[nige1]

Spit off from another thread ...

Is it legal to record complaints about the behaviour and ethics of players (ACBL)? or their psyching history (EBU)? Is privacy law (like the UK Data-protection act) relevant to such protocols? Are they appropriate to a game? Are they kept assiduously? Are they consulted locally,/nationally/internationally?

IMO the basic laws of Bridge should incorporate more sanctions and be more deterrent without reliance on ill-defined hit-or-miss ancillary procedures For example, if a concealed partnership understanding is against the law, then directors should try to determine its occurrence, after a single suspicious incident, on the balance of probability.

Procedural and disciplinary penalties are rarely and capriciously applied so we should be even more wary of secret recorder forms.

Presumably it would still be legal to publish the results of appeals? They constitute a useful, permanent, and public record.

[hrothgar]

I am not a lawyer. However, I would be shocked if it were illegal to record complaints about the behavior or ethics of players.
(Publishing this information is a whole different kettle of fish, but life becomes unworkable if you can't maintain basic records)

As an obvious example: Many colleges and universities maintain private judicial systems that quite assiduously track complaints about behavior and ethics.

With this said and done, I suspect that maintaining a functional recorder system is well beyond the organization capacity of the ACBL.

[Vampyr]

I think recorder forms are an excellent idea; there is no other way to establish a pattern of forgotten agreements. I wish we had them in the EBU, but I suspect that many players would feel that it was a bit churlish to call the director while writing +1100 in their scorecard after yet another Ghestem mixup.

[gnasher]

When you agree to participate in a bridge tournament, you agree to the rules of the bridge tournament. The EBU's rules say that records about psyches may be kept. Hence you have consented to such records being kept.

I'm sure you can read the Data Protection Act as well as I can, but I believe that this is sufficient to allow the EBU to do what it does. The Act requires them to make sure that the records are accurate, adequate, relevant, etc, and to use them only for the purpose for which they were collected. And if you ask for a copy of the data they hold about you, they have to provide it.

[RMB1]

 gnasher, on 2013-February-06, 11:05, said:

I'm sure you can read the Data Protection Act as well as I can, but I believe that this is sufficient to allow the EBU to do what it does. The Act requires them to make sure that the records are accurate, adequate, relevant, etc, and to use them only for the purpose for which they were collected. And if you ask for a copy of the data they hold about you, they have to provide it.

If I remember correctly, the EBU does not want a system of recorder forms that are completed by opponents and not seen by the players whose behaviour is recorded, because the players will not know there are records held about them, and would not be able to challenge the data held.

[barmar]

It seems like it would be reasonable to require that players be notified when records have been filed against them. If cheating is suspected, this might interfere with investigation, because now they'll be more careful. But knowing that they're being scrutinized could deter them from cheating entirely, which is a fine result, too.

[Vampyr]

 RMB1, on 2013-February-06, 13:12, said:

If I remember correctly, the EBU does not want a system of recorder forms that are completed by opponents and not seen by the players whose behaviour is recorded, because the players will not know there are records held about them, and would not be able to challenge the data held.

I shouldn't have thought that there would ever be the possibility of not showing the form to the pair in question, and inviting their comments.

[RMB1]

 Vampyr, on 2013-February-06, 19:02, said:

I shouldn't have thought that there would ever be the possibility of not showing the form to the pair in question, and inviting their comments.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought that in the ACBL, recorder forms were filled in by the opponents and passed to the appropriate recorder and not shown to the players.

[Mbodell]

 RMB1, on 2013-February-07, 02:50, said:

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought that in the ACBL, recorder forms were filled in by the opponents and passed to the appropriate recorder and not shown to the players.

IME (observing friends and team mates, never filled one out myself), that is how it is done. The players reporting/recording/complaining and a TD are aware. The opponents (I.e., the players who exhibited the questionable behavior/action) are not. Part of this is to prevent accusations of cheating and/or fist fights from breaking out.

[Vampyr]

 RMB1, on 2013-February-07, 02:50, said:

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought that in the ACBL, recorder forms were filled in by the opponents and passed to the appropriate recorder and not shown to the players.

How is this done? Are the pair being recorded sent from the table when the director arrives? And how are the facts verified if all four players are not present?

Anyway, when I suggested that recorder forms might be a good idea in the EBU, I was not proposing that we adopt this procedure.

[RMB1]

 Vampyr, on 2013-February-07, 03:05, said:

How is this done? Are the pair being recorded sent from the table when the director arrives? And how are the facts verified if all four players are not present?

As I understand it, recorder forms are completed by the complaining pair away from the table, away from the offending pair. There is no verification of the facts. The TD may or may not have been called at the time, but the TD is not necessarily involved in the process. The complaining pair record the bad behavio[u]r or suspicious auction and the form goes on file. When there is sufficient evidence to convict, then the offending pair may be presented with the evidence (but by then it is too late to question individual reports).

[blackshoe]

 RMB1, on 2013-February-07, 03:12, said:

As I understand it, recorder forms are completed by the complaining pair away from the table, away from the offending pair. There is no verification of the facts. The TD may or may not have been called at the time, but the TD is not necessarily involved in the process. The complaining pair record the bad behavio[u]r or suspicious auction and the form goes on file. When there is sufficient evidence to convict, then the offending pair may be presented with the evidence (but by then it is too late to question individual reports).

http://www.acbl.org/play/recorder.html

Note particularly item 9.5.

[barmar]

But also note 9.4. If the player memo is not deemed to be the basis for a complaint, it's simply filed away for future reference. I believe the intent is that a single incident will often not prompt an investigation, and there's no requirement to notify the subject. But repeated player memos regarding the same subject suggest a pattern of behavior, and an investigation will then take place.

There's one part of that document that has be very confused:

Quote

7.4 A recorder may not be a member of any bridge appeals committee: however, this may create a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
7.5 A recorder should decline to serve on a bridge appeals committee when other qualified people are available.

I have a feeling the not in 7.4 was unintended. The clause starting with "however" doesn't make sense after it, and 7.5 should be totally unnecessary.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-February-07, 10:59, said:

I have a feeling the not in 7.4 was unintended. The clause starting with "however" doesn't make sense after it, and 7.5 should be totally unnecessary.

The Recorder regs are available in pdf. In that document, the "not" does not appear in 7.4 and 7.5 doesn't appear at all. The pdf is labelled "effective August 2010". The html page doesn't seem to have an effective date on it.

[jeffford76]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-07, 11:08, said:

The Recorder regs are available in pdf. In that document, the "not" does not appear in 7.4 and 7.5 doesn't appear at all. The pdf is labelled "effective August 2010". The html page doesn't seem to have an effective date on it.

The board of directors passed changes in 2009: http://web2.acbl.org...ard_minutes.pdf

[Vampyr]

 RMB1, on 2013-February-07, 03:12, said:

When there is sufficient evidence to convict, then the offending pair may be presented with the evidence (but by then it is too late to question individual reports).

Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-07, 11:08, said:

The Recorder regs are available in pdf. In that document, the "not" does not appear in 7.4 and 7.5 doesn't appear at all. The pdf is labelled "effective August 2010". The html page doesn't seem to have an effective date on it.

It looks like the only way to find the HTML page is from the search box. When I look for pages with links to regulations, they point to the PDFs.

It's a common problem to forget to delete obsolete files on a web site.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-February-07, 19:35, said:

It's a common problem to forget to delete obsolete files on a web site.

Very common where the ACBL site is concerned. I do expect that's what's happened.