From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Subject: Re: Who should be on committees? was Re: How would you rule 
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:36:45 GMT

Rudy writes:
+> Henk Uijterwaal writes:

+> >+>Both sides protested. One of the three available committee members happened
+> >+>to have kibitzed the hand, and voiced his opinion immediately. Nevertheless,
+> >+>he sat on the committee, that further adjusted the score to 6 imps only.

+> >I don't think that this person should sit on the committee. A committee 
+> >should unbiased (=not have an opinion about the appeal before the hearing),
+> >this person is clearly not unbiased. A kibitzer might be a witness though but
+> >witnessses are not needed here as EW and NS agree on what happened during
+> >the bidding. 
 
+> This reminds me of the time I was sitting in on a committee at the Nationals
+> about 3:00 am when a Vanderbilt match was being decided.  The committee was
+> Rodwell, Hamman, Allison (Karen), Weinstein (Howard) and Bramley.  We
+> should all have such committees.  The case involved an unclear or possibly
+> mistaken explanation which was waved off and the person who offered the
+> explanation wasn't available to the committee (he had to go home and sleep
+> because he had to go to work in the mornings).  So when the committee
+> started deliberating, one of the members said: "Should we call X and ask
+> him what he said" and one of the committee members answered: "There is
+> no need for that, I was kibitzing that table and this is what happened."
 
+> Now, he had not stated or possibly even formed an opinion prior to hearing
+> the case -- should he have disqualified himself from this committee?

Yes, I think so. 

   Why was he(she) a kibitzer at this table? Most players select a table because
they know the players at that table OR because the match is interesting in itself. 
In the first case you definitely cannot sit on the committee. In the second case 
you might but you should avoid it just to make sure that everybody gets the 
impression that the committee was unbiased. Since all this happened at the 
nationals where LOTS of other committee members are available, why not just ask
somebody else?
   In this case the committee member was also needed as a witness. Nobody would
consider putting a witness in the jury of a trial, so why would you consider
him as a committee member? 
   In this case (unclear/mistaken explanation) it essential to know exactly what
a player said. The other committee member should know exactly what has happened,
not what some random kibitzer heard. If the explanation was correct but unclear,
he might very well have misunderstood it in the same way as the pair that went 
to the committee. 
   Why did the committee meet at 3 in the morning? Why  didn't they wait until
the next morning. Then they could have easily called the player in question,
ask him what had happened and decide on the appeal based on the facts and not
what a kibitzer, even if he is world champion, happens to remember.

Henk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.                                Phone: 1-214-708-6192
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Home:  1-214-283-6687
------------------------------------------------------------------------------