[Trinidad]

I think that it is important that any team can appeal a TD decision if they feel "wronged". Deposits are a good way to prevent frivolous appeals.
I agree that financial deposits don't work for the simple fact that a dollar doesn't have the same value for all the players.

Therefore the deposit should be something that is of equal value to all the players. Why not make the deposit 1 or 2VP? If the appeal had merit (even if it was lost), the deposit is returned, just like now. If the appeal didn't have merit, the VPs are forfeited.

Rik

[bluejak]

In England players love Swiss tournaments, because for every match won or drawn you get 0.25 of a national master point, familiarly called a "quarter-green". People love playing for quarter-greens. If a pair or team lying second from bottom gets a ruling and loses their match 11-9 they can appeal to try to get the quarter-green, and if the appeal is frivolous, who cares? Losing 11-8 or 11-7 is just the same number of quarter-greens.

Furthermore, a pretty ethical well-known pair brought a clearly frivolous appeal against one of my rulings in the Shapiro Spring Fours. They lost, and the sponsor lost his 30 GBP. But if there had been an imp penalty, what difference? They had just lost a k/o match: who cares whether they lost by 3 imps or 10 imps? [It was quite clear from the pair's demeanour what they thought of the appeal.]

The statements as to the best method of controlling frivolous appeals are nearly always that some specific method is best. But it demonstrably is untrue: no one method works in every case.

My suggestion in England/Wales is that one of the following two methods is tried:

If an appeal is determined to be frivolous, then the pair involved and/or their captain should lose

• 10 GBP, and
  
• one national master point [1 green point], and
  
• one "appeal without merit warning", and
  
• 3 imps/10% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the board involved, and
  
• 3 imps/10% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the next stanza the contestant plays

The idea, obviously, is try to find something they will not like. The second possibility is to allow the AC to decide between them, so the AC can apply:

• 30 GBP, OR
  
• three national master points [3 green points], OR
  
• one "appeal without merit warning", and
  
• 9 imps/30% of a top/1.5 VPs applied to the board involved, OR
  
• 9 imps/30% of a top/1.5 VPs applied to the next stanza the contestant plays

An "appeal without merit warning" would trigger an investigation if a player gets two in a year. or three in three years. There would be possible further penalties.

[peachy]

Trinidad, on Sep 26 2009, 02:36 AM, said:

I think that it is important that any team can appeal a TD decision if they feel "wronged". Deposits are a good way to prevent frivolous appeals.
I agree that financial deposits don't work for the simple fact that a dollar doesn't have the same value for all the players.

Therefore the deposit should be something that is of equal value to all the players. Why not make the deposit 1 or 2VP? If the appeal had merit (even if it was lost), the deposit is returned, just like now. If the appeal didn't have merit, the VPs are forfeited.

Rik

IMO, there should be no deposits. Money is a deterrent only to those who don't have much to spread around. It would be unfair to virtually deny only the poorer folks the ability to appeal a table ruling.

Warnings and VP penalties, maybe progressive, for repeated meritless appeals should do the job.

[gerry]

bluejak, on Sep 7 2009, 08:33 AM, said:

All rules are arbitrary: please do not start this game again.

There is a basis: an authority has said it is so: that is a basis.

It is also totally reasonable and obvious, but that is a different matter.

Absolute total complete and utter nonsense.

If you don't want Appeal Committees changing directors' decisions then rewrite the laws to say so.

Either throw the Laws out and let Regulating Authorities make all the rules as it suits them or follow the laws as written.

I must say that I am heartily sick of reading posts defending regulations that are unambiguously illegal.

Hence the vehemence.

[MFA]

gerry, on Oct 4 2009, 06:10 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 7 2009, 08:33 AM, said:

All rules are arbitrary: please do not start this game again.

There is a basis: an authority has said it is so: that is a basis.

It is also totally reasonable and obvious, but that is a different matter.

Absolute total complete and utter nonsense.

If you don't want Appeal Committees changing directors' decisions then rewrite the laws to say so.

Either throw the Laws out and let Regulating Authorities make all the rules as it suits them or follow the laws as written.

