[jeremy69]

I'm not sure we should worry too much about kept deposits. They are only kept when
a. the issue is completely clear cut
b. the committee are unanimous and arrive at their decision quickly

and
c. they have regard to the epxerience of the players so those not used to the procedure or tournaments are treated more gently.

Not all that many deposits are kept.

I think that the role of the adviser is to talk over the case and offer some advice. He is not there to make a ruling. The practicalities also militate against some of what is being said. I ask for a ruling half way through the session. The TD comes back 3 rounds later having consulted. I then say I would like to speak to an adviser. The TD then writes it up for the appeal to be heard, if going ahead ,after play has finished.
I have come across situations when the facts presented to an adviser and what comes out at appeal are significantly different but on the whole it seems to make silly appeals go away to a large extent.

[duschek]

nige1, on Oct 30 2009, 07:59 AM, said:

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.

The committee members are there to make a ruling, based on their judgement. In this process, they determine whether the appeal has merit, also based on their judgement.

If the appeals advisor happens to judge differently from the committee members (which will be a rare occurrence), the committee members should not be prevented from issuing a clear statement of their opinion about the decision to appeal, i.e., keeping the deposit.

In addition, suppose the appeals advisor believes that the appeal has merit based on certain arguments that the appellants for some reason fail to present to the committee. The committee members wonder why on earth the appeal was filed at all on those grounds and keep the deposit with the appeals advisor not being at fault.

[duschek]

blackshoe, on Oct 30 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

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.

It surprises me that the WBF-LC seem to imply that the first appeal should be for free, as I believe it is normal to require a deposit for the first appeal (it certainly has always been the case in Denmark).

However, does the following save the day?

Law 93C3b said:

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.

which I basically read as "Law 93 applies except the RA decides otherwise."

[blackshoe]

duschek, on Oct 30 2009, 02:58 PM, said:

However, does the following save the day?

Law 93C3b said:

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.

which I basically read as "Law 93 applies except the RA decides otherwise."

Quite possibly. IAC, as you say, RAs have been doing what they do, and they aren't gonna stop just 'cause I say so.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Oct 30 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

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.

Blackshoe misunderstands me. I wrote about cases where the adviser judges that the appeal has merit.

Notwithstanding, I doubt Blackshoe's claim that if the adviser advises against the appeal, then the committee will always rule against the appellants -- although, obviously that is a likely outcome.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on Oct 30 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

Notwithstanding, I doubt Blackshoe's claim that if the adviser advises against the appeal, then the committee will always rule against the appellants -- although, obviously that is a likely outcome.

That's not what I said. Rather, if the appeal is judged (by the AC, whose job it is to make that judgment) to be without merit, then the AC will rule against the appellants. I would add that I find it highly unlikely that an AC would rule for the appellants and still call the appeal "without merit".

[mycroft]

What about when the advisor says "I don't expect you'll win this. I don't *think* it's a slamdunk, there are issues, but I would seriously think about it before appealing"? If that's "well, no, he didn't say 'I think you've got a case', or 'you have to appeal this, it's wrong', but he didn't say it was necessarily 'frivolous', so it's safe", then change the wording (either way) until you have a case.

Appeals advisors, at least when I've been (a highly unofficial, we don't have the post here) one, do tend to say things other than "yes" or "no". And they also make it clear that they may be missing something.

[blackshoe]

I must withdraw my earlier comment on the legality of sanctions for certain appeals. I missed Law 92A:

Quote

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the director. Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation.

The emphasis is mine.

[bluejak]

Just in time, blackshoe: I nearly posted that without reading to the end of the thread.



Players like to talk to Appeals Advisers. The make their case without any need to worry about the effect of this, and get advice. They give him a one-sided view, of course. Why deny them this?

If th Appeals Advisers were to decide an appeal had merit and that would be final then the players would tell the Appeals Adviser some tale or other that would mean he would say it had merit.

Furthermore, how on earth can the Appeals Adviser be certain he is right in every case without hearing all the evidence? So this would mean the appeal would have to be heard twice.

We have a working system: let us not change it for something that will ruin the impartiality and quality of advice given and persuade players to tell lies which will benefit themselves.

[nige1]

bluejak, on Nov 1 2009, 08:08 PM, said:

Players like to talk to Appeals Advisers. The make their case without any need to worry about the effect of this, and get advice. They give him a one-sided view, of course. Why deny them this?
If the Appeals Advisers were to decide an appeal had merit and that would be final then the players would tell the Appeals Adviser some tale or other that would mean he would say it had merit.
Furthermore, how on earth can the Appeals Adviser be certain he is right in every case without hearing all the evidence?  So this would mean the appeal would have to be heard twice.
We have a working system: let us not change it for something that will ruin the impartiality and quality of advice given and persuade players to tell lies which will benefit themselves.

OK. One more time
The appellants should have a chance to give their "one-sided view" to the adviser provided it is based on the recorded facts. The adviser need not "hear the appeal". Nor need he be "certain he is right". Appellants would be encouraged to consult by the knowledge that they won't lose their deposit if they can persuade the adviser that their case has merit. More consultation means fewer appeals.

[bluejak]

One more time: appeals are not based on recorded facts: they are based on what they are told. We have a working system which you want to replace with a new one that will neither work nor be fair nor will suit the players. Why?

[nige1]

bluejak, on Nov 2 2009, 07:52 AM, said:

One more time: appeals are not based on recorded facts: they are based on what they are told.  We have a working system which you want to replace with a new one that will neither work nor be fair nor will suit the players.  Why?

IMO: if "appeals are not based on recorded facts" then they should be. It is important that the director records the facts when called. And the players record their versions when there is an appeal. A contemporary history is more accurate, while events are fresh in everybody's mind. This seems to be normal practice under EBU regulations. Anyway, there should be a written record and the adviser and the committee should be allowed to read it before listening to argument.

[jeremy69]

I think there is some danger here of the appeals procedure taking over. Appeals Advisers have cut down on the number of appeals and I agree it is not a perfect system. The trouble with all this recording of facts in writing, allowing the adviser to read it, getting the committee to study it beofre the appeals is that it ignores why everyone is there (both players and also appeal committee members) i.e. to play bridge.
The current system is not perfect but, on the whole,I believe it works quite well and the adviser system has been an improvement over what went before.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Oct 30 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

That's not what I said. Rather, if the appeal is judged (by the AC, whose job it is to make that judgment) to be without merit, then the AC will rule against the appellants. I would add that I find it highly unlikely that an AC would rule for the appellants and still call the appeal "without merit".

Good We can agree on all that I thought that you were addressing my argument. Sorry