Discourtesy

[Cascade]

Hi

 

What are the standards for discourtesy as applied on the ground in various jurisdictions?

 

Here (edit: in NZ) discourtesy seems to go unchecked. Directors seem to not want to know and make little or no effort to deal with any claim of discourtesy.

 

Where "zero tolerance" type policies are in place do these really work?

[pran]

Hi

 

What are the standards for discourtesy as applied on the ground in various jurisdictions?

 

Here (edit: in NZ) discourtesy seems to go unchecked. Directors seem to not want to know and make little or no effort to deal with any claim of discourtesy.

 

Where "zero tolerance" type policies are in place do these really work?

I consider Law 74 (and especially L74A2) to be the most important law in the book and take every step needed to maintain it.

[RMB1]

Where "zero tolerance" type policies are in place do these really work?

 

Only to a limited extent: in England (EBU) the "zero tolerance" is called "Best Behaviour at Bridge" (BB@B).

 

The successful implementation of BB@B has been limited by:

• the reluctance to players to call the TD,
  
• the difficulty for TDs in determining whether there was an offence that can be penalized,
  
• the extent to which offenders with power and influence avoid sanction.
  

[paulg]

The successful implementation of BB@B has been limited by:

• the difficulty for TDs in determining whether there was an offence that can be penalized,

Yes, I'm sure it was a lot easier in the days when players broke doors or threw tables over pregnant women.

[mrdct]

Hi

 

What are the standards for discourtesy as applied on the ground in various jurisdictions?

 

Here (edit: in NZ) discourtesy seems to go unchecked. Directors seem to not want to know and make little or no effort to deal with any claim of discourtesy.

 

Where "zero tolerance" type policies are in place do these really work?

What do you mean by "discourtesy"? If you mean not saying please and thank-you, warmly greeting your opponents or standing up when a lady enters the room, I don't think any "zero tolerance" or equivalent policy is going to have much effect.

 

In my local jurisdiction (Victoria, Australia) we have Disciplinary By-Laws which require that any formal complaint about behaviour be investigated and, if found to be in breach of the By-Laws, mandatory sanctions apply within discretionary ranges to be applied by the Chair of the Disciplinary Committee or the full Disciplinary Committee depending on who made the complaint and whether or not a sanction is appealed. In practice, only verbal abuse of opponents tends to be reported as the more common situation of partner-abuse is rarely, if ever, reported. First offences usually attract a warning or reprimand but repeat offenders or more serious offenders can be suspended from all bridge in Victoria and be reported to the National Authority. I'm only aware of one suspension that's been applied since the current Disciplinary By-Laws were enacted in 2004 and I think player behavior is generally very good in Victoria.

[Bad_Wolf]

I consider Law 74 (and especially L74A2) to be the most important law in the book and take every step needed to maintain it.

 

I consider Law 74 to be the most frivolous, stupid and downright dangerous Law in bridge. Throw it out now. Am I the only one heartily sick of the politeness police?

[mrdct]

I consider Law 74 to be the most frivolous, stupid and downright dangerous Law in bridge. Throw it out now. Am I the only one heartily sick of the politeness police?

I'm with Pran on this one.

 

Conduct and etiquette are vitally important to the game and are one of things that sets us apart from other sports.

 

Nobody likes spending time with rude or unpleasant people so if the 'politeness police' can weed out a few of these recalcitrants - good luck to them.

[barmar]

Conduct and etiquette are vitally important to the game and are one of things that sets us apart from other sports.

But maybe if we allowed physical violence, we could get on TV like hockey and pro wrestling.

 

You could bid a "grand body slam", squeezes would be literal, and strip-endplays would leave the player naked.

[blackshoe]

Eeeeewwww

[gnasher]

Law 74A2 is obviously unreasonable, as well as conflicting with some of the other laws. I often take actions that might cause annoyance or embarassment to another player, such as:

- Doubling an opponent in a freely bid game.

- Calling the director because I think an infraction has occurred.

- Refusing to let an opponent see a quitted trick.

- Asking to see the opponents' convention card.

- Asking an opponent not to talk whilst I'm thinking.

- Asking North at the next table for boards.

[McBruce]

Law 74A2 is obviously unreasonable, as well as conflicting with some of the other laws. I often take actions that might cause annoyance or embarassment to another player, such as:

- Doubling an opponent in a freely bid game.

- Calling the director because I think an infraction has occurred.

- Refusing to let an opponent see a quitted trick.

- Asking to see the opponents' convention card.

- Asking an opponent not to talk whilst I'm thinking.

- Asking North at the next table for boards.

 

74A2 is interpreted with context and common sense in mind. None of the above are impossible or even difficult to accomplish without courtesy. A player who claims to be annoyed or embarrassed by any of them being done with reasonable courtesy is never going to get sympathy from a TD. But at the same time, all of the above can be, and sometimes are, accomplished with an astounding level of rudeness. If the TD finds that this is the case, 74A2, and in fact all of Law 74, is relevant. Bridge, especially tournament bridge, is a social game played voluntarily by many people and usually open to all. Its success depends on bringing together different people and different types of people to the table. Without Law 74 the game could be horribly unpleasant and it would be impossible to bring different groups together.

