Offsite polling

Here is a fun fact to start the post with. If there is a binary proposition (say, leading X or leading Y, in which the sum of the probabilities of X and Y is deemed to be 100%) and the distribution of the odds is .75-.25, the odds that, in 5 trials, you will get at least 3 Ys is around 10%.

To put it in context, if 75% of people fitting a given criteria (in this case, "eligible to the polled by the TD regarding a tough case") would pick X, the chances that, by selecting 5 random people, you will get more Y's (even though Ys are only 25% of the total) is around 10%.

In other words -- for expert polling to be credible (or, more credible), we need bigger samples. After all, we don't want 10% of our decisions to be wrong based on insufficient polling.

Add to that the convenience of simultaneous polling, the added convenience of recorded wording of polls, the added convenience of having people who are not playing on site (and therefore a bit distracted by their own bridge problems to fully consider the poll in its details), and perhaps it is a good time to reconsider the possbiility of offsite polling:

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/appeals-committees-in-the-21st-century/