[jeremy69]

Quote

Plus there is no accounting and holding of the monies or passing them back and forth

Oh yes there is, at least in England where the level is £20 in pairs and £30 in teams. Deposits are noted on the appeal form. When retained they pass into the safe hands of the director and they are accounted for as part of Laws and Ethics committee income the details of which are publicly available.
However don't let the facts get in the way of good, solid prejudice or some dodgy innuendo.

[peachy]

bluejak, on May 25 2010, 05:59 AM, said:

As for the remark about no accounting for the money and all the nasty insinuations coming from that, the remark is clearly libellous and I strongly suggest you withdraw it.

What?
Can you please explain because I don't understand why you said this. I don't see in my post nor did I intend to cause any insinuations of any sort nor nasty insinuations of any sort.

[bluejak]

peachy, on May 25 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

bluejak, on May 25 2010, 05:59 AM, said:

As for the remark about no accounting for the money and all the nasty insinuations coming from that, the remark is clearly libellous and I strongly suggest you withdraw it.

What?
Can you please explain because I don't understand why you said this. I don't see in my post nor did I intend to cause any insinuations of any sort nor nasty insinuations of any sort.

Quote

Plus there is no accounting and holding of the monies or passing them back and forth.

To suggest money is not accounted for is to suggest that it is not safe, and may be finishing in the wrong hands. It is difficult to see any other reason for this remark, especially the first half of the sentence.

[cherdanno]

I think peachy meant to say that if you do away with the money deposits, then you don't have to deal with the accounting and handling of them.

[peachy]

bluejak, on May 25 2010, 07:26 PM, said:

peachy, on May 25 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

bluejak, on May 25 2010, 05:59 AM, said:

As for the remark about no accounting for the money and all the nasty insinuations coming from that, the remark is clearly libellous and I strongly suggest you withdraw it.

What?
Can you please explain because I don't understand why you said this. I don't see in my post nor did I intend to cause any insinuations of any sort nor nasty insinuations of any sort.

Quote

Plus there is no accounting and holding of the monies or passing them back and forth.

To suggest money is not accounted for is to suggest that it is not safe, and may be finishing in the wrong hands. It is difficult to see any other reason for this remark, especially the first half of the sentence.

I am still baffled at how it could be misunderstood as suggesting what you believe it suggested. English is not my native language but perhaps it needs more work than I ever imagined...

I stated how things would be with no-deposit appeals, the subject I was talking about: "when appeals are with no deposits, then there is no accounting of monies etc, one less chore involved in the process". That is ALL.

[jeremy69]

Quote

I prefer appeals with no money deposit involved. That makes the process fair for everyone

There maybe some discussion to come in England about this. What are the alternatives? The reason for some sort of deposit is to deter appeals which waste everyones time. My experience of the amount of money suggest that few if any think it will break the bank and when the deposit is lost it is the affront rather than not being able to afford dinner that is the problem. It's possible to have the deposit in matchpoints or victory points but that won't dissuade players from appeals when these don't matter. It is not unheard of for an appeal in England to be a matter of whether someone finishes 66th or 67th and upon careful enquiry it maybe because they want their masterpoints. In some cases the deposit being in masterpoints might be effective but others would laugh at the thought of losing a couple of green points.
I do think it is important whatever the method to have some consistency and the back of appeal forms have the criteria for withholding the deposit so everyone knows but unfortunately there are a couple of mavericks who don't agree with the deposit system and instead of declining to sit on appeals carry out their mission from the committee room. I won't serve with a couple of them because they also typically try to rule according to their own version of the law as well.

[abz1]

If North argued that his partners 3NT bid accepts hearts (since he could have sign-off in hearts), would you allow 4♥ bid?

[CSGibson]

abz1, on May 26 2010, 05:43 AM, said:

If North argued that his partners 3NT bid accepts hearts (since he could have sign-off in hearts), would you allow 4♥ bid?

