An argument

[bluejak]

An argument erupts between two players in a Pairs tournament. It is understood by the TD that this was created in part by some happening between the two at another place and time. He cannot determine who started it this time.

 

Player A uses bad language to player B. Player B has been arguing but not using bad language.

 

Because of the bad language, player B refuses to play the last board of the round between them.

 

Two questions:

• What do you think the TD should decide?
  
• What do you think the TD did decide?
  

Edited October 12, 2009 by bluejak

[jeremy69]

The person refusing to play risks being thrown out of the event. It does not matter if A started it. B should have called the director.

If player A has used bad language and this has been audible to other competitors including B and others at the table then he should expect to be given a DP(under Law 91A). If he continues to do it then he may receive a larger penalty and eventually be suspended from the session for refusing to carry out the director's instruction to stop (Law90 B8).

 

As far as the result is concerned then the "innocent" side i.e. the ones who have not refused to play should be awarded a standard adjustment (60% or their session score whichever is higher?) for the lost board. In my opinion the opposition should receive 0% for that board and any subsequent boards that they are not permitted to play and whatever position the offender has finished in he should not be able to receive either master points or prize. This last penalty would not apply to their partner if they had taken no part in the fracas. Having said that the last time I can recall a disqualification or suspension of this sort happening in an English tournament the player concerned received several fines on the board where the fracas happened but 40% for the next 8 before he was allowed to play again. That's 40% per board more than I would have given him but the argument was that if he returned to a long event he would lose interest if he had had some fines plus 8 0% boards. My answer to that was that this would then be a separate offence!

I don't know what the TD decided on this occasion but if it involved any disqualification or suspension then he should have consulted with the DIC/Tournament Organiser first under Law 91B.

[Cyberyeti]

I will defer on the legal niceties of this to people who know more than I do.

 

I haven't been involved in anything as extreme as this but people may be familiar with a case I put on the Bridgetalk boards which bordered on my partner being called a cheat by an opponent in a voice heard by most of the room.

 

Did the TD hear the bad language and know the nature of it ?

 

If somebody has said things about me that I find offensive, I can understand refusing to play on without an apology. I don't see why the person who has called me all the names under the sun should gain from the infraction with a load of 60/40s, particularly if they have offended me enough that I would not play well if I did play at that point.

 

I would say to both players that they're out of order, and say that while not judging the subject of the argument, the language from player A was unacceptable and requires an apology. If this is given (with some sincerity), and player B still refuses to play I would proceed as Jeremy describes. If it's not given, 0-0 for the missing board and depending on how bad the language was, possible suspension/ejection for the user.

 

What did the director do ? fine for swearing, fine for not playing 40-40 or 30-30, move on ?

[shintaro]

I don't know what the TD decided on this occasion but if it involved any disqualification or suspension then he should have consulted with the DIC/Tournament Organiser first under Law 91B.

;)

 

should he jeremy what about his powers under 91a to suspend for the cureent session or part thereof :)

[nigel_k]

I wouldn't attach much weight to the bad language. You can be just as insulting and certainly violate 74A1 or 74A2 without using foul language so I wouldn't assume the person using bad language started the argument or is the aggressor. Nor would I require them to apologize to one another since I am a director not a parent or schoolteacher.

 

I would require them to stop arguing and play the next hand. If one refuses to do so then the other would get 50% (partly at fault) for that board which might be a bit more than they deserve but I can live with it.

 

If I did give a disciplinary penalty for arguing I would probably penalize both players. I would also consider further disciplinary action against a player who refused to play a hand.

[mycroft]

From memory:

 

"Director, did you hear that?  He called me an ass!"

"Yes he did, but you called him a jerk, and that call is forcing for one round."

[jeremy69]

should he jeremy what about his powers under 91a to suspend for the cureent session or part thereof

 

In England I believe that this power is deemed to lie with the Director in charge of the tournament.

[pran]

An argument erupts between two players in a Pairs tournament.  It is understood by the TD that this was created in part by some happening between the two at another place and time. He cannot determine who started it this time.

 

Player A uses bad language to player B.  Player B has been arguing but not using bad language.

 

Because of the bad language, player B refuses to play the last board of the round between them.

 

Two questions:

• 
   
   
  
• What do you think the TD should decide?
   
   
  
• What do you think the TD did decide?
   
   
  

Were the two players partners or opponents?

 

If they were opponents how did their respective partners behave?

 

The most important thing for the Director is to calm down the situation, talk sense with the players, inform them of possible consequences (for instance suspension for maybe a year as a likely result from a report to the NBO) if they don't behave, and so on.

 

Quite a lot can be achieved this way.

 

As for rulings, I consider the particular rulings on a few boards in the competition to be of minor importance compared to bringing the players back to playing bridge.

