serious bridge vs. fun bridge

[nige1]

Agree with everything that MrDict wrote. Declarer gets one of remaining tricks. Bluejak tells us this was a serious event. Suppose, however, it had been a fun event, with a non-playing director, but still nominally Bridge...

• Do you waive all rules?
  
• Do you stick to the rules, calling the director, whenever attention is drawn to an infraction?
  
• Do you stick to the rules, except for obvious mechanical errors?
  
• Do you call the director but ask the director to waive the rules?
  
• Does it depend on something else? eg who your opponents are?
  

[paulg]

Agree with everything that MrDict wrote. Declarer gets one of remaining tricks. Bluejak tells us this was a serious event. Suppose, however, it had been a fun event, with a non-playing director, but still nominally Bridge...

• 
   
  
• Do you waive all rules?
   
  
• Do you stick to the rules, calling the director, whenever attention is drawn to an infraction?
   
  
• Do you stick to the rules, except for obvious mechanical errors?
   
  
• Do you call the director but ask the director to waive the rules?
   
  
• Does it depend on something else? eg who your opponents are?
   
  

Presumably a question for a new thread, not this one.

[blackshoe]

Done.

[awm]

Waiving all rules is a bit overboard. After all, we have to do something when there's a revoke or bid out of turn. My approach would tend to be:

 

(1) It's up to the players in question to decide on how to deal with irregularities like revokes. My personal policy would be to just "let opponents take it back" in most cases, unless they are experts or very regular duplicate players who won't get offended by the director call. However, I think the laws should be applied here if the players call. Note that I will also call on myself or partner in this sort of game, if the opponents seem too inexperienced to realize they should call.

 

(2) Rules about breaks in tempo/UI should usually be ignored, since they tend to cause acrimony and presumably people are not going overboard to win a non-serious event. Of course, particularly blatant examples can still be enforced via law.

 

(3) In no situation would I hand out "procedural penalties." The director's job in this event is mostly to restore equity.

[jjbrr]

I agree with awm. In non-serious events, I personally let a lot of things slide. I admit I haven't called the director for a lead or play out of turn in many years, and that goes for some serious competitions as well.

[bluejak]

The problem with fun bridge lies with the players. When I play fun bridge I never call the TD.

 

But what is the TD meant to do when someone does call him? It is difficult for him not to just follow the rules really.

[aguahombre]

Adam's suggested procedure seems to cover all reasonable definitions of "fun bridge", including attempts to play serious bridge for fun at home.

 

Training sessions, low-level sanctioned games, etc., might not be considered "serious" to everyone --rather somewhere in between, and subject to a bit higher standard of rule enforcement while keeping the tone more relaxed so we can still have "fun".

[pran]

The problem with fun bridge lies with the players.  When I play fun bridge I never call the TD.

 

But what is the TD meant to do when someone does call him?  It is difficult for him not to just follow the rules really.

I was once called while playing fun bridge.

 

In my law book I have two cards inherited from a soccer referee and showed the yellow card to all four players at the table for calling me. B)

 

Then I asked how I could help them and resolved the case which happened to be so trivial that I have completely forgotten what it was about.

 

Everybody (including me) happy - end of story

[shintaro]

The problem with fun bridge lies with the players. When I play fun bridge I never call the TD.

 

But what is the TD meant to do when someone does call him? It is difficult for him not to just follow the rules really.

;)

 

 

He can always give a 'Split Ruling David'

 

B)

[nige1]

These replies cast light on a facet of bridge that puzzled me when I played in some venues. My expert partner told me, that opponents would hesitate with singletons, and gloat when their ruse worked. When asked about the meaning of a call or play, opponents would sometimes say "no agreement" but later discuss their specific agreement in the post-mortem; and so on.

 

Against my partner's explicit instructions, I once (and once only) called the director after some blatant infraction. The director ruled in our favour; but later, he took me aside for a kindly word of advice. He explained that: this was a friendly social club; players went there to enjoy themselves. He politely asked me not to call him again.

 

This attitude troubles me. I agree that Bridge rules are hard to understand. I accept that the only long-term solution is to simplify them. In the mean time, I feel that the rules should still be enforced. For many reasons e.g.

• A game is its rules. If players habitually break the rules that they don't like, they are playing different games: games that are ill-defined and less enjoyable. You appreciate this, when you play a board game, like Monopoly, with children. For example, a player may become depressed or angry, for a minute or two, when he has to pay a hotel bill. He may be temporarily appeased if you let him off. If you make a habit of this, however, then you ruin the game. The game will lose its excitement and become too boring to interest the players. Similarly, most beginners, in a Bridge class, are keen to abide by the rules.
  
• In my experience, the atmosphere in venues where the rules are not enforced is less friendly and fun than some imagine. Some players don't like bending the rules but feel they have to do the same as all the others to have any chance. Players realize that they are being coffee-housed and bicker behind each others' backs. Sometimes you may even hear the "C" word.
  

