sanst

Just published on the internet: 70% of the Dutch club players find calling the director by one of the opponents unpleasant. Why they find it so: it’s an accusation of cheating (27%), it’s very aggressive (27%), unpleasant if done in an aggressive way, SB style (20%), it destroys the pleasant mood (20%), it’s done to get a better score. Revealing but very disturbing results.

Barmar hits the nail on the head: “I know it may be heresy to say it, but bridge is just a game.” The primary goal of most players at the lower levels in the clubs here is to have a nice afternoon or night , not even to win or score the best they can. These players don’t care much about infractions and call the director only when there’s a situation they can’t handle themselves. Think about discovering, usually sometime during the play because they don’t count their cards, that one player has more cards than the others and another having one less. An insufficient bid, if noticed at all, is solved by bidding something sufficient or passing, a LOOT is mostly not noticed either, but, if necessary, ‘corrected’ by taking the card back. A revoke is handled in the same way. The rules are ignored on a massive scale. Opening leads are standard face up, if you ask about their agreements, you get answers like “Huh? I don’t know but (s)he probably has this or that, I guess”. Thereafter the player him or herself corrects it. Quite often a player who makes an alertable call says to the partner “You should alert”, whereafter the partner unasked says “Can be two clubs”. That, because they know that an opening bid of 1♣ which can be made with a doubleton is alertable. Usually no other call is alerted and they even don’t like it if a beter player alerts according to the regulations. UI is passed freely and used quite innocently, because they even don’t know that that isn’t allowed. I for one am not going to try to make these people stick to the rules. It won’t help, they will still see calling a director in such cases an accusation of cheating. Let them enjoy their game as they like, but be serious at a more serious level, also in the club, if only because the clubs couldn’t survive without these members.

I’ve read this more than once, but I don’t think you’re right. Newbies are quite often baffled by the complexity of the game, not by the Laws and regulations, which they more often than not don’t know. As a teacher I told them to call the director when they thought something went wrong, like a revoke or a LOOT. The average person who starts to play bridge is baffled by the difficulties that the auction provide, that are plentiful. They don’t worry about hesitations, sighs and comments like “I don’t know, well, I bid XYZ, but that will not be right, I think”. Never heard anyone new to the game call the director for that. Actually, they solve the problems their way at the table themselves, because they don’t dare to call the director. I’ve never heard anyone quitting bridge because the rules are not kept rigorously. New players might give up because they find it too difficult or demanding, more experienced players quit mainly for all kind of reasons of age and/or health. A fairly recent one was the result of the covid pandemic when people discovered new hobbies that gave them more fun or satisfaction than bridge.

Am I to believe that you call the director every time you think that there has been an infraction, hesitation or problem of any kind? If so, I don’t think bridge is a pleasant pastime for you. I usually let go, especially if I know that my opponents are not aware of all the rules and regulations. Calling the TD would certainly cause “annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game”. I deliberately leave out the rude comment, because these are in my experience very rare and can usually be handled by the players at the table. You just point out that you’re not happy with this behavior and ask the player to behave properly. I don’t need the TD to do that, although I’ve once asked the director to correct a player who went on and on with blaming his partner for all kinds of real and supposed mistakes. Didn’t help, anyway.

Why don’t you answer my question: what would you want TD’s to do if there’s an infraction, even if you find about it without being called or when there’s no damage? This is not about top level tournaments, but the social game that’s played at the average club. It’s easy enough to state that the players should follow the rules, but how do you manage that?

I’m wondering what you want TD’s to do. Act if there’s an infraction in the alert procedure? What about insufficient explanation - what is insufficient exactly? And, even more important, what would you want done in these cases? Basically, a TD acts when: There is an infraction, there is damage, and the damage is the result of the infraction. If there’s an infraction without damage you might warn the culprit(s) and in rare cases give a penalty, but in clubs that’s unusual, to say the least. Changes are you won’t have any members but the SB’s left in a couple of months or you’re dumped by the members.

That has nothing to do with wealth, not even with humans. If I remember right, it’s about a donkey. :D

At clubs here bridge is a social pastime, not a competitive game. Forcing everybody to shut up, would finish that. During play most players are relatively quiet, but once they have finished the four boards - it’s almost everywhere MP’s - there’s a lot of chatter. But nobody is surprised if the dummy says something, although most players know that (s)he shouldn’t interfere with the game.

AFAIK nowhere in the Laws there is a regulation that forbids players to chat or talk. What the dummy can or can’t do is in Laws 42 and 43, but these are limited to the play, not to some remark that has nothing to do with it. The only reason why the dummy should be silent, but that goes for the other players as well, you find in Law 74A2 (A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game) and 74B2 (making gratuitous comments during the auction and play). If it annoys you when the dummy or any other player is chatting, just politely ask her or him to be quiet.

If you as a TD have to act every time there was a failure to alert or announce, or there was an alert or announcement out of place, you would be running around in circles in the room, hardly having time to breathe :D. That would be the situation over here at an average club.

[hv=pc=n&s=s6h9dc9&w=s8h8dk&n=sj7hd7&e=skthdc3]399|300[/hv] E plays 5NT and has lost two tricks. The dummy plays the ♦K, N ♦7, E ♣3 and S thinks a quite long time and finally plays the ♣9. Both E and S are good enough players to keep track of what is played and which cards are still in play. During the auction N and S were silent, but it’s known that E has four spades and S, who lead the ♣10, has the nine too. The declarer is wondering what S is thinking about and decides that he doesn’t have the ♠6 or 7 with the jack, but it wouldn’t need much thinking to let the a low spade go if he didn’t have the jack. E decides that S has the jack, the ♥9 and the last club, that was eventually played. So het plays spades to the king and the last trick is for N. No director was called, S is the club’s director and E is the best qualified director that’s available. But what would you decide?

