Director's Headache

[Tcyk]

I am a certified ACBL director but have not directed a game in over 25 years.

 

I remember some of the agony directing can cause and the difficulty in interpreting the rules at times. For example, the auction goes:

1D P 1S P

2S P P (after a long pause) and a final P

After the hand is played (making 2), the final passer calls for the director and wants an adjusted score. It seems the 1S bidder had a minimum hand and absolutely no reason to hesitate before passing. The 1S bidder was a novice and the caller was a very strong young female bridge player whose nickname was Little Dynamite. She claimed that she would have balanced if he had passed in tempo. I wanted to go home. I did not adjust the score. I have probably been hated ever since.

 

Yes, she was injured by the hesitation. After the hands were seen, balancing was a good proposition but very risky with so little information about the hands during the bidding. I didn't want to discourage the novice from continuing to play duplicate bridge. A director call can be unnerving to many people. He didn't even understand why she called. I explained that it was akin to fingering 2 or 3 cards before playing a singleton but not as obvious. The hesitation implied a stronger hand that was considering inviting game. I hope Dr Gene is still playing bridge today.

[Hanoi5]

Errrrrm, and the question is?

 

I'm not sure about letting mistakes slip on beginners. But I still think dynamite should have balanced if she had the hand for it, so I wouldn't have adjusted either. Sometimes some players use this kind of situation to their advantage (if I didn't need to balance, excellent but if I needed to balance then I'll call the Director).

[Blofeld]

In my experience, beginners think for quite a while about everything (and this is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do). Sounds like the pass was in tempo for a player of that level. Result should stand.

 

If the player calling the director didn't know the hesitator was a novice, then I'd sympathise and agree they'd been unlucky. If they did know, I don't think I'd have any sympathy.

[hotShot]

I think it is a clear case of 1) from these 2 possible scenarios:

 

1) A beginner does not know what to do and accidentally creates an UI.

Oppy are allowed to uses that UI on their own risk.

=> score stands. The player should be informed politely to keep a constant tempo, because uncalled hesitations of experienced players could be understood as intentional misleading opps.

 

2) A player intentionally hesitates to keep his LHO from balancing.

=> This is cheating, and the player should be punished.

(This is very hard to prove!)

[ArtK78]

You have to give beginners some leeway. Unless this player is known to try to intentionally mislead opponents by mannerisms (hardly likely at this level of player), the result must stand. I would talk to the player who hesitated and explain what the problem was so that it wouldn't happen again.

 

And I would also talk to Ms. Dynamite and explain to her that it was totally inappropriate for her to call the director to try to take advantage of a beginning player. It is precisely this type of behavior that drives beginning players away from the game. I am sure that Ms. Dynamite will receive far more good scores than bad scores from the beginning players if she does not drive them away.

[Blofeld]

I would talk to the player who hesitated and explain what the problem was so that it wouldn't happen again.

I think this is misguided, because I don't think there's a problem. People who are just learning to play are trying to hold a lot in their minds at once. While it would be obvious to us that the hand should never do anything but pass, it's reasonable that a beginner might take some time to work this out. Perhaps their train of thought might go something like: "Oh no! It's my turn to bid again! OK, what have I shown? At least 4 spades and at least 6 points, I think. What does partner's 2♠ bid mean? Is it forcing? No ... I don't think it can be forcing. I've only got 4 spades, and 3 ... 5 ... 7 points, so that's about what I've shown, isn't it? So perhaps I can pass?"

 

So I will claim again: for a beginner, there doesn't seem to have been a break in tempo.

[inquiry]

I think it is a clear case of 1) from these 2 possible scenarios:

 

1) A beginner does not know what to do and accidentally creates an UI.

Oppy are allowed to uses that UI on their own risk.

=> score stands. The player should be informed politely to keep a constant tempo, because uncalled hesitations of experienced players could be understood as intentional misleading opps.

 

2) A player intentionally hesitates to keep his LHO from balancing.

=> This is cheating, and the player should be punished.

(This is very hard to prove!)

Agree with hotshot. First time occurance, score stands, move on.

[blackshoe]

And I would also talk to Ms. Dynamite and explain to her that it was totally inappropriate for her to call the director to try to take advantage of a beginning player.

You seem pretty certain that's what she did. I'm not. Not at all. I think she called the director because she felt there had been an infraction of law and that her side had been damaged thereby. I think she was mistaken, but I do not think she was trying to take advantage of a beginner.

 

There is, unfortunately, a presumption amongst beginners (and even some more advanced players!) that a director call is an accusation. This erroneous presumption can be exacerbated by the attitude of the opponents and sometimes, regrettably, the attitude of the director.

 

Players think that "in tempo" means "in my usual tempo". It doesn't, of course. I agree that "in tempo" for beginners is generally speaking a longer period than for advanced players. Folks need to recognize that.

