[jallerton]

Person A is asked to sit on an appeals committee and it transpires that person B, whom A knows, is one of the people appealing.

In which of the following circumstances should person A excuse themselves from sitting on the appeal due to a perceived bias/conflict of interests?

1. Person A and person B are related to each other.

2. Person A and person B are good friends.

3. Person A often partners person B.

4. Person A used to be a regular partner of person B, but they don't play together anymore.

5. Person A and person B are regular team-mates.

6. Person A and person B are regular team-mates. When they do play in the same tean, B pays A to do so.

7. Person A and person B used to be regular team-mates, but are not anymore.

If your answers depend on other factors, please specify.

[CSGibson]

Definitely 1 and 6. The others have varying degrees of conflict of interest, I would think it appropriate to recuse yourself if you think that you would be influenced by your relationship; if you don't think you would be influenced by the relationship, I would disclose the relationship to all involved, indicate that you think you could be impartial despite the relationship, and then serve if and only if all involved parties are comfortable with you as an appeals committee member.

[mrdct]

I agree with Chris that 1 & 6 are no-nos, but I think you also ned to consider whether or not Person A has a good track record of contributing to sensible AC decisions in spite of perceived or actual conflicts, big or small, and the availability of other suitable AC members.

[phil_20686]

I would say 6 for sure, and probably 1.

I think that the most important criteria is that the result should not concievably affect the team of an ac members.

I once saw an appeals comitee formed where one of the players on the AC could move up to first or down to second, based on the outcome of the appeal. Admittedly it was a nothing competition, but still.

[ArtK78]

The players on both side of the appeal should be informed of any potential conflict of interest and be given the opportunity to remove a member of the AC prior to the case being heard. If, for some reason, this is not possible, the parties may be forced to live with the situation, but it is not ideal.

[Trinidad]

For me this quite simple: All of the above, as long as their are logical alternative AC members.

In a large tournament, you can chose from a large number of potential AC members. If you are dealing with an appeal in a small bridge club, it is almost inevitable that people are good friends with one or more of the players involved.

Rik

[TimG]

ArtK78, on 2012-September-17, 09:31, said:

The players on both side of the appeal should be informed of any potential conflict of interest and be given the opportunity to remove a member of the AC prior to the case being heard.

I suspect the reason for the question is to find out which of these relationships might be presumed to be a conflict of interest. It's probably a good idea to have an objective set of rules in place to avoid a situation where someone claims all sort of conflicts in order to hinder the process.

I would say 1, 2, & 6 should definitely be avoided. 3 & 5 should be avoided if possible. 4 & 7 I don't feel strongly about unless there is more to the ex-partner/ex-teammate status.

[aguahombre]

The original question is about factors which should cause "A" ---an AC designee -- to recuse himself.

Number 6 is the only automatic, IMO. All the others could be considered by "A", who then would decide for himself whether he can be objective. There might be other issues, such as negative confrontations or prior knowledge which might dispose him to assume "B" is in the wrong.

It is up to "A" to disclose, even though he believes he can be fair. I have found certain Districts/units in the ACBL to pay more attention to this issue than others.

[TimG]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-17, 11:52, said:

Number 6 is the only automatic, IMO. All the others could be considered by "A", who then would decide for himself whether he can be objective.

Most people think they can be objective. . .and some of those who know they cannot be objective would be willing to serve in order to help out their friend ("B"). It is important to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

[aguahombre]

The question was about self recusal.

[Phil]

I'm funny about these things, but if I were asked to be on an AC, and I played with, were related to, or played on a team frequently with a person involved in an appeal, I would instantly disclose it. #1 and #6 are auto w/d's and I'm surprised they are on the list.

The last appeal I was involved in decided a KO match and one of the ACs mentioned he was best man in the other party's wedding 30 years ago. Everyone involved were friends and no one had a problem with him serving. But it was still the right thing to do IMO.

If I used to play or used to play as a teammate of someone, or partner them, I think I'm in the clear, and I'm not sure it requires disclosure unless x was paying y.

As Art says, disclose your conflict and then the party that feels like they are impacted can make the call.

