they make a successful appeal. No problem here. In the semi-final they are lose and decide to appeal a decision that swung a lot of IMPs. This they lose. Now the team may not make any further appeals in the following events.

But overall, I think that working towards removing appeals completely is probably the better solution. That also has the benefit of encouraging better TDs at all levels; which might eventually improve the club experience for large numbers of bridge players. We can but hope.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-19, 02:15, said:

But overall, I think that working towards removing appeals completely is probably the better solution. That also has the benefit of encouraging better TDs at all levels

Will it necessarily have that effect? I agree that some directors might try harder if they knew that theirs was the final decision, but for others the knowledge that their decision wasn't subject to review might make them less diligent. A good director, of course, would do his best regardless of the existence of an appeals procedure.

[Zelandakh]

Why do you think that "their decision wasn't subject to review" necessarily follows from "theirs was the final decision", Andy? There is no reason (besides money and effort I guess) why TD decisions cannot be reviewed without overturning them in an attempt to improve accountability and quality, as happens in most major sports.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-19, 04:16, said:

Why do you think that "their decision wasn't subject to review" necessarily follows from "theirs was the final decision", Andy? There is no reason (besides money and effort I guess) why TD decisions cannot be reviewed without overturning them in an attempt to improve accountability and quality, as happens in most major sports.

By "subject to review" I meant "subject to review and amendment".

Anyway, disregarding the vocabulary, if you replace the current system of

Director's ruling, followed by final appeal if requested, later followed by review of appeal's committee decision

with

Director's final ruling, later followed by review of director's decision

You reduce the incentive for a lazy TD to do his job properly, whilst greatly increasing the number of rulings that have to be reviewed.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2013-April-19, 06:21, said:

By "subject to review" I meant "subject to review and amendment".

Anyway, disregarding the vocabulary, if you replace the current system of

Director's ruling, followed by final appeal if requested, later followed by review of appeal's committee decision

with

Director's final ruling, later followed by review of director's decision

You reduce the incentive for a lazy TD to do his job properly, whilst greatly increasing the number of rulings that have to be reviewed.

I don't see how that follows, especially since the review process will mean that the director might be told to go back and do it again, rather than the AC doing it on his behalf.

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-19, 02:15, said:

Another idea that I have never heard put forward (and therefore is also probably disliked by everyone) would be appeal limits as in American football or tennis. A player only gets a certain number of unsuccessful appeals in a year. Longer major events might have separate quotas, although this would make frivolous appeals more attractive. So, for example, a player might only be allowed 1 unsuccessful appeal for a given set of events. In the first round of a Team KO, they make a successful appeal. No problem here. In the semi-final they are lose and decide to appeal a decision that swung a lot of IMPs. This they lose. Now the team may not make any further appeals in the following events.

In my County my partner and I play in about forty weekend events a year: the better players in the County otherwise tend to play in three or four. So we are ten times as likely to disagree with a ruling.

I don't think your approach is fair since it penalises people for playing more.

[Jeremy69A]

Assuming we are only talking about appeals in high level events such as EBL or WBF championships then we should first look at some reasons which are little to do with bridge. At an open championship such as Poznan in 2011 it is not uncommon to have about a dozen appeal committee members. Some of them will have other jobs so are not there solely to hear appeals but some are and by the time you have finished with travel, subsistence and accommodation it is an expensive business to have appeal committees. I am not suggesting that whether we have them or not should be a matter of cost nor that the EBL/WBF have been much moved by wasting money in the past but it is nonetheless something to be considered.
Secondly there is the EBL/WBF total disregard for the players. In Dublin at the captain's meeting an official stood up and said that he expected there would be few or no appeals because the teams had access to the best TDs in Europe(true not wholly relevant) and they consulted and they got it right so you should expect to lose your deposit. Personally I thought this was a dreadful thing to say and I wouldn't want this person as the reviewer although he might well end up being so.
When considering a process of course you want one to ensure that decisions are likely to be correct if at all possible and I would expect TDs at the event to rarely get the law wrong and get a lot of judgement rulings right but there is also the matter of justice being seen to be done. I can think of two rulings I have been involved in, one in Lille in 1998 and one in Antalya in 2007 when the TD gave a ruling that could have been bettered by a passing ice cream salesman and both were overturned by an appeal committee. THe second involved the disposition of a gold medal so it is pretty unlikely that there was no consultation. In both cases it was not just a matter of law. I've no idea what would have happened if a reviewer had handled it but I would not have much confidence.
Appeal committees can and do get it wrong but they give a useful air of neutrality and independence which we should be loathe to lose especially if they are abolished by organisations who regard the players as people to be tolerated rather than valued.
We are having a discussion about no appeal committees at the forthcoming European Open Championships Ostend in just under two months yet there is actually no announcement to that effect nor any regulations or playing conditions on the official site so we are reliant on word of mouth from people who were, say, at the EBL TDs course or have read it elsewhere to know this. I don't think the failure to let people know is an oversight it is more of the "why do they need to know" attitude which prevails. In Lille last year, for example, the regulations were not on the website on the day before the championship although, of course, you did get a pack of them with the bag given to participants. Why not? They could not be bothered to do so and then made bellicose statements about how unwise it was to consider appealing.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2013-April-19, 08:16, said:

In my County my partner and I play in about forty weekend events a year: the better players in the County otherwise tend to play in three or four. So we are ten times as likely to disagree with a ruling. I don't think your approach is fair since it penalises people for playing more.