 

Table ruling: an opponent takes inferences from a player's tempo at his own risk, unless there is evidence of intent to deceive or the player could have known that a tempo break might deceive the opponent. Here there was no such evidence, so no infraction has occurred. Result stands, please play on.

 

If necessary I will read Laws 73D1, 73D2 and 73F2 to the table.

[jtfanclub]

Table ruling: an opponent takes inferences from a player's tempo at his own risk, unless there is evidence of intent to deceive or the player could have known that a tempo break might deceive the opponent. Here there was no such evidence, so no infraction has occurred. Result stands, please play on.

 

If necessary I will read Laws 73D1, 73D2 and 73F2 to the table.

Agreed. First time, beginners, doesn't matter. As long as the person wasn't deliberately trying to fool the opponents, they can do anything they want to. If there's UI passed, nobody cares, because the next thing her partner's doing is spreading their hand.

 

I also really dislike people declaring that they would have done something different had their been no hesitation after they've seen what their partner had. A hesitation by the opponents does not give you the opportunity to bid double-dummy.

[jonottawa]

Hanoi is mistaken that dynamite should have balanced anyway. In a borderline case it is 100% normal to draw an inference here that the opp is showing extras and pass.

 

Blofeld is wrong when he repeatedly assumes that the call was in tempo without any evidence to support his assumption. The original post says that there was a LONG pause. He's also wrong when he says that there isn't a problem. This is a BIG problem and needs to be nipped in the bud.

 

Hotshot I mostly agree with.

 

Art's suggestion that little dynamite deserves a lecture is completely off the mark. Her behavior was totally appropriate. Now, if she had a hand that no reasonable person would consider balancing with and did that, that would be a different story. But the premise is that she had a borderline decision.

 

Other suggestions about disliking people, nobody caring, doing anything you want to and double-dummy bidding are misguided.

 

Tcyk, it sounds like you handled the situation reasonably well. Better I'd say, than most of the people offering suggestions would have. You've illustrated well why novices need to be taught about ethics. At a tournament, an adjusted score would definitely be in order. At a club game, for a first offense, hard to fault what you did. I'd have probably given little dynamite an average plus and let the novice's score stand.

[Trumpace]

jonottawa,

 

Didn't Ms Dynamite call the Director and demand an adjustment of score? How is that appropriate? Calling the director is fine, I agree. Once the director is there, state the facts and let him/her decide what needs to be done. Trying to force a decision onto the director (like demanding an adjustment of score) deserves the same lecture in ethics which beginners and novices deserve.

 

(But, I am a novice in such matters, so I might be totally off-base)

[ArtK78]

An adjusted score would certainly NOT be in order at a tournament.

 

A player is certainly allowed to think about a bid as long as he or she wishes to do so. The opponent is entitled to take into account the opponent's hesitation at his or her own risk. Unless the hesitation was intended to deceive the opponent, there is no grounds whatsoever for an adjusted score.

 

Experienced players should not use the "rules of the game" (or at least their interpretation of the rules of the game) to try to gain an advantage. As I understand the original post, Ms. Dynamite is an experienced player, or at least one who believes that she is an experienced player. Calling the director for an adjusted score under these circumstances is not appropriate.

 

Yes, any player who thinks that he or she is damaged is entitled to call for the director. But one must take into account all of the facts and circumstances. Calling the director because a novice does what a novice will do will be perceived negatively, and it should be avoided whenever possible.

[jonottawa]

Art's objection was to the director call itself, not to what she said when he got there. If she was abusive/rude to the director, that's a whole 'nother issue.

 

Asking for an adjusted score isn't necessarily inappropriate. It depends how it's done. "I was going to balance. He tanked for 45 seconds and passed with a 6 count. I'd like an adjusted score. Thank-you." in a calm and friendly voice would be fine.

 

Anyway, I've weighed in. Y'all can agree or disagree (I anticipate more of the latter than of the former somehow.)

[blackshoe]

I'd have probably given little dynamite an average plus and let the novice's score stand.

Not if you wish to rule in accordance with the laws of the game.

[blackshoe]

Didn't Ms Dynamite call the Director and demand an adjustment of score?

the final passer calls for the director and wants an adjusted score.

 

Doesn't sound like a demand to me. Players express their opinions as to what a ruling should be all the time. After all, they're bridge players, and bridge players are mostly type A personalities. :P Unless they get insistent or discourteous I find it's best to handle this by saying something let "let me make the ruling, please" and otherwise ignoring it.

 

If they do get insistent or discourteous then yes, they deserve to hear about it. If I'm the director, they will.

[blackshoe]

An adjusted score would certainly NOT be in order at a tournament.

