[blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs

[Adam Wildavsky]

Next week the ACBL's Board of Directors will consider a motion to 
replace Appeals Committees of players with Appeals Committees of TDs 
for NABC+ events. These are our premier events such as the Spingold 
and the LM Pairs. The motion is posted here:

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/about/ChicagoMotions.pdf

This is the text:

"Item 062-90: NABC Appeals
ACBL Tournament Directors shall hear and rule upon all appeals filed 
at North American Bridge Championships. All NABC+ appeals shall be 
heard by Tournament Director Panels in a manner similar to regional 
appeal hearings (Ref: 983-02, 992-02). All conduct and Ethics matters 
shall be referred to and heard by the NABC Tournament Committee or to 
their assignees."

I think this is a poor idea. I have posted a copy of my letter to Jim 
Reiman, the chairman of the board's bridge committee, below. If you 
are an ACBL member and you agree with me please drop Jim a line, with 
a copy to your district director and to me. Jim's address is 
district11director at acbl dot org.

A short note is fine. Motions like this typically don't get much 
publicity, so the board hears only from their proponents. I hope to 
help demonstrate that there is no consensus on this issue.

No doubt some will disagree with me - I suppose you should write too.

===================

Dear Jim,

I've learned that in Chicago the BOD will consider a motion to 
replace player ACs with TD Panels.

I strongly support the current method of using appeals committees for 
NABC events.

Since this matter first came up four years ago I've been publishing 
detailed statistics regarding the results of ACs and Panels. They can 
be found here:

http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/nabc_casebook_summaries.html

While the judgment of correctness in each case is mine I have 
published all my findings and invited casebook readers to challenge 
any they disagree with. I've received only a handful of such 
challenges, and have modified my findings whenever the challenge 
seemed reasonable.

My data cover 293 AC and 222 Panel rulings over a period of five 
years, through the Dallas NABC. In brief, I found that when ACs 
changed TD rulings, and excluding cases I judged too close to call, 
they improved them 82% of the time and worsened them 18% of the time. 
I feel terrible about that 18%, especially since some of those were 
perpetrated by committees I served on or even chaired. Panels, 
however, had a poorer record, improving 72% of the rulings they 
changed while worsening 28%, again excluding cases I judged too close 
to call. This difference becomes more significant if we take into 
account that cases heard by Panels tend to be more straightforward 
than those heard by ACs.

On a practical basis, then, I don't see what is to be accomplished by 
instituting a system that we can expect will produce more injustice 
than the current one. The cost savings, if any, would seem to be 
minor.

In terms of jurisprudence I also find the proposal lacking. Since 
both the TDs who make the decision and the members of the panel 
report to the Chief TD the appeal in effect is from one jurisdiction 
into that same jurisdiction. When decisions are made by our top TDs, 
who have consulted with other top TDs, a panel of TDs will naturally 
be reluctant to overturn the decision.

Players enjoy our tournaments in large part because they perceive 
them to be fair. It's important that we should be seen to do our 
utmost to maintain that fairness.

Regards,

Adam Wildavsky  <adam at tameware.com>


--