 

However, while most TDs do warn players for behavioural lapses from time to time, it is a rare thing for a player to actually be penalized for discourtesy, even where there are Zero Tolerance or similar programs in place. The detractors almost always point out that under such a policy many events will be decided by behaviour rather than bridge skill. What Law 74 mandates is a very low level of courtesy that we all can maintain virtually always. In practice, the penalty provisions of Zero Tolerance programs have almost no effect on the results and are quickly forgotten by everyone. But it is important to keep reminding players from time to time that while we don't demand perfection or anything close to it, we do expect players to control themselves from behaviour that is clearly unacceptable (which may well depend upon the familiarity that you have with your current partner and opponents). A good TD can make an occasional pre-game announcement that reminds players of this obligation in a very positive way.

 

It has always seemed to me that the ACBL Zero Tolerance program is misunderstood by most. The idea is not to have Zero Tolerance for any behavior that is less than perfect, which is what is feared by most detractors. The idea is to have Zero Tolerance when someone goes completely off the deep end, and call the TD at the time -- not in order to get a penalty applied (although this may happen if the incident is bad enough), but to get the behaviour back to acceptable levels. This is the most difficult part: players are quite frustrated when they approach me with a horror story that happened a few rounds/an hour/a day/a week/a month ago, and I ask "why on earth did you not call the TD at the time?" Once the incident is in the past there is no way to reconstruct it without everyone having their own spin on it. But an immediate TD call stops it right away and the offender often apologizes for the incident. But let five minutes pass and the offender will deny it was as bad as all that and the opponent was hypersensitive, the complainer will make the incident into a federal case, and nobody's version is believable.

[gnasher]

McBruce, we have a law that requires players to be courteous, but it's Law 74A1. So far as I can see, your argument could be summarised as "Law 74A1 should be obeyed by the players and enforced by the directors". If so, I agree.

 

If you're saying that 74A2 should be "interepeted" by disregarding it entirely, I agree with that too.

 

I realise, of course, that you probably weren't intending to so say that. Can you give an example of a breach of Law 74A2 which is not a breach of any other part of Law 74, but which does merit penalty?

[blackshoe]

The problem with the ACBL's ZT policy, at least as it is written, is that it gives the TD no leeway. If a ZT violation occurs, says the regulation, the TD shall award a 1/4 board penalty to all offenders. If TDs are ignoring the regulation, and not giving penalties, then that just makes it worse — it engenders lack of respect for the rules. Why have a ZT policy if those appointed to enforce it will not?

[Trinidad]

I consider Law 74 (and especially L74A2) to be the most important law in the book and take every step needed to maintain it.

I pretty mmuch agree. But could you give some examples of steps that you have taken that improved the situation?

 

(In case it is not obvious, this is a serious question.)

 

Rik

[pran]

I pretty mmuch agree. But could you give some examples of steps that you have taken that improved the situation?

 

(In case it is not obvious, this is a serious question.)

 

Rik

Frankly, all such situations that I remember have I managed with a firm warning at the table. In some cases I have followed up with a private talk afterwards telling him the serious consequences it will have for him if I shall have to report him for diciplinary action. A "begging" request that he spares me such report action has usually done the trick.

 

After all, there are extrememly few players (if any at all) we want to get rid of?

[barmar]

74A2 is interpreted with context and common sense in mind. None of the above are impossible or even difficult to accomplish without courtesy.

Gnasher was clearly being facetious, interpreting "annoy" literally.

[gnasher]

I wasn't being facetious. I can only think of one reasonable way to interpret the phrase "any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player". The consequences of this rule are absurd, but that doesn't change the meaning of the words.

 

All of my examples were of things which, even when done courteously, might annoy or embarrass another player. The law doesn't say that the annoyance or embarrasment should be justified. In fact, it doesn't even say that the annoyance or embarrasment should actually occur.

[barmar]

I wasn't being facetious. I can only think of one reasonable way to interpret the phrase "any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player". The consequences of this rule are absurd, but that doesn't change the meaning of the words.

 

All of my examples were of things which, even when done courteously, might annoy or embarrass another player. The law doesn't say that the annoyance or embarrasment should be justified. In fact, it doesn't even say that the annoyance or embarrasment should actually occur.

When you decide to play a game, you know that there's a chance you may lose. So I think we can reasonably assume that anyone playing the game willingly doesn't consider the normal negative results of playing to be significantly annoying or embarassing. And as you say, treating all these normal results as violations of the Law is absurd, as it would make the game totally unplayable, so it's safe to assume this was not the intent of the authors. They obviously meant annoyance and embarrassment beyond those caused by ordinary bridge results. And in general, when there seem to be conflicts among the Laws, you have to apply common sense to reconcile them; that again implies that you shouldn't take that law to such absurd lengths.