 

A player is certainly allowed to think about a bid as long as he or she wishes to do so.  The opponent is entitled to take into account the opponent's hesitation at his or her own risk.  Unless the hesitation was intended to deceive the opponent, there is no grounds whatsoever for an adjusted score.

 

Experienced players should not use the "rules of the game" (or at least their interpretation of the rules of the game) to try to gain an advantage.  As I understand the original post, Ms. Dynamite is an experienced player, or at least one who believes that she is an experienced player.  Calling the director for an adjusted score under these circumstances is not appropriate.

 

Yes, any player who thinks that he or she is damaged is entitled to call for the director.  But one must take into account all of the facts and circumstances.  Calling the director because a novice does what a novice will do will be perceived negatively, and it should be avoided whenever possible.

Well, there are limits. People would like to play the next round reasonably soon. :P

 

The fact that a more experienced player calls the director when a less experienced player commits an irregularity is not evidence that the former is trying to gain an advantage through the laws over the latter. Calling the director in such a case is not inappropriate.

 

We don't teach beginners the rules - at least not more than "4 hands of 13 cards, dealer opens the bidding, after everybody passes, 13 tricks, you have to follow suit". How the Hell else are they going to learn them?

 

I suppose one can go through life not doing what one is permitted to do because one fears what the neighbors will think, but it seems a poor way to proceed, to me.

[MFA]

A player is certainly allowed to think about a bid as long as he or she wishes to do so.  The opponent is entitled to take into account the opponent's hesitation at his or her own risk.  Unless the hesitation was intended to deceive the opponent, there is no grounds whatsoever for an adjusted score.

I don't quite agree with this.

 

The score should also be adjusted, when you have no "bridge reason" to think, and you ought to have known that a pause from you at this point could harm the opponent(s).

 

There are no requirements of intent to deceive.

Thus, when TD makes such an adjustments, it's not at all (necessarily) an accusation of cheating. Just a statement that you weren't as careful with your tempo as you should have been here in order to protect your opponents.

 

In other words, there's an addition to hotshot's list.

3. He was not careful enough with his tempo in a no-problem situation and ought to have known about a possible damage, but no cheating was intended, it was just sloppiness.

=> score's adjusted peacefully by the TD.

[kenrexford]

I don't know who the players are, so I cannot judge the case adequately, but I did want to add something to the discussion.

 

My wife would likely tank at this point. She would have realized that I was again declaring the hand. Of course, she would be wrong, but she'd still think I was declarer until I told her. Having decided that she was going to be dummy, she would be thinking about some sale at Kohl's starting at 9:00 AM tomorrow, waiting for the lead. Then, when the lead did not come, she would realize that she had not passed yet and that, therefore, maybe she should pass.

 

So, when in doubt, consider that the newer player is playing checkers, not chess like many of us, and that their attention span is different.

[MomoTheDog]

It is players like this who discourage newcomers from the game. The result should definitely 100% stand.

[Guest Jlall]

Jonottowa seems to totally miss the point: It is not unethical to think if you have a problem. Some hands are problem hands to beginners that are not problem hands to experts (which was blofelds point). If a beginner needs to think about what to do with a 5332 12 count after 1S p 2S p that is not unethical. If a beginner needs to think with 6 points and 3 spades after 1S p that is not unethical. These are problem hands for them because they are not born knowing what to do, and they have to figure it out. It is only unethical to think when you have no problem and just want to deceive the opponents.

 

There was no infraction here, and what constitutes a bidding problem is certainly dependent on the level of the player.

[Hanoi5]

And if Ms. Dynamite is gonna take into consideration the hesitation, she should also consider the fact the player doing the hesitation is a newbie.

[Rossoneri]

Well said by Justin.

 

I personally think it shouldn't be right even for a player to ask the director for an adjustment. Simply state your case and let the director decide.

[jonottawa]

Alright, I'll give this one last crack since some people still don't get it and there've been some pretty blatant mischaracterizations of what I said or implied.

 

First of all, nobody's saying that it's unethical to think.

 

But if you make a 'long pause' for 'absolutely no reason' (to borrow from the language of the original post, which many of you seem to be missing) and you're in a position to know that you could be misleading one of your opponents, and damage results, an adjustment is in order.

 

If you are a highly intelligent person (Dr. Gene, if we hope he's still playing 25 years later, was probably no dummy back then) you already know about ethics. You've probably played at least some poker in your life and know about bluffing and deception at cards. It sounds like Dr. Gene never tried to argue that he was thinking. He just said 'I took a long time before passing. What's the problem?' Just because someone's a 'novice' at bridge doesn't mean they were born yesterday. I picked up the ethical stuff in about 5 minutes (long before I could follow suit consistently.)

