[pran]

 Trinidad, on 2014-December-25, 10:07, said:

Our club also has several fully certified TDs. The jobs of DIC and AC chair belong to them.

I am not quite comfortable with this. The primary job for an AC is to try TD judgements and the members of the AC should therefore be competent players rather than law experts. (I have of course no problem with an AC member being both.)

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2014-December-25, 10:07, said:

It helps a lot that the Dutch Bridge League has several levels of TDs. It is relatively simple to get a license for a "club leader". They know their way through the lawbook and can handle the technical infractions as "assistant TD". Our club also has several fully certified TDs.

Most London clubs have loads of Club and County certified directors, which is handy so as to share the task. Of course there are proprietary clubs as well, which pay a non-playing director.

On an only slightly related note, our local club has a movement director and a tournament director for our duplicate sessions. This shares out the jobs even more, especially as it broadens the pool, since it enables people who want one of the director roles but not the other to take part.

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2014-December-25, 10:50, said:

I am not quite comfortable with this. The primary job for an AC is to try TD judgements and the members of the AC should therefore be competent players rather than law experts. (I have of course no problem with an AC member being both.)

Did you read my post #5? The AC chair is a certified TD. The other AC members are players of appropriate skill. It is a coincidence that the AC chairs happen to belong to the better players at the club. (Though I think that you won't find many palookas among Dutch certified TDs, so it isn't entirely coincidental.)

Whenever I am AC chair (and I think I am taking the lion share of them), I tend to keep my opinion out of the judgement discussion. I only check that the procedure is followed and all questions get an answer. From time to time, I do take the role of the devil's advocate (for both devils ) to check whether the members have proper arguments to back up their judgement.

Staying out of the judgement discussions is not merely good for the integrity of the ruling. It also makes sure that the other AC members feel that they (the players) are making the ruling, and not some official (even if he didn't have a TD function during the session). That ensures that the members feel good about their job and are willing to donate their time again.

Rik

[pran]

 Trinidad, on 2014-December-25, 11:33, said:

Did you read my post #5? The AC chair is a certified TD. The other AC members are players of appropriate skill. It is a coincidence that the AC chairs happen to belong to the better players at the club. (Though I think that you won't find many palookas among Dutch certified TDs, so it isn't entirely coincidental.)

Whenever I am AC chair (and I think I am taking the lion share of them), I tend to keep my opinion out of the judgement discussion. I only check that the procedure is followed and all questions get an answer. From time to time, I do take the role of the devil's advocate (for both devils ) to check whether the members have proper arguments to back up their judgement.

Staying out of the judgement discussions is not merely good for the integrity of the ruling. It also makes sure that the other AC members feel that they (the players) are making the ruling, and not some official (even if he didn't have a TD function during the session). That ensures that the members feel good about their job and are willing to donate their time again.

Rik

No, I haven't particularly read that post, and I will state that your attitude described here is highly commendable.

regards

[Oof Arted]

 aguahombre, on 2014-December-23, 23:30, said:

The designated Director of a Club game, for whatever reason, tells a different qualified director to take a call. A player wishes to appeal the ruling.

Assume that both directors are capable of determining whether the objection is about law or about fact, and both know how to otherwise proceed -----

Should proceeding be lodged with the director who made the ruling, or with the actual director of the session?

Does it make a difference if the designated director was at the table (hence the reason for a ruling by the other guy)?

Looking for opinions about "good form" here, not expecting there is an "official" answer.

Have you all missed the point that the DIC of the night was actually a player involved ???

[VixTD]

A typical evening game at my local club (easily the largest and busiest in the county) doesn't resemble those described so far. We might have five, six or seven tables of largely mediocre players and an unqualified volunteer TD who would very quickly find themselves out of their depth if anything like an appeal were to come up.

About two years ago we had our first appeal for a long time. (I wasn't present on the night, but I had to pick up the pieces afterwards.) Luckily we had two players of national standard present who were familiar with the appeals process and not involved in the dispute. They roped in a third experienced player and conducted the appeal.

When the outcome didn't favour the appellant the club committee received a letter detailing how the appeal was flawed because two members of the committee were regular teammates of the defendants, the director had spoken harshly to someone or other, and half-a-dozen other reasons, and demanding it be reheard.

After an investigation the committee concluded that the appeal might not have been ideal, but had been conducted properly and was valid, so its decision would stand. But we also decided that if an appeal was going to cause this much aggro when conditions were so favourable (a reasonable TD, sufficient players of experience present, etc.) we would no longer convene a committee from among players on the night. Our new procedures are:

• The player informs the TD of their wish to appeal.
  
