"ridiculous"

[mycroft]

I would find it hard not to say as the TD to Mr. Expert: "Oddly enough, sir, that's my job. Now,..." before my "it is a MPC and must be played at the first legal opportunity, and if you are on lead with that card still on the table, declarer will have options on what you lead. I'll stick around until we clear all this up."

[bluejak]

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.

Oh, yes? What about the UI?

[Finch]

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.

 

that's different, because the player isn't calling you ridiculous, he's calling the alerting procedures ridiculous which I think he's entitled to do if he wants (although it won't get him anywhere)

[Finch]

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.

 

Yes. You should always call the TD whether or not everyone at the table knows the relevant Laws. Even if you are the country's chief TD who happens to be playing, you call the acting TD. As mycroft says, that's his job. It's also part of training everyone present that they always call the TD and don't make their own rulings at the table.

 

Over the last week or so there was an email discussion between various TDs and the members of the EBU L&E about whether a particular treatment of a call is alertable or not. The majority view was eventually that it should be alerted. We played a pair at the weekend playing this treatment, they didn't alert it. We weren't damaged, but afterwards I called the TD (Gordontd), told him what they were playing and asked him about its alertability. He told them there it was. I didn't hear him say "you could have told them that yourself" because I think he agrees with me: he's the man in the purple EBU jacket, I'm just a player.