"ridiculous"

[Cascade]

After an infraction, say a tempo issue or the like, the opponent who perpetrated the infraction, tells the player who indicated that he would call the director:

 

"don't be so ridiculous"

 

How do you handle this under Law 74A?

 

Assume the infraction did actually occur.

[RMB1]

After an infraction, say a tempo issue or the like, the opponent (X) who perpetrated the infraction, tells the player (Y) who indicated that he (Y) would call the director: "don't be so ridiculous"

 

If Y is upset by the remark then I fine X the standard disciplinary penalty.

 

If Y is not upset (and just thinks X is a prat) and X is regrets his remark (heat of the moment) then I tell X that his remark is inappropriate and upsetting;. You have to be there, but there should probably be a fine regardless.

 

Assume the infraction did actually occur.

 

Irrelevant: the remark is upsetting and inappropriate regardless.

[Cyberyeti]

While I don't entirely disagree with Robin that whether the offence took place matters, I can envisage situations like:

 

Stop 2♥ (removes stop card after a microsecond)

 

Waits 10 seconds ... pass

 

Pass

 

2♠

 

"Director"

 

I might feel a little like the man who said "ridiculous" and less likely to penalise as the director.

 

I've only seen this sort of situation once, where the director was confronted with an elderly gentleman who'd committed a minor infraction that many would have let go in a club setting, but strictly required a director call, the secretary bird or close, indicated a director call, and something was said. The conversation with the director went as follows:

 

SB: this man just called me a bastard

EG: no I didn't, I called you a MISERABLE bastard

 

I'm not sure what was done, I suspect this being Norfolk and with the people involved, probably nothing.

[RMB1]

You have to be there, ...

 

There are lots of different circumstances where different ruling would be possible.

 

I think "don't be so ridiculous" sounds like an attempt to prevent Y from calling the director, and it is upsetting because it is calling Y ridiculous.

 

In contrast: "that's ridiculous" (for example) sounds like strong disagreement with Y's contention that there has been an infraction. It is not attempting to prevent the TD being called, nor is it calling Y ridiculous.

 

We also have to be aware that we are not speaking the same language (just because we use the same words).

"don't be so ridiculous" could carry very different meaning in America than in England, or indeed in Norfolk than in London or Devon.

[Bbradley62]

After an infraction, say a tempo issue or the like, the opponent(X) who perpetrated the infraction, tells the player(Y) who indicated that he(Y) would call the director:"don't be so ridiculous"

An opposing view, depending on context... Why is Y provoking X? Don't tell him you would call the director; either call the director or shut up and continue playing.

[kenrexford]

I would penalize the person who said "ridiculous" with stern reprimand.

 

I would also give the non-offending side a big hug to sooth the pain that they must have experienced for such outrage. No one should have to endure such harsh and unthoughtful language in a civilized society.

[mikeh]

I would penalize the person who said "ridiculous" with stern reprimand.

 

I would also give the non-offending side a big hug to sooth the pain that they must have experienced for such outrage. No one should have to endure such harsh and unthoughtful language in a civilized society.

That's the most ridiculous response I have ever seen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

(I only said that to ensure that ken gets the hugs he will need after reading this)

[pooltuna]

After an infraction, say a tempo issue or the like, the opponent who perpetrated the infraction, tells the player who indicated that he would call the director:

 

"don't be so ridiculous"

 

How do you handle this under Law 74A?

 

Assume the infraction did actually occur.

 

Is drawing and quartering allowed? :)

[mycroft]

Frankly, I think it's worse if there was no infraction - either "well, call then" or "Director!...This gentleman seems to have an issue. I dispute it." is much better.

 

If there *was* an infraction, however, and this even sniffs of an attempt at intimidation, then I'm beginning to wonder if I should pull out my ASL Rule Book, because the FLB for bridge just doesn't have sufficient gravity when thrown at them.

 

Seriously, though, this happens a lot, and needs the person to then actually call the director, and a firm but stable hand to ensure further correct behaviour.

[Cascade]

An opposing view, depending on context... Why is Y provoking X? Don't tell him you would call the director; either call the director or shut up and continue playing.

 

I don't think it was provocation. The non-offender said "I need a director at the table". The offender asked "Why?" The non-offender explained. The offender made his comment. The director was called ...

[Cascade]

In the words of the offender 'I told him not to be ridiculous'.

 

The director ruled that this was acceptable and took no action.

[Bbradley62]

I don't think it was provocation. The non-offender said "I need a director at the table". The offender asked "Why?" The non-offender explained. The offender made his comment. The director was called ...

In the words of the offender 'I told him not to be ridiculous'.

 

The director ruled that this was acceptable and took no action.

Why does the player feel the need to say (apparently) to his opponent "I need a director at the table"? Either call for a director, or keep playing. Did the director take no action as to the comment, or also as to the original infraction?

[Cascade]

Why does the player feel the need to say (apparently) to his opponent "I need a director at the table"?

 

Seems perfectly courteous to me.

 

 

Did the director take no action as to the comment, or also as to the original infraction?

 

The comment.

 

The infraction was verified and ruled on.

[barmar]

Yes, I think it's definitely more courteous to inform your opponents that you need to call the director, rather than suddenly blurt out "Director!". The latter is generally very annoying.

 

A common scenario I've seen is someone makes an insufficient bid, and just tries make it sufficient immediately when someone calls attention to it. One of us will then say "No, we should call the director" and do so, because we know it's not appropriate to try to resolve these things. I know they're not trying to get away with anything, they just don't know any better.

