[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-01, 08:41, said:

The answer is still to make a bigger effort to make the initial TD rulings correct

I can't imagine what this effort would consist of, or that it would be successful.

I also don't know how TDs who are not expert players can possibly get better at ruling in judgment situations.

[Zelandakh]

Let me give you an example. Rugby referees have to make judgement decisions on scrums. The vast majority of referees have never played front row at all, let alone at the highest level. And yet they are required to make judgement calls on this part of the game. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong, as front-row specialists are often quick to point out. And yet it does not detract from the game as a whole and top level referees do receive training and advice on how to sort these things out and have been supported by rule changes that make these decisions (slightly) easier. I see no reason why bridge cannot support top level TDs to become, in effect, prfessinal quality referees. Yes, sometimes they will make mistakes but if the quality is high this will not detract from the game any more than an undeserved penalty "under the posts" does in rugby. And it is not like ACs do not make mistakes so things will even themselves out providing the TD level is high enough.

[Vampyr]

Sorry, you have lost me. I do not think that judging rugby scrums has anything to do with the thinking of those in the scrum, and in fact can be judged by inspection if the vantage point is suitable. What the players' peers would do in the same situation is not considered.

Still, I would like to know what form you think this training would take.

Rule changes, by the way, have made many TD decisions harder.

[paulg]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-03, 00:57, said:

Let me give you an example. Rugby referees have to make judgement decisions on scrums. The vast majority of referees have never played front row at all, let alone at the highest level. And yet they are required to make judgement calls on this part of the game. Yes, sometimes they get it wrong, as front-row specialists are often quick to point out. And yet it does not detract from the game as a whole and top level referees do receive training and advice on how to sort these things out and have been supported by rule changes that make these decisions (slightly) easier. I see no reason why bridge cannot support top level TDs to become, in effect, prfessinal quality referees. Yes, sometimes they will make mistakes but if the quality is high this will not detract from the game any more than an undeserved penalty "under the posts" does in rugby. And it is not like ACs do not make mistakes so things will even themselves out providing the TD level is high enough.

I think most people would feel that this supports Stefanie's argument Refereeing at the highest levels often determines the result of the game and they make a huge number of mistakes, certainly enough for ten or more appeals per game. However it is not practical for the game to stop at every incident nor investigate afterwards, so they cope as best they can. It is also noticeable that referees in the Northern Hemisphere interpret the laws very differently from those in the South, making it difficult for teams who travel.

[jallerton]

paulg, on 2013-July-03, 01:32, said:

It is also noticeable that referees in the Northern Hemisphere interpret the laws very differently from those in the South, making it difficult for teams who travel.

Sounds like the equivalent of bridge TDs travelling to/from the ACBL.

[jallerton]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-01, 08:41, said:

I think Andy's story points strongly towards what I have been saying regarding ACs, that we need to invest in our TDs and bring the standard up to a professional level. If TDs are too busy organising the tournament to spend the time and concentration needed on making rulings then something is going wrong. The answer is still to make a bigger effort to make the initial TD rulings correct rather than just accept that TDs are too busy to get everything right and bring in additional players to act as referees.

That's not necessarily the correct conclusion to draw.

TDs have many tasks to perform. Organising the tournament is a fundamental one and it's fairly easy to predict the amount of time which will be needed to achieve this. It's not possible to predict how many judgement rulings the TD will be asked to make, nor how complex those cases might be. In practice, a lot of judgement rulings are fairly easy to get right fairly quickly, in the sense that most decent TDs (or Referees) will reach the same conclusion. Most of these "easy" judgement rulings are not appealed.

The problem comes when the judgement issues are complex. The players don't necessarily have time at the table to explain their case to the TD, and the TD might not have the time (or possibly the bridge expertise) to cross-examine the players. One flaw with the procedure is that usually only one particular TD attends the table and hears the players' arguments. Of course, he will consult with other TDs, but those other TDs will have heard the players' arguments second or third hand. If the original TD didn't take in or understand everything that was said to him, or failed to ask an important question, then the whole team of TDs is ruling with incomplete information.

Contrast that with an AC. The AC will hear the facts and details of the original ruling from the TD, then the AC will hear from the appellants and their opponents. All of the AC membes can communicate with all of the players and makes an informed judgement based on what they have heard directly from the players themselves. Meanwhile, the players will feel reassured that they have made their points to the people who were responsible for taking the final decision.