[jeffford76]

I think there's more to it than just disclosing conflicts of interest. There has been some interesting research in the last few years about situations where people act in a *more* biased way after disclosing conflicts of interest than they did otherwise. See, for example, http://www.andrew.cm...f/dirtclean.pdf .

It's almost as if after letting someone know that you're biased, you feel like you don't have as much pressure to stay fair.

[WellSpyder]

Trinidad, on 2012-September-17, 10:36, said:

For me this quite simple: All of the above, as long as their are logical alternative AC members.

In a large tournament, you can chose from a large number of potential AC members.

While this is true in principle, I wonder whether it is as simple as that in practice. When a TD asks you if you can sit on an AC, do you ask first who the players on both sides are? In my, admittedly limited, experience, you are more likely to find out who is involved when they appear in front of you. By that time, there may not be many other potential AC members around who could take your place.

[Zelandakh]

One of the problems with any relationship in bridge is that the rules often require that the AC make a judgement about the level of the player in question. Such relationships obviously colour this. Say my partner and I are good county players but I think we are really national players who are simply overlooked by the local Union. Is the AC member not likely to give partner (or team-mates) an elevated level of ability based on this perception? Equally, if they used to play with one of the players involved but stopped because they considered them too weak - even if subsequent results have suggested that this opinion was false.

Indeed, within a small community (such as England or Wales, say) it might be difficult to find anyone who is both qualified and completely unbiased, although the bias will often be less public than those on this list. In any case, I am pretty sure I have heard of a case (at least 1) in England where someone (a Hackett?) has served on the AC for a case involving their relative. I am also certain that ACs have been formed with members who have a monetary connection with players affected by the decision. As Phil points out, conflicts of interest need to be taken account of not only for the parties involved in the Appeal but also for those who might gain from the resulting decision.

[paulg]

So I expect that the only people eligible to sit on an AC in the English Premier League this weekend, if Jeffrey and Frances cannot, will be DanMac, Coops and Murph.

[jvage]

I think the answer depends upon the setting and the available pool of potential AC-members. For example in a small club it would be normal if there ever came an appeal that the AC-members (if you succeded in finding suitable players) both are friends with and have played with some of the involved players, and noone would normally think that it was a problem.

On the other hand in a large international congress as in Pula last week (see the other thread in this forum) it was no problem at all to get members who had no links to the players involved.

An alternative for events like the English Premier League mentioned above could be what we have previously done in Norway. Here we have a permanent National Appeals Committee consisting of 4 members. When one excuses himself for whatever reason the 3 remaining members may still handle the case, or we could do as we did last time there was an appeal in our Premier League. 3 of us were playing in the event, including one that was a teammate of the appealing side, while our chairman was the TD... In that case we just asked the Swedish AC if they could handle the case, which they kindly did (we have done this also in one other case).

John

[bluejak]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-17, 09:18, said:

I once saw an appeals comitee formed where one of the players on the AC could move up to first or down to second, based on the outcome of the appeal. Admittedly it was a nothing competition, but still.

Nothing for whom? Bridge competitions matter to people at all levels.



In general I prefer people disclose any problems, but do not recuse themselves, let others make the decisions.

Choice of AC members can be very difficult because it is not as simple as whether there are conflicts. For many years I have formed ACs at Brighton, and I have dealt with may people who do not want to sit, or cannot manage the time. It is very difficult to get people together. Sometimes I have keen members - which is great - then others say "How can you use such poor players?"

Getting the right AC together is complicated and subject to many factors. Whatever rules I have to follow have to be broken sometimes.

So relationships with players is merely a factor of varying strength.

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2012-September-18, 02:29, said:

When a TD asks you if you can sit on an AC, do you ask first who the players on both sides are? In my, admittedly limited, experience, you are more likely to find out who is involved when they appear in front of you.

But the TD who formed the committee is likely to have taken that into account.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2012-September-18, 07:09, said:

But the TD who formed the committee is likely to have taken that into account.

Only if he knows the histories of the players.

I have a regular partner that I play with in almost all local tournaments. Those TDs wouldn't know anything about my partnership history in club games or national tournaments.