[Vampyr]

[*] A game is its rules. If you don't follow the rules of a game, you are playing a different game: a game that is ill-defined and less enjoyable.

But a different game with different rules does not have to be less enjoyable.

 

As long as a game is not sanctioned by an NBO or some other organisation affiliated with the WBF , the rules may be changed to suit the players.

[blackshoe]

I don't care if the local country club decides to run a game (unsanctioned) of cards somewhat similar, but not identical, to duplicate bridge (or for that matter (rubber) contract bridge), as long as they tell people, up front, that the rules under which they will be playing are not the "official" rules, and what the differences are. What really frosts me is getting halfway through a game, and then finding out that I've broken some home grown rule I never heard of. And that holds true whether the game is sanctioned or not.

[bluejak]

The basic problem with most bridge games that are not played to the rules is that different people have different ideas, so it does not mesh well. My impression has always been that 'social' clubs have inner tensions caused by rule-breaking.

[barmar]

David is correct, the problem with relaxed rules is that it's difficult to know where the line is drawn.

 

It tends to work OK as long as the community stays constant. Where you have problems is when a newcomer arrives, then you have situations like the one Nigel described.

 

It's not unlike real life. If you go to a foreign country, you may break a taboo that you never knew about, because of cultural differences.

[Phil]

This discussion is similar to discussions about golf.

 

Gimme putts are never allowed, yet these are a staple of many foursomes and leagues all over the world. No one minds, except for the occasional AR purist that observes. Plus it speeds up the game.

 

There is no scope for 'winter rules' in golf. Yet people improve their lie in plain view if the group allows it.

 

I see no reason why there cannot be a set of casual and serious rules in bridge.

[helene_t]

The basic problem with most bridge games that are not played to the rules is that different people have different ideas, so it does not mesh well. My impression has always been that 'social' clubs have inner tensions caused by rule-breaking.

Agree with that.

[Gerben42]

The basic problem with most bridge games that are not played to the rules is that different people have different ideas, so it does not mesh well. My impression has always been that 'social' clubs have inner tensions caused by rule-breaking.

 

Yes, I have found the same thing. Especially hot are UI cases... On the one hand the opponents are outraged when I open 1NT with just 14 HCP (and good 5-card ♦) yet they apply weasel vs preempts and similar ploys.

 

For me, "social" bridge is an impossible game with traps around every corner. I tend to stay out of places where this is played. On the other hand, "serious" bridge can be very social and much more enjoyable. It can also be played socially while sticking to the rules.

[sceptic]

Not having played too much live bridge, I have found that on occasions a director has ben called, there was no real issue, nice explanations and a pleasant attitude at the table ensued.

 

The few times that there was an issue, was caused by the attitude of the moron calling for the director, they were just asses and it was they way they did it that caused the bad feeling at the table not the fact that they were calling the director.

 

Social bridge is played by social players at any level, even very competitive bridge is social bridge if you have a nice table full of people

 

A good TD with people skills will put everyone at ease and no one should complain, they should get full explanations and there is a consistancy in thier handling of situations.

 

Only non social bridge I ever played has been with non social players

 

People are the issue not the rules

[pran]

It so happens that I play "social" (or"fun") bridge once a year in clubs where we play seriouos bridge the other 51 weeks. Nobody has any trouble with that, and I believe most of the players would resent any suggestion that this was not a proper way to spend that evening.

[aguahombre]

For me, "social" bridge is an impossible game with traps around every corner. I tend to stay out of places where this is played. On the other hand, "serious" bridge can be very social and much more enjoyable. It can also be played socially while sticking to the rules.

Yes, and no...

 

I believe a veteran tournament player should stay away from the weekly social Chicago at the country club, and other similar party bridge situations with players largely unfamiliar with ACBL games --unless it is to preside. We just plain don't belong.

 

Social (fun) bridge with peers is a different animal. I have never encountered a problem in that type of game, where there is joviality, libation, and maybe even a few pennies involved. People call their own foot faults and know the rules they are "relaxing" about.

[Vampyr]

I believe a veteran tournament player should stay away from the weekly social Chicago at the country club, and other similar party bridge situations with players largely unfamiliar with ACBL games --unless it is to preside.  We just plain don't belong.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Why should a person who would quite enjoy this type of game exclude himself just because he is a "veteran tournament player"?

 

The "house rules" may be frustrating at first, but understanding them shouldn't prove too difficult for a person to pick up, if he really wants to participate. Perhaps this is a bit more difficult if the situation is a one-off, for instance a charity drive, but still it should be possible to go with the flow as long as one is not taking the bridge too seriously. It would help a lot, obviously, to have a partner who is familiar with the people and the customs of the group.