No. They have no agreement to that effect, and if they did have that agreement, it would also probably mandate a 4♦ retransfer.

[bluejak]

peachy, on May 26 2010, 08:35 AM, said:

bluejak, on May 25 2010, 07:26 PM, said:

peachy, on May 25 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

bluejak, on May 25 2010, 05:59 AM, said:

As for the remark about no accounting for the money and all the nasty insinuations coming from that, the remark is clearly libellous and I strongly suggest you withdraw it.

What?
Can you please explain because I don't understand why you said this. I don't see in my post nor did I intend to cause any insinuations of any sort nor nasty insinuations of any sort.

Quote

Plus there is no accounting and holding of the monies or passing them back and forth.

To suggest money is not accounted for is to suggest that it is not safe, and may be finishing in the wrong hands. It is difficult to see any other reason for this remark, especially the first half of the sentence.

I am still baffled at how it could be misunderstood as suggesting what you believe it suggested. English is not my native language but perhaps it needs more work than I ever imagined...

I stated how things would be with no-deposit appeals, the subject I was talking about: "when appeals are with no deposits, then there is no accounting of monies etc, one less chore involved in the process". That is ALL.

The word "then" would have helped. You were talking about no money deposits, and then added something without the word "then". It appears I substituted the word "because". It still looks a normal reading to me, but I see what you mean.

[Bbradley62]

awm, on May 24 2010, 12:02 AM, said:

It may be worth a poll here. For most of us, passing 3NT seems like a very logical alternative. But before we give an appeal without merit, we should poll players of roughly the skill level of N/S. If most of them would not pass 3NT even if partner explained the 3♦ bid as a transfer, then I believe the appeal does have merit in spite of the opinion of better players.

Nonetheless, it's hard to see why 4♣ wouldn't be a logical alternative.

The appeals committee should not have to poll North's peers; the committee should BE COMPRISED OF North's peers. When I was elected to my ABCL unit's board as a 23-year-old with about 50 master points, one of my immediate goals was to have such a practice initiated at our tournaments; it is not right for Flight B players' actions/motives/thoughts to be judged by Flight A players.

As a potential member of that committee, I would say that there are two reasonable bids following:
(p)-1N-(2♠)-3♦* alerted as xfer to hearts
3♠-3N-(p)-.
Those two reasonable bids are pass and 4♣. The 4♥ result cannot stand.

In ACBL-land, since we do not assign weighted results, the director's response is 100% correct. I would also vote that the appeal is without merit.

Outside of ACBL-land, it might be that the director's ruling was inaccurate because it might be right to weight the expected results of playing 3N and 5♣. Of course, if North/South want the committee to consider this, the appeal would have to say so.

[blackshoe]

Bbradley62, on Jun 24 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

The appeals committee should not have to poll North's peers; the committee should BE COMPRISED OF North's peers.  When I was elected to my ABCL unit's board as a 23-year-old with about 50 master points, one of my immediate goals was to have such a practice initiated at our tournaments; it is not right for Flight B players' actions/motives/thoughts to be judged by Flight A players.

While I agree in principle that a committee should be comprised in the main of a player's peers, it is often not possible to arrange that. Also, at a large tournament, you'd have to have either a large committee, or several committees each peers of one or another group.

I've often heard it said that while B players aren't capable of thinking like A players (else they would be A players), A players are capable of thinking like B players. Having met a few A players of whom that seems to be untrue, I would disagree.

Quote

Outside of ACBL-land, it might be that the director's ruling was inaccurate because it might be right to weight the expected results of playing 3N and 5♣.  Of course, if North/South want the committee to consider this, the appeal would have to say so.

This is inaccurate. Either you use Law 12C1{c} and weight the scores, or you use 12C1{e} as the ACBL does. In a jurisdiction where the former is true, the AC would be expected to weight the scores, and consider possible weightings, even if the appellants didn't specifically ask them to do so.