• The TD completes an appeal form with comments from the players and a £5 deposit* from the appellant.
  
• The form is passed on to me to ensure it is properly completed.
  
• I forward the form to our county referee (or another of the EBU panel referees if they're unavailable) for consideration.

Any member of the club committee (there's usually one present) is asked to check that this has been followed, lend a sympathetic ear and offer reassurance to any aggrieved party that the case will be considered etc.
*Deposits are normally £20 or £30, but the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee considered a token amount more appropriate for club games.

I expect it will be several years before this gets used, but at least we have a procedure.

[gordontd]

 VixTD, on 2015-January-09, 09:00, said:

*Deposits are normally £20 or £30, but the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee considered a token amount more appropriate for club games.

The trouble with larger amounts for club appeals is that then ACs are very unlikely to keep the deposit, even when they should.

[nige1]

In the OP case, if a player at the ruling-table is TD, he should delegate his authority to somebody else and recuse himself from further involvement in this case -- including consultation and the handling appeals. If nobody present is qualified and unbiased, then he should phone somebody, as VixTD suggests. That justice be seen to be done is important e.g. At Reading Bridge Club, against all advice, a TD gave a ruling at his wife's table -- with a predicable result.

[Oof Arted]

 nige1, on 2015-January-09, 11:01, said:

In the OP case, if a player at the ruling-table is TD, he should delegate his authority to somebody else and recuse himself from further involvement in this case -- including consultation and the handling appeals. If nobody present is qualified and unbiased, then he should phone somebody, as VixTD suggests. That justice be seen to be done is important e.g. At Reading Bridge Club, against all advice, a TD gave a ruling at his wife's table -- with a predicable result.

Serves him jolly well right

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2015-January-09, 11:01, said:

At Reading Bridge Club, against all advice, a TD gave a ruling at his wife's table -- with a predicable result.

If you can't give rulings at the tables of spouses, friends, partners, teammates, illicit lovers etc then you can't serve as TD at your local bridge club.

[RMB1]

 Vampyr, on 2015-January-12, 13:39, said:

If you can't give rulings at the tables of spouses, friends, partners, teammates, illicit lovers etc then you can't serve as TD at your local bridge club.

+1

Even at a national level in the EBU, there is no absolute prohibition; the only restriction is this.

Quote

The L&EC considered a hand where a TD had gone to a table to give a ruling where a blood relative was involved. It was understood there were times when this could not be avoided (e.g. the TD was the only one present). A different TD should attend the table whenever it is practicable to do so.

I have been a member of four different county associations, with friends in each. If I could not rule at tables involving those counties it would tough for me to TD at any of the county representative national events.

[Trinidad]

 gordontd, on 2015-January-09, 10:59, said:

The trouble with larger amounts for club appeals is that then ACs are very unlikely to keep the deposit, even when they should.

At the club, we don't take a deposit for an appeal. We do keep records of the appeals and do give appeal without merit warnings. If the AC would get the impression that a player is making too many frivolous appeals he will be warned that the next AWM will lead to a suspensions of his right to appeal. This hasn't happened yet.

As an aside, we did have a situation where we forbid a player to even call the TD (or appeal). The reason was that this player was going through a rough time with mental and social problems, and that he wouldn't be able to behave himself in the discussions with the TD or the opponents. So, he was allowed to ask his partner to call the TD, explaining to him why he thought that was necessary. Partner would decide whether the TD should be called (to the best of my knowledge he always did) and the troubled player would keep his mouth shut or simply leave the table.

This was important since the player could continue playing bridge at our club. Bridge played an important role in his life (and still does) and probably helped him to overcome his difficulties. If we wouldn't have taken this measure we would have had to suspend him alltogether and that would not have helped him.

Rik

[mycroft]

I thought the deposit for any appeal, club or otherwise, in England was "cost of one pint for each member of the AC" and if the deposit was kept, well...

[RMB1]

 mycroft, on 2015-January-13, 11:59, said:

I thought the deposit for any appeal, club or otherwise, in England was "cost of one pint for each member of the AC" and if the deposit was kept, well...

In the past, this was what it cost the DIC to get a committee together.

These days, retained deposits have an account code at the EBU and the whole thing is on an entirely different footing ...

[lamford]

 nige1, on 2015-January-09, 11:01, said:

At Reading Bridge Club, against all advice, a TD gave a ruling at his wife's table -- with a predicable result.

The context of that sentence suggests you meant "predictable", unless you were deliberately employing a Malapropism for humorous effect.