[Rossoneri]

(I would first like to state that I was not present at the event, hence I do not claim to have the full/correct picture in any way.)

More from the recently concluded APBF Championships. I'll quote the relevant bits from the bulletin.

From Day 5's Bulletin: Page 9

Quote

Appeals Committe
Chairman: Richard Grenside (Australia)
Members:
1. Santje Panelewan (Indonesia)
2. Ju Chuangcheng (China)
3. Nakatani (Japan)
4. Kirk Chen (Chinese Taipei)
5. Leo Cheung (China Hong Kong)

From Day 6's Bulletin: Page 12

Quote

Chairman: Richard Grenside (Australia)
Members: Nakatani, Santje Panelewan, Leo Cheung

From Day 7's Bulletin: Page 11

Quote

Appeal No 3
Chairman: Richard Grenside (Australia)
Members: Nakatani, Santje Panelewan, Leo Cheung, Kirk Chen, Ju Chuancheng
Event: Senior Round 2 - 1 Board 25
Team: Australia vs New Calendonia

And on Day 8: Page 7

This short piece in the bulletin was entitled "Very Strange". There is no clear indication who the author is.

Somehow it is hard not to notice how strangely the Appeals Committee works. Some seemingly frivolous
appeals seem to have gone unnoticed, which I believe, sets very dangerous precedents in the APBF
when these appeal cases are published in the bulletins. Could this encourage more “groundless” appeals
and upset the friendly atmosphere of the APBF is anybody’s guess!! Up to now the China teams have not
filed any appeals nor have any of the rulings in their favour being appealed. Strangely enough, their
appointed Appeals Committee member has sat on the panel only once, while some other members are
“regulars”, even when his own NBO’s teams were involved. Makes me wonder how the whole thing
works.

--------------------------------

General Conditions of Contest (forgot to add this!)

1) Is it usual practice to have a named appeals committee?
2) In appeal case 3, the chairman is from the same country as one of the sides involved - this strikes me as highly unusual in a tournament where players are representing their countries. I don't think this is common practice? (To be fair, I can understand if they wanted a highly qualified TD to be chairing the appeals committee, and I am in no way doubting anyone's impartiality here.)
3) In the other thread regarding a specific appeal, there was a commentary the following day. And then, another one. Again, this strikes me as being highly unusual. I'm also slightly worried as the wording seems strong and the "accused" parties do not have a fair chance to defend themselves. Thoughts?

This post has been edited by Rossoneri: 2011-June-26, 23:16

[mrdct]

I was the NPC of the Australian Open team at the event in question and we appealed a ruling from our match versus Chinese Taipei regarding a disputed claim. Mr Grenside did in fact chair the appeal but made it very clear that he would not be participating in the deliberations, would be abstaining from the vote and would be there solely to ensure that correct procedure was followed. As it turned out, we lost the appeal but did I get my deposit back. It was an interesting case which I may post at some further point in time, but I accepted the appeals committee's decision and have every reason to believe that both sides got a completely fair hearing; I was just unable to properly argue my "it would take an irrational play to go down" contention.

Mr Grenside was neither a player nor captain of any of the five Australian teams contesting the APBF Championships. As far as I know, he was at the event primarily to be the appeals committee chairman but also to attend some of the zonal adminstrative meetings on behalf of the ABF. It may have been a good idea to have deputy chairs to cover potential conflicts of interest, but that would of course result in additional cost, and few would have Mr Grenside's experience in this area. It was clearly articulated at the opening captains' meeting what the appeals process and committee composition were and nobody, including directing staff all of whom were present, raised any concerns or objections.

The thing I found most surprising was not the composition of the appeals committees but the way which apparent dissatisfaction with appeals committee decisions and processes received an airing in the event's daily bulletin; particularly given that the dissatisfaction was expressed anonymously. Please note that this is my own personal view and not an official view of the Australian Bridge Federation.