Why would he do that and what law permits him to do so? Het certainly isn’t allowed to tell the players that the nine of clubs has or hasn’t been played. What the TD can do at this point, is ask N to check his cards again for a club. If he hasn’t one, there might have been a revoke, that is established by now. So there’s no use checking the played cards, which can only give UI, something a TD must certainly avoid. After the play he returns and any TD knows what to do then. If not, read Blackshoe’s contribution (#8). Actually, I don’t understand why this is discussed. It’s one of the most common irregularities, one that you are trained to handle in the very first course you take when training as TD, at least over here.

It reads like the script of a bad movie. Two experienced TD’s should know better than to start a shouting match. Call a director or shut up, would be my advice. The obvious infraction is North’s self directing and showing a lack of knowledge of the Laws. There are inadmissible bids, but the 2♦ is most certainly not. The call is made and remains on the table. If there’s an infraction that damages NS, the director - who most certainly is none of the players at the table - can award an adjusted score. But there’s no infraction here. W gives the agreement of the 2♣ correctly, might have added that they are a new partnership and discussed the system just before the match, and for some reason decides to bid 2♦, which must have surprised E a bit. Maybe she was put on the wrong footing by S asking about the bid, but there was no UI given to either E or W. Why S deemed it necessary to ask, is unclear. It’s allowed, but it might give UI to N. Anyway, I would let the result stand and give N a serious PP for self directing in a intimidating way and trying to impose an illegal ruling, although being a TD herself. Also E might get one for not calling a director but instead getting involved in a “big discussion“.

Sorry, missed that.

I don’t see what the importance is of the thoughts behind a bid in a undiscussed situation. W can’t read his partner’s mind and must trust his own wits. You try something and you might end with a plus score but it might as easily end in a disaster. To satisfy my curiosity: did it work out to EW’s advantage and did NS claim damage? If so, on what grounds?

Mycroft is absolutely right. The long pause in trick 2 conveys UI to the partner. And it’s undeniably unauthorized according to Law 16: “Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes […] unmistakable hesitation…”. If ChCh needed to work out the chances, he should have done so in trick one. Although that’s not in the laws, AFAIK it’s standard policy in many if not all jurisdictions that players should think in trick one. That’s even more important for defenders, since a hesitation on their part creates UI. That the UI induced falsecarding by ChCh’s partner, is not my primary concern. That’s the UI caused by the long hesitation in trick 2, so I will act accordingly: 6♠= and a stiff penalty for EW. Make it impossible for ChCh to find a partner if they get bad scores every time he’s up to his tricks.

My problem with the “unless the director decides otherwise” clause, is that I wouldn’t know which law gives him the possibility to do so. Law 49 is clear about a card becoming a penalty card. So please, give an example where you would decide that a card that’s a penalty card according to Law 49 is no longer a PC. I can think of one. Here is a novice player that puts his cards on the table assuming that he’s the dummy, but he’s a defender. I would tell him to pick up his cards immediately and then give a lecture about paying attention and let the play continue. Besides, it’s an absolute nuisance if you declare that all these cards are PC’s, and explain at every trick what should be done. Luckily I’ve never been called for this, although I’ve seen it happen more than once. :D

Law 49 states that a defender’s card in a position etc. “becomes” a PC, not that it is one automatically. Yes, this is splitting hairs, but there is an irregularity, the TD should have been called forthwith and that official and nobody else can decide what should be done. Law 81C is rather clear about this: “The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage”. Those parentheses should be dropped from that law and “not the players” should be printed in a larger type, caps, bold and double underlined.

Although I sympathize with you, you shouldn’t bend the Laws to teach a lesson. You’re right, until the TD says so, a card is not a penalty card, but if the TD sees that card, he has to decide that it’s a PC now. The Laws may be ambiguous in many places, that’s not the case with Law 49. A card from a defender that’s exposed, becomes a PC unless it was exposed during normal play. Well, that Law is a bit ambiguous. A defender’s card that was played in a previous trick and is lying face up, is not a PC, but the information thereof is unauthorized for partner. That’s missing from Law 49. :D

Did you contact Hans van Staveren, who developed the program, over this? He can be reached at sater@xs4all.nl.

That’s it. I’m out of it. I wish you all but hrothgar, a worthy representative of Trump country, the best.

I might be wrong, but you’re downright insulting. I think the moderator should take action against this.

Since you have green, blue, red and yellow systems according to the WBF Systems Policy, there are not many colours left that are clearly distinguishable from these. So it’s probably not coincidental, the WBF just doesn’t like orange, purple or pink :lol:. And grey is just that, grey ;).

And what are you going to do with a hand with exactly 10HCP? As a director I certainly wouldn’t believe you if you claimed that it is the first time you open that hand with 2NT. Also I would demand that you can show a system card with the possible answers and the answers to these in detail. What are the ACBL-rules I don’t know, but in WBF tournaments you should provide the opponents with a defense to the BS conventions.

The ACBL guidance is about the same as the Commentary. If the lawmakers wanted this, why didn’t they put it in the Law? Note that ‘ignorance’ isn’t mentioned here either.