 

However, I'll admit that I've gone along with self-rulings about major penalty cards many times. Sometimes it's because I'm declarer and I have a pretty good idea that the card will be played before his partner gets on lead, so the lead restrictions won't come up, and that's the only complicated part of the penalty card laws.

[Xiaolongnu]

Bringing up this topic again cos today I just had this word used on me while making a ruling. I vaguely recalled (with the memory of a bridge player) that this word "ridiculous" was discussed here before, so I thought I would post and revive this.

 

I explained a matter of fact and law, which happened to be proper screen alerting procedures, but that is irrelevant really.

 

Player: But this is ridiculous! I mean, sorry, but...

 

I wasn't particularly offended actually, but I did shoot him a look at the sound of the word ridiculous and he continued with the sorry immediately.

 

Is this considered swearing at me, or was it just an interjection? Note that I do not believe in penalizing swear words automatically, cos, unfortunately, we are all guilty of interjecting a swear word or two when we are under pressure sometimes. It is just, a reflex action. I judged that it was an interjection in the end.

[blackshoe]

"Ridiculous" is not a "swear word".

[blackshoe]

Yes, I think it's definitely more courteous to inform your opponents that you need to call the director, rather than suddenly blurt out "Director!". The latter is generally very annoying.

That's why bidding boxes (used to?) come with little orange "director" cards. I won't speculate on the reason for the disappearance of those cards.

[paua]

After an infraction, say a tempo issue or the like, the opponent who perpetrated the infraction, tells the player who indicated that he would call the director:

 

"don't be so ridiculous"

 

How do you handle this under Law 74A?

 

Assume the infraction did actually occur.

 

I had similar last year. I asked about a jump shift by opponent.

"Oh, come on !" was the scornful reply.

 

Unacceptable. I think you have to just quietly continue with business, knowing you are in the right.

If the perpetrator doesn't calm down, then call the director, make the perpetrator look ridiculous.

 

I think really each club should keep a complaints book, name and date. So you run off to the director who quietly talks to the other three at the table to clarify the situation and wording. The issue gets logged in the complaints book. If the same player shows up in the book several times then they get a written warning from the President ...

 

Zero tolerance.

[blackshoe]

Zero Tolerance means you lower the hammer the first time someone does something.

[Bbradley62]

I had similar last year. I asked about a jump shift by opponent.

"Oh, come on !" was the scornful reply.

 

Unacceptable. I think you have to just quietly continue with business, knowing you are in the right.

I disagree. If the opponent's response was "unacceptable", you call the director right away and politely tell him/her "I asked a question and I would like an appropriate answer".

[bixby]

The time this happened to me was when I called the Director after a non-established revoke. The revoker's partner was one of the best players in the area (in fact I think he was playing as a pro and the revoker was his client). Mr. Expert ridiculed me for calling the Director -- I don't remember his exact remarks but when the Director arrived he jumped in before I could say anything and said something like "my partner revoked and this guy made you walk all the way over here so you could tell us that the card is a penalty card which we all knew" and waved the Director away.

 

It's true that most players know how to handle penalty cards but not everyone knows what to do when the partner of the player with the penalty card is on lead, and some Directors have been known to rule that the card is not to be treated as a penalty card if the Director wasn't called at the right time. So I think it is wise to call the Director, and obviously people who complain about calling the Director are out of line. IMO objecting to a call for the Director is an independent infraction and should be penalized.

[blackshoe]

It can be a violation of Law 74A2.

[mycroft]

Mr. Expert is being obnoxious. That's fine. I think I would, after the wave, told the TD that "I have been ruled against when the opponents didn't know about the lead penalties from a penalty card, so I call the TD every time now. Is that not correct?"

 

I have been known to be passive-aggressive, but in this case I think it's the right way to do it.

[Zelandakh]

"Don't be so ridiculous" is a personal insult. It has no place at the bridge table.

"But that's ridicuolous" is a comment about the CoC. No problem in the context described here imho.

In bixby's case, if the expert had really been upsetting it would have been appropriate to explain what had taken place to the TD while (s)he was still at the table so that they could assess whether it amounted to a disciplinary breach.

In the case of an opponent refusing to answer a question, I will absolutely refuse to continue until a full answer is given. If they continue to refuse to answer then the TD will be involved. This is not something you should simply accept.

[blackshoe]

The time this happened to me was when I called the Director after a non-established revoke. The revoker's partner was one of the best players in the area (in fact I think he was playing as a pro and the revoker was his client). Mr. Expert ridiculed me for calling the Director -- I don't remember his exact remarks but when the Director arrived he jumped in before I could say anything and said something like "my partner revoked and this guy made you walk all the way over here so you could tell us that the card is a penalty card which we all knew" and waved the Director away.

 

It's true that most players know how to handle penalty cards but not everyone knows what to do when the partner of the player with the penalty card is on lead, and some Directors have been known to rule that the card is not to be treated as a penalty card if the Director wasn't called at the right time. So I think it is wise to call the Director, and obviously people who complain about calling the Director are out of line. IMO objecting to a call for the Director is an independent infraction and should be penalized.

Rereading this, I think as director I would have ignored "Mr. Expert" and said to you "how may I help?" You should then explain the problem — including, if such is the case, Mr. Expert's rudeness. The director should rule on the penalty card question (it's a major penalty card) and remain at the table until the player no longer has a penalty card. If Mr. Expert was rude, he gets a PP. If Mr. Expert gets stroppy with me about it, I'd give him a DP as well.