I must say that I am heartily sick of reading posts defending regulations that are unambiguously illegal.

Hence the vehemence.

I don't see any reason why this practice should be illegal.

The appeal option is there. It is only natural and sensible that if more compentence is put in to the TD's rulings in the first place then their assessments and decisions will have more weight in a following AC. It would be a bad AC if it didn't care at all about the polls made by the TDs (for instance).

I don't see anything wrong either in openly announcing this sensible practice.

[bluejak]

gerry, on Oct 4 2009, 05:10 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 7 2009, 08:33 AM, said:

All rules are arbitrary: please do not start this game again.

There is a basis: an authority has said it is so: that is a basis.

It is also totally reasonable and obvious, but that is a different matter.

Absolute total complete and utter nonsense.

If you don't want Appeal Committees changing directors' decisions then rewrite the laws to say so.

Either throw the Laws out and let Regulating Authorities make all the rules as it suits them or follow the laws as written.

I must say that I am heartily sick of reading posts defending regulations that are unambiguously illegal.

Hence the vehemence.

Law 93B3 said:

In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)

Are you seriously suggesting that an AC who ignores this Law is doing something legal?

[Echognome]

bluejak, on Sep 26 2009, 05:49 AM, said:

My suggestion in England/Wales is that one of the following two methods is tried:

If an appeal is determined to be frivolous, then the pair involved and/or their captain should lose

• 10 GBP, and
  
• one national master point [1 green point], and
  
• one "appeal without merit warning", and
  
• 3 imps/10% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the board involved, and
  
• 3 imps/10% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the next stanza the contestant plays

The idea, obviously, is try to find something they will not like. The second possibility is to allow the AC to decide between them, so the AC can apply:

• 30 GBP, OR
  
• three national master points [3 green points], OR
  
• one "appeal without merit warning", and
  
• 9 imps/30% of a top/1.5 VPs applied to the board involved, OR
  
• 9 imps/30% of a top/1.5 VPs applied to the next stanza the contestant plays

An "appeal without merit warning" would trigger an investigation if a player gets two in a year. or three in three years. There would be possible further penalties.

Always tough to find the right balance. If you make the penalty too harsh, you will be loathe to find AC's willing to give the penalty in the first place. Also, I like your first type of suggestion better than the second, as the second one adds an additional burden on AC's to determine what type of punishment is the most detrimental to the pair involved. It's also open to abuse in the other direction, albeit unlikely.

I'm also not sure it's such a good idea to try to apply penalties going forward. It sounds like a logistical nightmare. Imagine there was a team of six, with players A, B, C, D, E, F with pairs AB, CD, EF. Will the penalty apply to A if he plays on a different team in the next event? Or will it only be when AB play together next? Or only when all six play together next? Just sounds like a super pain to sort out.

[bluejak]

I suppose by "next stanza" I was really thinking of the same event generally. I agree it would not work otherwise.

[Echognome]

I should mention that I like the idea of penalizing different items. The "rich client" will make the monetary penalty trivial, whereas it makes it really painful to the "starving student". Given the game is about bridge, then having bridge score related penalties seems to make sense. In fact, I would think something along the lines of:

First frivolous appeal -
1. Warning; and
2. 0.25 green points individually for each player

Second frivolous appeal -
1. 1 green point individually; and
2. 3 imps/10% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the board involved for the team, regardless of whether any team member has had a frivolous appeal.

Third frivolous appeal -
1. 3 green points individually; and
2. 9 imps/30% of a top/0.5 VPs applied to the board involved for the team, regardless of whether any team member has had a frivolous appeal; and
3. Warning about Ethics Committee hearing.

Fourth frivolous appeal -
1. Hearing in front of Ethics committee with possible suspension from play.

You can fine tune by removing an appeals "demerit" once a year rather than making these lifetime punishments. I believe this would be an effective way to get rid of frivolous appeals.

[nige1]

So that players know what's what and so that regulating authorities don't need to re-invent the wheel, IMO, something similar to the following (default) protocol should be defined in the law-book ...

