[bluejak]

 barmar, on 2013-January-04, 12:19, said:

is the distinction between "rule", "vote", and "decide" of any import? Regardless of what you call it, a score on the board is established.

Of course it is important. People read these forums - the first three anyway - to find out what is the best way to do things. An AC that relies on a vote to decide is usually a very poor AC. But if someone reads "vote" here unchallenged he may think it the normal way to do things.

[nige1]

 bluejak, on 2013-January-14, 08:35, said:

Of course it is important. People read these forums - the first three anyway - to find out what is the best way to do things. An AC that relies on a vote to decide is usually a very poor AC. But if someone reads "vote" here unchallenged he may think it the normal way to do things.

I don't think I would trust an AC that disenfranchised any member. I've served on many committees. First we've established relevant law with the director. We've asked for and examined evidence from players. Then committee members have expressed opinions. Finally, we've always relied on a democratic vote. As far as I remember, all resulting decisions have been unanimous.

[bluejak]

 nige1, on 2013-January-14, 20:23, said:

I don't think I would trust an AC which disenfranchised any members. I've served on many committees. First we've established relevant law with the director. Then we've asked for and examined evidence from players and committee members have expressed opinions. Finally, we've always relied on a democratic vote. As far as I remember, all decisions have still been unanimous.

No-one is talking of disenfranchising a member. Normal ACs discuss and decide, not vote.

[aguahombre]

 bluejak, on 2013-January-14, 20:49, said:

No-one is talking of disenfranchising a member. Normal ACs discuss and decide, not vote.

It might be another of those distinctions without a difference. We know that there are decisions where one AC member has dissented. That seems like a vote to me.

[blackshoe]

Committees (in general, not just bridge ACs) usually have an odd number of members so that the chairman can "break the tie" on a split decision. To me, that's a vote, even if it's not formal.

[pigpenz]

generally through discussion they do come to a consensus,
yes more or less a vote

[lamford]

The 2H bid was so poor that it will take quite a while to find enough peers to poll. I would guess that someone that timid would surely pass now. x Kxxx KQxx xxxx opposite is a good game.

[bluejak]

In my view anyone who does not understand the difference between a vote and a discussion would be unsuitable as an AC member.

[blackshoe]

Scenario one: Your committee has two members, plus a chairman. You discuss the case. The two members are split - one wants to uphold the table TD, the other doesn't. The chairman says "I agree with <pick one>". So you've "discussed", not taken a formal vote.

Scenario two: same committee, same case, same split amongst the two members. You take a formal vote, and the chair breaks the tie. This committee reports the same decision as in scenario one.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

[aguahombre]

 aguahombre, on 2013-January-14, 20:54, said:

It might be another of those distinctions without a difference.

 bluejak, on 2013-January-17, 05:31, said:

In my view anyone who does not understand the difference between a vote and a discussion would be unsuitable as an AC member.

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-17, 09:56, said:

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Apparently the big difference is our suitability to be AC members, even if the result is the same.

[bluejak]

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-17, 09:56, said:

Scenario one: Your committee has two members, plus a chairman. You discuss the case. The two members are split - one wants to uphold the table TD, the other doesn't. The chairman says "I agree with <pick one>". So you've "discussed", not taken a formal vote.

Scenario two: same committee, same case, same split amongst the two members. You take a formal vote, and the chair breaks the tie. This committee reports the same decision as in scenario one.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Neither of these cases really happen in Committees I have been on. They both sound a pretty appalling way of deciding.

[blackshoe]

 bluejak, on 2013-January-17, 18:41, said:

Neither of these cases really happen in Committees I have been on. They both sound a pretty appalling way of deciding.

Well, I imagine you've served on far more committees than I have, but if my case one is not a description of how committees decide, pray tell how do they?

[campboy]

The difference should be obvious. Suppose you do take a vote and the result is two for A, one for B. A "voting" committee has now arrived at an outcome. A "deciding" committee would probably continue discussing in the hope of reaching a unanimous decision; if they succeed the outcome might be A, B or something else.

The difference is important, particularly if Henry Fonda is on your AC.

[barmar]

Do ACs usually require unanimous agreement? I'm sure I've seen plenty of appeal reports where there were dissenting opinions.

[pigpenz]

 barmar, on 2013-January-18, 11:42, said:

Do ACs usually require unanimous agreement? I'm sure I've seen plenty of appeal reports where there were dissenting opinions.

not on the ones I have been on
generally they come to a consensus, and majority rules

[blackshoe]

 campboy, on 2013-January-18, 10:56, said:

The difference should be obvious. Suppose you do take a vote and the result is two for A, one for B. A "voting" committee has now arrived at an outcome. A "deciding" committee would probably continue discussing in the hope of reaching a unanimous decision; if they succeed the outcome might be A, B or something else.

The difference is important, particularly if Henry Fonda is on your AC.

If Henry Fonda is on your AC, you have bigger problems than this.

And if the "deciding" committee can't reach a unanimous decision? How long do you prolong the agony? How do you "decide" when to stop?

[bluejak]

On ACs I have been on, discussion has nearly always led to general agreement. People with dissenting views are either convinced by argument, or accept that while they believe they are right, accept they may not be.

Basically an AC can either take a vote and come up with a decision that may or may not be correct quickly, or discuss until general agreement is reached and be quite confident the conclusion is right.. I am pleased that most ACs I have been on prefer the second approach.

[aguahombre]

While eventual acquiescence without truly agreeing might be effective in keeping our "subjects" in the dark, I prefer to be enlightened by dissenting opinions. If there is, in effect, a 2-1 vote, browbeating one of them into submission doesn't make it a nonvote.

[pigpenz]

 aguahombre, on 2013-January-18, 17:57, said:

While eventual acquiescence without truly agreeing might be effective in keeping our "subjects" in the dark, I prefer to be enlightened by dissenting opinions. If there is, in effect, a 2-1 vote, browbeating one of them into submission doesn't make it a nonvote.

doesnt the ACBL site where they do the appeals for the Nationals show how people on the AC came to their conclusion.
Generally these AC are going on after midnight or between sessions, so they will come to an agreement within a reasonable amount of time.
after appearing you can generally just ask some of the members of the AC they will explain why they did what they did.

[aguahombre]

 pigpenz, on 2013-January-18, 18:30, said:

doesnt the ACBL site where they do the appeals for the Nationals show how people on the AC came to their conclusion.
Generally these AC are going on after midnight or between sessions, so they will come to an agreement within a reasonable amount of time.
after appearing you can generally just ask some of the members of the AC they will explain why they did what they did.

yep. and the on-line site for the casebooks is available, too. They keep promising it will be updated, but Spring 2011 is the most recent.