 

Sven

[Sadie3]

I think the TD's main priority is to stop the arguing and to keep the rest of the game running smoothly. So, I would take each of the arguing players and separate them and talk to them privately. What I mean by talking is actually listen to them, because what I have found is that usually players that get steamed up like this usually just need to vent a little steam and they calm right down. If after the brief separation, either of the players still refuses to play, that player would get a 30 day suspension for that infraction effective immediately. I would take the time to explain that the infraction has nothing to do with the personal differences of opinion between the two players, but everything to do with the disruption to the game and inconvenience to all the other participants. I would then find a substitute player by calling or having a kibber sit in or playing myself to finish the session. As for the foul language, that is a zero tolerance issue and I would give a 30 day suspension to that player as well, but I would wait until the end of the session to enforce it. In other words, the ZT is a 30 day suspension and the walk out is a 30 day suspension so both players are held responsible and neither will be able to gloat about the other being suspended.

 

If after the cooling off talks, these players agreed to play and continued the session to completion without further incidence, I probably would not give a 30 day suspension to either of them but I would advise them at the end of the session that a repeat offense would result in a 30 day suspension and that they need to figure out how to get along.

[nigel_k]

Wow - 30 day zero tolerance suspension for foul language. I'm not saying it is wrong but if you did that where I play there would be people getting only 12 sessions of bridge per year. Of course it's not usually directed at someone in an aggressive way which I guess is what you mean.

[Vampyr]

Wow - 30 day zero tolerance suspension for foul language.

Yes, this struck me as a bit over-the-top as well.

 

Of course it's not usually directed at someone in an aggressive way which I guess is what you mean.

 

But as you mentioned earlier, this may not have been much of a departure from the existing tone of the argument. Still, if there is some "zero tolerance" regulation in place, something must be done. In this case, I would think that an apology would be enough.

[Sadie3]

Maybe you misread my post. The 30 day suspension was only if the issue could not be resolved. And I agree it is excessive for just ZT. But it is not just for ZT, it is for disrupting the whole game and the other players. Any player that walks out on a face to face game faces a 30 day banning. That is standard practice in my area. The reason for the foul language getting the 30 days is because it caused the walk out and disruption of the game. Note that no banning is involved if the involved players can work it out promptly.

 

...and the ZT is for the type of foul language. I think all bridge players have some bridge terms they use that some may consider foul, but that is different from swearing at some one.

 

I would never suggest that the two arguing players apologize and move on. I am not a counselor. If they want to hate each other it is ok with me, but they can't behave badly in my game.

[peachy]

It doesn't matter who started it. Players A and B are both responsible for the unpleasantness at the table, regardless of who said something bad first. Need two logs to keep a fire going or something like that... I am surprised to read that somebody as TD was going as far as trying to find out what A's and B's partners did. How is that relevant?

 

I don't know what the TD decided but I should hope B is disqualified and barred from any subsequent events in the tournament or suspended from the club for whatever time the TD thinks appropriate, for refusing to play a board. If any PP's are considered for the arguing and bad language, both A and B get it equally.

[Trinidad]

I would send player A to one corner of the room and B to another corner, to cool down. Then I would talk to their partners (the victims) to try and establish what actually happened.

 

After that I will try to talk some sense into A and B. I will require them to play the remaining boards and a refusal will lead to a suspension. I will stay at the table until the end of the round.

 

At the end of the round, I will notify the players of any DP's that I may have decided on.

 

Rik

[mjj29]

I'm surprised at the number of people who are advocating a ban for the player who refuses to play against the person he is arguing with (note: not the rest of the whole session as I read the OP).

 

I have been in a situation where I thought my opponent was being exceedingly rude, and breaking the laws at that. He didn't quite get to the point I was going to tell the director that he was spoiling my enjoyment of the game, mainly because I know that causing a fuss would have upset my partner more than his attitude was, but I would have done so in a tournament. The next board, however, I definitely played a lot worse than I would have done normally.

 

Now, this was different from the case in question when both are clearly involved with the argument, but I would be seriously unimpressed if the director told me that an opponent upsetting me enough that I wasn't happy to continue to play bridge against him would lead to _me_ being banned.

[Codo]

Of course it depends a lot on what really happend:

 

Example A:

 

A: You played like an idiot.

 

B: He was so offensive, I won't play a second board against him.

 

Here B shall be punished for the disrubtion of the game if he really do not play the next board against this opponent.

 

Example B:

 

A: You stupid idiot, son of a .....bla bla bla 2 minutes rant...

 

B: I refuse to play against him.

 

No way I will B punish for his idea to refuse to play the next board. I will punish A, because he caused the disruption.

 

I cannot believe that someone who tries to understand Bs feelings can punish him and give A a 60% board.

[Cyberyeti]

Of course it depends a lot on what really happend:

 

Example A:

 

A: You played like an idiot.

 

B: He was so offensive, I won't play a second board against him.

 

Here B shall be punished for the disrubtion of the game if he really do not play the next board against this opponent.

 

Example B:

 

A: You stupid idiot, son of a .....bla bla bla 2 minutes rant...