• It is good that directors consult each other and poll players.
  
• When polling players in UI cases, the director should ask each player two questions
  • What action do you take (without revealing the UI)? then ...
    
  • What action does the UI suggest? This is an attempt to ensure that the UI receiver has at least one permitted logical alternative.
  
  
• Appeals are also a wonderful institution because
  • They occasionally allow injustices to be rectified.
    
  • When published, they sometimes show players that everyone has done their best to dispense justice.
    
  • They're always an amusing read.
    
  • Careful judgements and close decisions provide a kind of case law.
  
  
• An official appeals adviser should advise would-be appellants on the basis of the facts as recorded by the director and players.
  
• Weighted rulings should be appealable because a fraction of a percentage may alter the result of a competition. It is important that the director and committee be kept ignorant of the likely effect of weighting changes.
  
• The committee should always check with the director that their ruling conforms with the law.
  
• It's hard to decide what should be the penalty for a frivolous appeal but even if a money fine is no deterrent to the rich, at least it helps to compensate the regulating authority for all the time and hassle.
  
• The deposit should be returned (or whatever) if any of the following conditions obtain ...
  • The adviser advised that the appeal was justified.
    
  • The committee reasoning or decision differs significantly from the director's (even if it is harsher).
    
  • The committee decision wasn't unanimous.
    
  • The committee vote to keep the deposit wasn't unanimous.

[jeremy69]

It's important not to make appeals procedures too bureaucratic/complex especially as some of them are done in a bit of a hurry. Appeals advisers in England have reduced the number of appeals significantly and in practice not all that many deposits are withheld.
Whilst the comments to the effect that the money means nothing to the sponsor and some others my view is that it is generally not £30 but the fact that the argument is so completely dismissed that players don't like.
I don't have a problem trying alternatives. Some would resent removal of green points and others would laugh at you. VP/Matchpoint fines would work in some events but not usually knock outs.
To a large extent, in England, this is a hammer to crack a relatively non existent nut.

[bluejak]

nige1, on Oct 29 2009, 03:42 AM, said:

The deposit should be returned (or whatever) if any of the following conditions obtain ...

• The adviser advised that the appeal was justified.

No way! The appeals adviser will - obviously - hear what the players say. He cannot be sure it is true or unbiased. It would spoil the whole appeals adviser system if this went through as players would do the obvious.

[shintaro]

nige1, on Oct 28 2009, 09:42 PM, said:

[*] The deposit should be returned (or whatever) if any of the following conditions obtain ... [LIST]
[*] The adviser advised that the appeal was justified.

Nigel surely not would you as an appeals adviser know for certain you had been told the 'Whole' and 'correct' facts when you advise someone they should appeal ???

[nige1]

nige1, on Oct 28 2009, 09:42 PM, said:

The deposit should be returned (or whatever) if any of the following conditions obtain ...
The adviser advised that the appeal was justified.

bluejak, on Oct 29 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

No way!  The appeals adviser will - obviously - hear what the players say.  He cannot be sure it is true or unbiased.  It would spoil the whole appeals adviser system if this went through as players would do the obvious.

shintaro, on Oct 29 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

Nigel surely not would you as an appeals adviser know for certain you had been told the 'Whole' and 'correct' facts when you advise someone they should appeal ???

I wonder what Bluejak would consider obvious for players to do
Unfortunately, Bluejak and Shintaro both ignore an important qualification in the suggested protocol quoted below with additional emphasis.

nige1, on Oct 28 2009, 09:42 PM, said:

[SNIP] The official appeals adviser should advise would-be appellants on the basis of the facts as recorded by the director and players[/SNIP].

IMO the advisor should (crudely and briefly) assess appellants' arguments on the basis of recorded facts. If appellants belatedly want to add more facts to the director's report, then the adviser can send them back to the director to do so.

[bluejak]

Well, if your idea is that an Appeals Adviser should no longer base anything on what they tell him, you are out of your mind. What players want is people to talk to. We have an excellent system here: why ruin it?

