[alphatango]

In an attempt to avoid conflicting discussions in the "Poor claim" thread, I repeat the relevant portions of posts below.

A case was posted in which the OP noted: "E-W appeal, 23 IMPs at stake, Butler. To be held in 6 days time." I suggested that

alphatango said:

If this means the appeal is yet to take place, perhaps we should defer discussion until after the hearing?

with which gordontd agreed. mrdct responded:

mrdct said:

I'm not entirely convinced about the subjudice thing. It is the responsibility of the members of the NSWBA Appeals Committee to keep themselves pure and recuse themselves if their independence may have been compromised by trawling through bridge forums.

The OP, shevek, said:

shevek said:

The AC is unlikely to read any of this. If they do, can't see that being a bad thing.
I look at this panel as a bunch of appeals advisors. If everyone said "EW have no chance, save your money/VPs" we might duck out.

Finally, nige1 stated that "I doubt that BBF ramblings will influence the committee. If they do, so much the better.", and bluejak chimed in with

bluejak said:

As for whether we should discuss sub judice matters, I really see no point in worrying once the case is posted and there are some replies. Certainly it might be better if it had never been posted but that is too late now.

* * *

It may not be worth worrying about that particular thread now, but there may well be a point in establishing a principle for the future. IMO:

• An appeal is ultimately an adversarial proceeding. Arguments may be brought up in a thread which are not repeated during the hearing, but which nevertheless influence a member. This is obviously unfair to the side that does not get a chance to respond.
• The case as posted may always be subtly different from the case as presented to the committee. Again, if unaware of the forum discussion, a side may not have the opportunity to demonstrate where the differences are and why they matter.
• I agree, of course, that adjudicators should recuse themselves where necessary. That includes both members and pollees, where a (perhaps supplementary) poll is taken between the decision and the hearing. However, it is a fact that at least one other person knows that you've had a conversation in real life about a case; the same is not true of reading a forum thread.

I am not suggesting, of course, that anything improper occurred with the posted case! To invoke a cliche, however, justice should not only be done, it should be seen to be done. Deferring discussion of cases pending appeal seems to me to be an appropriate step in that direction.

Obviously, it's nice to have this forum as a substitute for an appeals advisor, and perhaps we can't really stop people from using it in that way. I would not be unhappy if there was a general principle of "post your potential appeal if you want, but we'll be keeping our responses private until the appeal is heard". Maybe I'm just being unrealistic.

[nige1]

Alphatango has persuaded me.

[Cyberyeti]

In a previous case, I published some stuff on here for opinions. I was considering taking an appeal to the next level up and decided that once I published it on these boards, I lost the right to do so as several members of the L&E had seen it here.

Bluejak said to me that I had not forfeited that right, and I was entitled to take the case further. In the end I decided not to as the poisonous atmosphere being created in local bridge by this whole affair was getting silly (somebody thought the phrase "Probst cheat" was an accusation of serious impropriety and threatened to call in the lawyers at one point). Add to this that there are only about 8 people in Norfolk capable of dealing with this as a county appeals committee and all were already involved.