The procedure would be fairer if the criterion were not just the absolute number of unsuccessful appeals in the last (rolling) year but also the percentage of appeals that were unsuccessful (as I've previously suggested). Also, pairs and teams change so you would have to consider the average of all players in the partnership/team.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2013-April-19, 06:55, said:

I don't see how that follows, especially since the review process will mean that the director might be told to go back and do it again, rather than the AC doing it on his behalf.

I was talking about Zelandakh's suggestion of "removing appeals completely", where TDs' rulings would be "reviewed without overturning them".

[gnasher]

Jeremy69A, on 2013-April-19, 08:36, said:

Assuming we are only talking about appeals in high level events such as EBL or WBF championships then we should first look at some reasons which are little to do with bridge. At an open championship such as Poznan in 2011 it is not uncommon to have about a dozen appeal committee members. Some of them will have other jobs so are not there solely to hear appeals but some are and by the time you have finished with travel, subsistence and accommodation it is an expensive business to have appeal committees.

Even if we did away with appeals committees, I suspect that most of those people would still be there with some other job title.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Even if we did away with appeals committees, I suspect that most of those people would still be there with some other job title.

I suspect you are right. The number of head cooks and emeritus bottle washers present is quite extraordinary. For the first time that I have noticed in Dublin last year there was a sign that the organisers had noticed external austerity.

[FrancesHinden]

Jeremy69A, on 2013-April-19, 08:36, said:

Secondly there is the EBL/WBF total disregard for the players. In Dublin at the captain's meeting an official stood up and said that he expected there would be few or no appeals because the teams had access to the best TDs in Europe(true not wholly relevant) and they consulted and they got it right so you should expect to lose your deposit. Personally I thought this was a dreadful thing to say and I wouldn't want this person as the reviewer although he might well end up being so.

We got exactly the same announcement at the Champions' Trophy, so I think it's the standard EBL line rather than any one particular official. It shocked me too. (As did the ruling we were given later in the event.)

[RMB1]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-19, 15:59, said:

We got exactly the same announcement at the Champions' Trophy, so I think it's the standard EBL line ...

Something similar used to appear in the first bulletin of each international championship.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Something similar used to appear in the first bulletin of each international championship.

Appeals used to appear in the bulletins also until they were censored on the grounds, allegedly, that players were appealing to try to get themselves in the bulletin!

[jallerton]

jallerton, on 2013-April-03, 00:46, said:

Does national level count as a high level? I have reviewed hundreds of appeals cases in the EBU. I don't always agree with the AC's decisions by any means, but overall there are considerably more TD rulings which are improved by the AC than the other way round.

I was interested to hear Adam Wildavsky on voice commentary this evening. He has reviewed all ACBL appeals from 2001 onwards and has come to the conclusion that ACBL ACs improve more TD rulings than the other way round. He has kept data on his website to back up his conclusions.

[Zelandakh]

The question in my mind is: if the money that was spent on ACs during that period was instead spent on improving TD performance and, dare I say it, the rulebook itself, would the overall effect be even better?

The current situation reminds me of several sports before they became professional. Take tennid before Mcenroe for example. The linesmen were volunteers with little training and often needed to be overruled by the umpire. The umpires in turn were mostly amateur and their rulings could always be overturned by the tournament referee. There was little guidance on which player actions should be punlished and even if a player was, it took so many offences for it to have an effect (point loss) that it was practically impossible for it to happen. Mcenroe effectively forced the governing bodies to professionalise, resulting in a much higher quality of officials and far clearer guidance on what is and is not allowed written into the Laws.

The Laws of Bridge are still written as if it was a parlour game, to be played on a river cruise by upper class gentlemen. The training for TDs at the bottom of the game is minimal - quite frankly, reading these forums for a few months is probably more effective. Even at the top level, there is so much room for judgement and debate that any complex ruling is likely to have several possible interpretations and nuances. It is just no way for a modern mind sport to be run.

I hear so often how comfortable bridge officials are with things; or how change is not necessary because the members would not like it; or not to fix something that isn't broken. But it is broken, at least in the sense of being a professional sport. Bridge needs a John Mcenroe to shake things up. If the game cannot modernise then it will eventually fade out, just as other popular/fashionable card games of the past have done. To my mind, even if ACs do improve things right now, they are still an impediment to the game moving forwards.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2013-June-10, 02:15, said:

The question in my mind is: if the money that was spent on ACs during that period was instead spent on improving TD performance and, dare I say it, the rulebook itself, would the overall effect be even better?

It's not really a matter of the TDs' ability to direct. The big problem with getting rid of with ACs is the TDs' bridge ability: most TDs aren't good enough at bridge to judge what a top player would have done. The EBL seem to think that they can make up for this by polling players, but that doesn't get you the same depth of analysis as having a committee of players think about and discuss the board for fifteen minutes.