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on Jun 24 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

While I agree in principle that a committee should be comprised in the main of a player's peers, it is often not possible to arrange that. Also, at a large tournament, you'd have to have either a large committee, or several committees each peers of one or another group.
<<snip>>
Either you use Law 12C1{c} and weight the scores, or you use 12C1{e} as the ACBL does. In a jurisdiction where the former is true, the AC would be expected to weight the scores, and consider possible weightings, even if the appellants didn't specifically ask them to do so.

If we're speaking about Flight B, not Flight C (or lower), it should always be possible to include B players on the committee. If the tournament announces (either publicly or privately) that they need Flight B players to agree to be on appeals committees, these players come out of the woodwork.


On the second point, I sit corrected.

[bluejak]

The problem with using Flight B players to judge other Flight B players [and, of course, more extremely, Flight C players] is that Flight B players are not as good judges of bridge play as Flight A players. While at first sight it might be thought that Flight B players would be good judges of other Flight B players I do not believe that is the case since the mistakes in judgement by one Flight B player are not likely to be the same mistakes in judgement that are made by another Flight B player. I believe Flight A players are more able to judge what Flight B and Flight C players would do than their peers.

[Bbradley62]

bluejak, on Jun 24 2010, 08:07 PM, said:

The problem with using Flight B players to judge other Flight B players [and, of course, more extremely, Flight C players] is that Flight B players are not as good judges of bridge play as Flight A players. While at first sight it might be thought that Flight B players would be good judges of other Flight B players I do not believe that is the case since the mistakes in judgement by one Flight B player are not likely to be the same mistakes in judgement that are made by another Flight B player. I believe Flight A players are more able to judge what Flight B and Flight C players would do than their peers.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. There are plenty of Flight B players who know enough about the game to handle this situation properly. Many of them even teach beginner/advanced beginner bridge classes at clubs or at local schools' continuing ed programs. The fact that you would suggest polling North's peers should be conclusive evidence that they should have been included in the committee in the first place.

I do, however, agree that this doesn't extend to Flight C or Novice players.

[blackshoe]

I know some Flight C (at best) players who are teaching beginning bridge classes.

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on Jun 24 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

I've often heard it said that while B players aren't capable of thinking like A players (else they would be A players), A players are capable of thinking like B players. Having met a few A players of whom that seems to be untrue, I would disagree.

This amused me. As a Flight B player, I used to occassionally play with a Flight A friend who had lost the ability to think like a Flight B player. Therefore, we agreed that he was in charge of table-action against Flight A opponents, and I was in charge against Flight B opponents :-)

[jeremy69]

Quote

should be comprised in the main of a player's peers

The pedant in me rejects this phrasing. I don't think(or at least granny taught me) that "comprised of" is English. How about either "should comprise, in the main, a player's peers" or "should consist of, in the main, a players peers"?

[FrancesHinden]

While it might be helpful for the committee to be of a player's peers when it comes to judging whether a call is a logical alternative, committees may have to do a lot more than that:

- decide how the play might have gone in a number of alternative contracts
- judge how likely it is that a player would have done at the table what he claims he would have done after the event
- at least one member of the committee needs a good understanding of (some of) the laws - at least good enough to know when to ask a TD for advice

that's why polls are a good idea before the hand gets to appeal (or even before it gets to a ruling) - you can try and find some peers to get an idea of LAs.

The problem with very poor players (probably rather worse than B players, though I have no experience of ACBL flighting) is that they don't have peers; no-one knows what they will do. Rulings with good players, or at least sensible players, at the table are much, much easier. Bad players invent all sorts of absurd things to do at the table that simply wouldn't occur to some of their so-called peers, who would be pursuing some other strange idea.

Some of the hardest rulings come after a longish auction, you have to decide what actions are LAs, and you cannot find anyone who agrees with the auction so far, so effectively you cannot find a peer playing the same system and approach.