[gnasher]

When you decide to play a game, you know that there's a chance you may lose. So I think we can reasonably assume that anyone playing the game willingly doesn't consider the normal negative results of playing to be significantly annoying or embarassing.

You must know a very unusual group of bridge players.

 

However, causing the opponents to lose was only one of my examples. Are you seriously tellng me that you have never seen someone be annoyed by a (courteous) request for a ruling?

 

And as you say, treating all these normal results as violations of the Law is absurd, as it would make the game totally unplayable, so it's safe to assume this was not the intent of the authors. They obviously meant annoyance and embarrassment beyond those caused by ordinary bridge results. And in general, when there seem to be conflicts among the Laws, you have to apply common sense to reconcile them; that again implies that you shouldn't take that law to such absurd lengths.

Would you also assume that the authors intended that Law 74A2 should deal with matters that are not already covered by Law 74A1? Is so, can you give an example of such an matter?

[bluejak]

If I smile at an opponent, and say in a very courteous manner "I think your partner has a stupid face" Law 74A2 applies but Law 74A1 does not.

[barmar]

However, causing the opponents to lose was only one of my examples. Are you seriously tellng me that you have never seen someone be annoyed by a (courteous) request for a ruling?

That was just the one example I was picking on. My basic point is that certain actions are part of the game, and explicitly permitted (and sometimes required) by other laws. 74A2 cannot reasonably be interpreted to prohibit them.

 

You're required to call the director in many situations, so it can't be a violation of 74A2. And as long as you do it in a courteous manner, you're not in violation of 74A1. It's possible that what you intend as courteous, the opponent may interpret as haughty; he can complain to the director, who then has to sort it out.

 

There are fine lines in some cases. You mentioned asking for boards from the next table. Most players feel that once the round has been called, you're within your rights to interrupt their play with a courteous request for boards, to avoid unnecessary delay of the game. But if you finish early and your next opponents arrive, you're being annoying if you bother the players at the next table for boards; while you might like to get an early start so you can stay ahead of the clock, courtesy trumps that.

[gnasher]

My basic point is that certain actions are part of the game, and explicitly permitted (and sometimes required) by other laws. 74A2 cannot reasonably be interpreted to prohibit them.

 

You're required to call the director in many situations, so it can't be a violation of 74A2.

Couldn't I equally say "Not annoying people is part of the game. You're required not to do something that might annoy an opponent, so the laws can't reasonably be interepted to mean that you should call the director against a sensitive opponent"? Or are you saying that some laws take priority over other laws?

 

I note that earlier in this thread one experienced director described 74A2 as "the most important law in the book".

 

(OK, now I am being facetious, but frankly this law deserves it, as does the comment I've just quoted.)

 

There are fine lines in some cases. You mentioned asking for boards from the next table. Most players feel that once the round has been called, you're within your rights to interrupt their play with a courteous request for boards, to avoid unnecessary delay of the game. But if you finish early and your next opponents arrive, you're being annoying if you bother the players at the next table for boards; while you might like to get an early start so you can stay ahead of the clock, courtesy trumps that.

I wouldn't regard that as a fine line. If someone has failed to pass on a board after the round has been called, they deserve to have their concentration disturbed. And if someone interrupted me to ask for boards before the round had been called, he'd get a reply that didn't comply with Law 74A1.

[mgoetze]

74A2 cannot reasonably be interpreted to prohibit them.

 

So now you can move on to gnasher's question: what is actually prohibited by a "reasonable interpretation" of 74A2?

[gwnn]

If I smile at an opponent, and say in a very courteous manner "I think your partner has a stupid face" Law 74A2 applies but Law 74A1 does not.

Law 74A1 does apply. If you say "I think your partner has a stupid face", you are not maintaining a courteous attitude, regardless of your tone of voice or your body language. It is impossible to say "I think your partner has a stupid face" in a courteous manner, just like it is impossible to fall asleep at the table whilst maintaining sufficient attention to the game.

[hrothgar]

Law 74A2 is obviously unreasonable, as well as conflicting with some of the other laws. I often take actions that might cause annoyance or embarassment to another player, such as:

- Doubling an opponent in a freely bid game.

- Calling the director because I think an infraction has occurred.

- Refusing to let an opponent see a quitted trick.

- Asking to see the opponents' convention card.

- Asking an opponent not to talk whilst I'm thinking.

- Asking North at the next table for boards.

 

My favorite example is the following:

 

I know some players / partnerships that absolutely despise psyches.

They consider it cheating. They work themselves into a frenzy every time a psyche occurs.

They frequently call the director to "record" the pysche.

Sometimes when I sit down against them, they remind each other of that bid I made two years ago...

 

I actively look for opportunities to psyche against these idiots, especially at the start of team matches because I know that

 

1. The psyche is going to infuriate them

2. This is going to throw their game off