 

If it's a club game, fine, the best way to restore equity and keep everyone happy is probably to let the result stand for Dr. Gene, because it's a first offense, and to either give Dynamite an average plus or the score she would have been likely to receive if she had balanced, if that is reasonably determinable. I see it as a similar case to a 'fouled board' from dynamite's perspective.

 

Novices get cut LOTS of slack. For every 1 truly inappropriate director call (for instance, if dynamite had a hand that noone would consider balancing with but still called the director) there's probably 20 instances where people just let things slide (Pick that card back up, no problem. or Sure, we'll turn over the last trick again. or It's too late to ask for a review, but here you go anyway. or Sure, I don't mind sitting here quietly while you fumble with the pass card and then grab a bid and then look at your hand some more.)

 

Bottom line: They need to be taught about ethics. Preferably in class or in the novice game. But if not there, then at the table, in the open game, since that's the only remaining option if they are ever to learn anything about bridge ethics at all.

 

For those of you who missed it, there was an interesting discussion about this issue in the Water Cooler:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=22080

 

Edit: Two-way shots are brought up in that thread. You might be surprised who's on which side when it comes to two-way shots.

 

I concur totally with mycroft's post below. Once again he has said it better than I could. (I chose to infer/assume that a non-ancient doctor knows a thing or two about ethics and has probably played poker a few times in his life. He chooses to investigate. His choice is the superior approach.)

[DYates]

There are some good issues raised by some posters.

 

I agree with some points raised by jonottawa. But not the conclusion. (See why below, regarding adjustment).

 

There is another issue, the problem that an automatic remedy leads to the creation of free two-way shots for all the lawyers out there. (And we all know who they are). Ultimately leading to an even more litigious game. And worse, a non-level playing field for pairs not seeking to take advantage of situations.

 

It is a difficult issue, and perhaps needs a separate thread, but the essence of bridge is risk vs. reward. I cannot even remember the last time I failed to balance after a fit auction to the two level. And a player nicknamed “dynamite” passed???

 

She passed in match points no less. Who cares about pushing them into game?. The par could well be 4S down one and these newbies were afraid to bid and they needed to be pushed.

 

An issue here is that once any player (does not need to be a newbie) hesitates, tanks, or takes a Rip VanWinkle nap, the opponents can always hedge their position 100% by passing - assuming it is 100% to receive a score adjustment as Jon seems to suggest. (2-ways are not an issue the ACBL ever addresses, [surprise]). In this auction, with the tank, why ever balance? Just wait to see the whole deal, and then call the director if you should have bid. You just created a situation with 100% upside and no downside. That isn’t bridge. That is Tic Tac Toe - a game of certainty and no way to lose.

 

Trust me, the 2-way game is already a part of many players’ repertoire. And they feel entitled to use it. We might improve the ethics of novices with a system which more actively reproaches them, but ultimately it is just another cans of worms. Less ethics for the experienced.

 

As far as an adjustment (in ACBL-land) MFA is not exactly correct about “no requirements of intent”. That is technically true, but incomplete. Law 72-B-1 (adjusted score) requires that “. . .an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side . .” as a prerequisite for granting a score adjustment. While that burden of proof is substantially less than “intent to deceive”, it does require cognition. And that is the issue here with this novice player.

 

Since the director clearly states this particular offender “did not even know why the director was called”, and 72-B-1 requires the offender to be aware that his action might cause a problem for the non-offending side (which is the legal basis for letting newbies off the hook**) it would appear that the director's decision not to award an adjusted score is correct and completely within the laws.

 

And since there is no law which states players cannot hate the director, I guess the TD will just have to live with that. (Dont take this the wrong way, but if your decision was randomly correct, it certainly wont be the first time that happend to a director ;) ) But before we comdemn novices, perhaps we should expect experienced players to know and understand that it is possible to be damaged and yet be without recourse.

 

Jon is correct about L O N G H E S I T A T I O N. And that we really need to do a better job of educating beginners on the point and purpose of rules and the director. However, I definitely do not believe we should be granting score adjustments just to "keep people happy". That defeats the point of rules and ethics. (You may want to re-think that Jon. Do novices deserve to be happier? You make Ms. Dyno happy with her freebie MP adjustment. But now how happy are the other pairs competing against her? Happiness is playing by the rules, not giving away awards.)

 

(**) though I agree with Jon that we should not be so willing to give them a lot of bites at the apple. Perhaps a couple of yellow cards before the red one, but then we need a recording system - such as AWMPP.

[pclayton]

No adjustment if this is a casual club game.

 

A private chat with Ms. Dynamite on how to call a director with a new player at the table.

 

A private chat with Dr. Gene about the need to make calls in tempo and what a quick/slow pass/bid/double convey to his partner and opponents.

 

The 2nd time an adjustment is in order.