[Zelandakh]

Saying that the organisation gets in the way is just a reinforcement of the issue at hand imho. This is one reason FIFA brought in the fourth official, to handle the admin tasks and let the referee and assistants get on with the job of officiating the game itself. On the issue of complex rulings, what if the TD training involved being able to tell the difference between a simple ruling and one that required further analysis? Then times can be set aside for additional information can be collected in these cases. In other words, give the TD team the same benefits that an AC have for the initial (and final) ruling.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-04, 01:42, said:

Saying that the organisation gets in the way is just a reinforcement of the issue at hand imho. This is one reason FIFA brought in the fourth official, to handle the admin tasks and let the referee and assistants get on with the job of officiating the game itself. On the issue of complex rulings, what if the TD training involved being able to tell the difference between a simple ruling and one that required further analysis? Then times can be set aside for additional information can be collected in these cases. In other words, give the TD team the same benefits that an AC have for the initial (and final) ruling.

Consider this scenario: a player asks for a ruling, the TD judges that it's simple, and the TD gives a ruling without further analysis. However, the player believes that it's a complex ruling. What happens next?

[Zelandakh]

We improve the training so that the TDs become better at recognising the difference, or we explain to the player why (s)he is wrong. Clearly, not every player is going to be satisfied with every ruling.

[gnasher]

So you want a relatively junior TD to judge whether he's competent to make a given ruling?

[Zelandakh]

I want the junior TD doing the movement and the senior TDs doing the rulings. Why do we have trainees at top events anyway?

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-04, 09:24, said:

I want the junior TD doing the movement and the senior TDs doing the rulings. Why do we have trainees at top events anyway?

Another labelling problem. Junior does not mean trainee; senior does not mean more Bridge savvy than Junior. Junior might have more playing experience or be an avid student of laws and rulings, while Senior might be an excellent leader/organizer with unknown Bridge judgement.

[gnasher]

"Relatively junior" means "relatively junior", not "junior".

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2013-July-04, 09:57, said:

"Relatively junior" means "relatively junior", not "junior".

Actually "junior" is relative, and relatively junior is redundant.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-04, 01:42, said:

Saying that the organisation gets in the way is just a reinforcement of the issue at hand imho. This is one reason FIFA brought in the fourth official, to handle the admin tasks and let the referee and assistants get on with the job of officiating the game itself. On the issue of complex rulings, what if the TD training involved being able to tell the difference between a simple ruling and one that required further analysis? Then times can be set aside for additional information can be collected in these cases. In other words, give the TD team the same benefits that an AC have for the initial (and final) ruling.

So, keep the appeals process the same but use TDs on the panels instead of expert players -- and this is supposed to be an improvement? LOL what happens if there is more than one appeal?

The solution is simple, really. Don't pay expenses for a special panel; use volunteer players like in the EBU. They don't even have to be volunteers, strictly speaking; giving them a small fee for serving on a committee would save a lot over paying the expenses of dedicated committee members.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2013-July-04, 03:34, said:

We improve the training so that the TDs become better at recognising the difference, or we explain to the player why (s)he is wrong. Clearly, not every player is going to be satisfied with every ruling.

This "training" is an illusion. What they would need to be trained in is becoming expert bridge players. This takes many years, and most people do not achieve it.

aguahombre, on 2013-July-04, 10:41, said:

Actually "junior" is relative, and relatively junior is redundant.

Some of the worst nonsense I have seen on these forums in recent months, and that is saying something.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-04, 10:52, said:

Some of the worst nonsense I have seen on these forums in recent months, and that is saying something.

In other words, you didn't comprehend it.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-04, 10:52, said:

This [TD] "training" is an illusion. What they would need to be trained in is becoming expert bridge players. This takes many years, and most people do not achieve it.

Unfortunately, the EBL and WBF seem to have made up their minds on this appeals-committee issue. Perhaps, now, we should constructively argue about how to mitigate the bad effects of that decision, rather than try vainly to close the stable-door.
What can be done to make director-decisions easier and more consistent? In particular, less dependent on judgement and less dependent on bridge-expertise?
IMO, the WBFLC should abandon its so-called "equity" principle and reverse its policy of devolving responsibility to local regulators/directors; then start a project to structure, simplify, objectify and clarify universal Bridge rules that are more comprehensive, consistent, deterrent, easy to understand, and easy to enforce.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-04, 11:22, said:

In other words, you didn't comprehend it.

No it's just rubbish. Number of years for example purposes only.

There is not a day when you clock up 5 years service that you move from junior to senior. 0-3 years could be considered junior, 9 years plus could be considered senior, 3-5 (or 0-5) as relatively junior is not silly. Ditto if you have a scale with 6 or 8 ranks,

[aguahombre]

A comparative adjective compares. Sorry, I thought this was obvious.