[jallerton]

I think Nigel makes a very good point. As an Appeals Adviser, I'd like to receive an unbiased and complete version of the facts, including knowing why the TD ruled the way he or she did. Of course the players will have someone to talk to and they will then be able to receive more sensible feedback.

There's nothing worse for an Appeal Adviser than, having advised a pair that they have good grounds for appeal, to discover later that the appeal was frivolous because some pertinent facts available to the TD and the AC had not been mentioned to the Appeals Adviser.

One of the stated reasons for the Appeals Adviser system is to reduce the number of frivolous appeals. This objective will not be achieved if the Adviser is given inaccurate or incomplete information.

[duschek]

bluejak, on Oct 29 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

nige1, on Oct 29 2009, 03:42 AM, said:

The deposit should be returned (or whatever) if any of the following conditions obtain ...

• The adviser advised that the appeal was justified.

No way! The appeals adviser will - obviously - hear what the players say. He cannot be sure it is true or unbiased. It would spoil the whole appeals adviser system if this went through as players would do the obvious.

In addition, this would mean that if the appeals advisor believes that the appeal has merit, the appeal can in effect be filed without a deposit (because the appeals advisor has guaranteed that the deposit will be returned anyway). That does not really fit my ideas of the appeals system.

The Danish Bridge Federation introduced the appeals advisors practice at the National Championships week this summer. In general, it was very well received by the players. Most league players handle their potential appeals themselves, but many players at the levels below felt much more comfortable in the appeals zone than they used to. We will definitely do that next year too.

In one case, the committee withheld the deposit even if the appeals advisor had told the players that they should not lose the deposit. This case elicited opinions to the effect that the deposit should be safe in such cases; so I have already expressed my views on that earlier this year

[nige1]

bluejak, on Oct 29 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

Well, if your idea is that an Appeals Adviser should no longer base anything on what they tell him, you are out of your mind.  What players want is people to talk to.  We have an excellent system here: why ruin it?

I suggest that the adviser base his advice on recorded facts, in the light of appellant's concerns and arguments. This involves the appellants talking to the adviser and the adviser listening to them. If Bluejak missed this implication, then I apologise for not making it clearer. I applaud the idea of advisers. I feel, however, that the protocol for retaining or returning deposits can be made more consistent and appear fairer to players.

[nige1]

duschek, on Oct 29 2009, 06:39 PM, said:

In addition, this would mean that if the appeals advisor believes that the appeal has merit, the appeal can in effect be filed without a deposit (because the appeals advisor has guaranteed that the deposit will be returned anyway). That does not really fit my ideas of the appeals system.

I would be interested in Duschek's reasons for his view. My reasoning is:
If the independent adviser is privy to the recorded facts and the director's reasoning, he should be able to consider the appellant's arguments and to offer excellent impartial advice, quite quickly. He will usually agree with the director. Then most would-be appellants will withdraw their appeal, saving time and hassle. Otherwise, however, if the adviser deems the case to have merit, I feel that he should encourage hesitant appellants to go ahead, both to clarify seemingly murky law and to prevent apparent injustice. I surmise that players consider it unfair for the committee to keep the appellants' deposit as well as ruling against them, in such circumstances.

[blackshoe]

I suppose it's a matter of regulation, since the laws themselves don't say anything about deposits. Actually, what the law says is that players have a right to appeal, that an initial appeal shall be made through the director, that the initial appeal shall be heard by a committee if one is available, otherwise by the director, and that

Quote

The Regulating Authority may establish procedures for further appeals after the foregoing procedures have been exhausted. Any such further appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation.

So it seems to me that a regulation that requires a deposit for an initial appeal is illegal, as is one that gives the initial committee authority to withhold such deposit.

Be that as it may, Nigel's surmise may be correct, but players who take that attitude misunderstand the purpose of the deposit, which as I understand it is to avoid wasting peoples' time with appeals that aren't going to get anywhere. IOW, if an appeal is deemed without merit, it is a given that the appellant will be "ruled against". So it's completely illogical to feel put upon when one's appeal is deemed without merit, one is "ruled against" (which is certain to happen) and one's deposit is kept.