 

B: I refuse to play against him.

 

No way I will B pubish for his idea to refuse to play the next board. I will punish A, because he caused the disruption.

 

I cannot believe that someone who tries to understand Bs feelings can punish him and give A a 60% board.

This says pretty much what I wanted to say in my post, but better.

 

It has to be judged on its merits by just how OTT player A went.

[Blue Uriah]

But it sounds like it was more a case of

 

A: loud disruptive arguing

B: loud disruptive arguing

A: more arguing

B: argue argue

A: argue argue

B: argue

A: You're a *****ing idiot

B: I refuse to play against you now.

 

In which case B can jolly well grow up.

[blackshoe]

At the start of each event, the director shall make an announcement that the tournament will be observing ZERO TOLERANCE for unacceptable behavior. It is requested that the director be called whenever behavior is not consistent with the guidelines outlined above.

 

The director, when called, shall make an assessment of the situation. If it is established that there was unacceptable behavior, an immediate ¼ board disciplinary penalty (3 IMP in team games) shall be assigned to all offenders. This may involve any one or all four players at the table irrespective of who initiated the unacceptable behavior. If both members of a partnership are guilty, the penalties are additive (¼ board EACH = ½ board!). The Board of Directors strongly believes that assignment of disciplinary penalties will improve the overall behavior at our tournaments.

 

If it is determined that the same offender is responsible for a second offense in the same event, then the offender(s) shall be ejected from future competition in that event. An offender removed from an event shall be deemed to have not played in the event, no masterpoints will be awarded and no refunds will be made. All previously-obtained results shall, however, remain valid as to their effect upon other competitors. In the case of a serious offense and in the case of multiple offenses (three) during a tournament, a disciplinary committee may be convened to determine whether the offender(s) should be allowed to play in other events at the tournament and/or whether additional sanctions may be appropriate.

 

Warnings are strongly discouraged and will be given only when there is no clear violation or in cases where the facts cannot be determined. Offenders are to receive immediate penalties. Regardless of who may have initiated unacceptable behavior, ALL offenses are punishable. Retaliatory behavior is a punishable offense. Frivolous accusations will also be considered as offenses under this policy.

 

In accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, a director's decision to impose a disciplinary is final; however, all such decisions may be appealed. An appeals committee may not overturn the director's decision, but could recommend that the director reconsider the imposition of a penalty. It should be noted that the committee may feel that the penalty assessed was not severe enough and may refer the matter to a disciplinary committee.

 

The DIC shall provide a summary report of all behavioral penalties to the Tournament Chairman and/or Recorder.

[bluejak]

I agree it depends on exactly what happened. My impression was Blue Uriah's scenario, so I suggested Ave-/Ave+ for the board, plus a small PP for the player who would not play it. I also suggested a rather larger DP for the language.

 

I am interested in the various ideas of bans. I think an individual incident like this should be dealt with by the TD by penalties, but for an isolated occasion nothing more is required.

 

The actual TD gave Ave/Ave and no penalties whatever.

 

I have no heard the story from another source - and it is [of course] notably different!!! However, according to the new story it may still be live, so I shall not tell you the new story at this time nor make further comments. But I may be able to do so at a later date.

[gordontd]

I've been in situations like this more than once. I would ask Player A to apologise for the bad language. If he refused to do so, I'd suspend him for the rest of the session. Then Player B would have nothing to worry about. If he did apologise, I'd insist on Player B playing the remaining board. If he refused, I'd suspend him for the rest of the session.

 

The aim is to keep the game going with the minimum of disruption for everyone else. Players can't pick & choose who to play against, and must expect to comply with any reasonable request of the director. Being asked to apologise for bad language is a reasonable request, and so is being required to play the scheduled boards.

 

The usefulness of suspending a player for the rest of the session under L91, as a method of control, is that the player can't appeal against it, and so it avoids them disrupting the game further.

[TimG]

If somebody has said things about me that I find offensive, I can understand refusing to play on without an apology.

What does this accomplish?

[gnasher]

If somebody has said things about me that I find offensive, I can understand refusing to play on without an apology.

What does this accomplish?

It causes them embarrassment and humiliation, and reduces the chance that they will repeat their offensive behaviour.

[bluejak]

If somebody has said things about me that I find offensive, I can understand refusing to play on without an apology.

What does this accomplish?

It causes them embarrassment and humiliation, and reduces the chance that they will repeat their offensive behaviour.

Personally, I find my refusal to follow the Laws and instructions from the TD causes me "embarrassment and humiliation", not my opponent.

[Cyberyeti]

If somebody has said things about me that I find offensive, I can understand refusing to play on without an apology.

What does this accomplish?

It means that I don't have to play a further board against an opponent who's called me for example an effing cheat with the morals of Charles Manson while angry enough that I would probably give them a top on the board anyway.

 

Having 10 minutes to calm down can work wonders here.