Teaching the laws at the table

[jillybean]

I say, nicely I thought, you may want to wait until your partner makes her lead face down before you ask that.

In this thread the responses made it clear that the comment was inappropriate, and I agree.

 

 

If the mood at the table calls for it I may make a friendly comment that "you should have used STOP here".

In this thread, the comment is acceptable.

 

What is the difference, where do we draw the line when teaching laws at the table?

[Bbradley62]

The first case is instructing opp as to judgement and/or etiquette (whether to ask or not when allowed by the rules) whereas the second is explaining that opp violated the rules.

[aguahombre]

Is either case a good idea for a player to do at the table? Is one of these something a director might do at the table?

 

IMHO, drawing attention to an irregularity is not the same as teaching the laws; and probably teaching at the table is a bad idea unless it is a teaching-type game for newbies who are expecting to be taught.

[gnasher]

There's no difference - both are improper, in that they're breaches of Laws 74A2 and 74B2.

[blackshoe]

In the first case, your LHO legally asked a question. In the second, your opponent committed an infraction. However, I would refrain altogether from teaching the rules at the table unless I'm asked. The right action when an opponent needs a lesson is to call the director. When it's a regular partner who needs the lesson, give it to him later, between rounds if there's time, or after the session if not. Trying to educate a pickup partner isn't worth the aggravation, imo. Although if they ask, or they're clearly a novice, you might give it a try.

[AlexJonson]

My own recent experience is that partner failed to show the stop card because he had pulled the wrong card from the bidding box.

 

I wish my RHO had said... or maybe I don't.

[pran]

In my case it is usually a matter of ignorance, and the players are regularly grateful for me explaining to them what they didn't know.

 

Calling the director and have him do the teaching is NOT the way to have them come back.

[gordontd]

Calling the director and have him do the teaching is NOT the way to have them come back.

It is if the director is called in the correct manner, and does the teaching properly.

[pran]

It is if the director is called in the correct manner, and does the teaching properly.

Excuse me asking, but do you have any experience in this field?

I do, and I can tell you that a safe way of getting rid of inexperienced players from a club is to have frequent director calls on them on matters like this regardless of how properly the call is made.

[bluejak]

I fancy that the Assistant Chief TD of the EBU and TD at the world's foremost bridge club [well, they say they are! :)] probably has a little experience, yes.

 

Everything is in the attitude: when I call the TD with inexperienced opponents, no, they are not upset because of the way I call the TD. If someone calls me to the table and I explain to an inexperienced pair what they are doing wrong, no, they are not upset because of the way I explain to them. If your experience is different, pran, perhaps your approach is wrong.

[blackshoe]

I fancy that the Assistant Chief TD of the EBU and TD at the world's foremost bridge club [well, they say they are! :)] probably has a little experience, yes.

 

I'd say so too. I'd also say that Sven has been around this forum long enough to know that Gordon is an experienced TD, and therefore he owes Gordon an apology.

[pran]

I'd say so too. I'd also say that Sven has been around this forum long enough to know that Gordon is an experienced TD, and therefore he owes Gordon an apology.

Sorry, maybe I should have known but I didn't. Mea culpa.

 

My experience is that inexperienced players in particular are very vulnerable and sensitive about TD being called because of something they have done or not done.

 

As director I have found it wise to reassure them that such calls are perfectly normal whenever there seems to be an irregularity and nothing to be worried about.

 

I have also found that such players deliberately avoid clubs where they can expect (frequent) TD calls when they have the choice of a "more friendly club".

 

And I have had much positive feedback appreciating just my clarification of technical errors that give no cause for rectification, only for teaching.

[gordontd]

I can tell you that a safe way of getting rid of inexperienced players from a club is to have frequent director calls on them on matters like this regardless of how properly the call is made.

I think the fact that you talk of having director calls "on" players says something.

[blackshoe]

Given the degree to which everyone in this forum (including me) is occasionally sloppy about terminology, I suppose Sven can be forgiven this once for using the dreaded "he called the director on me!" construction. It is, of course, one of those things we should be educating people about - that calling the director is not done "on" anyone, it is done to aid the entire table in dealing with an irregularity. Particularly given that only the TD is supposed to do that.

[pran]

Given the degree to which everyone in this forum (including me) is occasionally sloppy about terminology, I suppose Sven can be forgiven this once for using the dreaded "he called the director on me!" construction. It is, of course, one of those things we should be educating people about - that calling the director is not done "on" anyone, it is done to aid the entire table in dealing with an irregularity. Particularly given that only the TD is supposed to do that.

I deliberately used the term "called on" because that is the way inexperienced players very often feel it.

 

Part of my job as director is of course to make them understand what a call for the director really is, and as part of my effort to do this I actively encourage capable players to avoid calling the director on such "misdemeanours" that can easily be sorted out with a simple and friendly piece of education and where no rectification is warranted.

 

Believe me, it makes a world of difference to the "newbies" in bridge.

 

We don't shoot sparrows with guns and we don't apply the same standard when dealing with beginners as we do in Masters' league. (At least I do not.)

[blackshoe]

What do we shoot sparrows with? :P

 

It seems Sven and I are in agreement. :)

[pran]

What do we shoot sparrows with? :P

 

It seems Sven and I are in agreement. :)

I suppose the correct translation of the Norwegian proverb would use the word cannons rather than guns?

A gun is any kind of firearm?

[aguahombre]

yeh, but we could still shoot them with arrows or darts.

[blackshoe]

Well, as a Naval officer, I learned that guns are mounted on ships, and personal weapons are therefore not guns, but the common use of "guns" is, as Sven says, pretty much "any kind of firearm". OTOH, my dictionary defines "gun" as "a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force" and "firearm" as "a rifle, pistol, or other portable gun". So technically what most people think of when you say "gun" is in fact a gun, but "firearm" would be a better choice. And perhaps "cannon" or the more general "artillery" or "ordnance" would be a better choice in translating Sven's proverb.

 

Heh. I didn't expect to go down this road; I was just trying to be funny. Maybe I should just not do that. :(

[mrdct]

Some jurisdictional and other contextual information would be useful here. Are we talking about a supervised play session here? A club duplicate at the senior citizens centre? A country congress? Something more serious?

 

In general, however, it would be inappropriate to do either while the hand (particularly the auction) was still in progress as both could potentially create UI issues; although technically in the latter case you could call the TD in relation to the irregularity. I would only ever consider giving unsolicited advice about laws and etiquette to players that I know well and would only do so at the end of a round if time permits.

[jillybean]

Some jurisdictional and other contextual information would be useful here. Are we talking about a supervised play session here? A club duplicate at the senior citizens centre? A country congress? Something more serious?

 

A regular club game, regular players who have been playing for several years, or decades. I am not talking about new players as a large part of this thread has been focuced on.

[aguahombre]

Yep, we did stray a bit. But I do think people's comments have been useful about manner of instruction, and about situations where "teaching" might be more appropriate. If we stick to non-newbies and normal games, I vote for no teaching or preaching at the table.

 

Perhaps the weaponry part was a bit off.

[mycroft]

So, sometimes "not teaching at all" is the best thing to do at this table. Let's just hope that the next time they do this, it's not at one of those "DIE-REC-TOR!" tables.

 

I'm sure that Sven can explain what's going on to the intermediates in a nicer way than many directors, and that he can call the TD to discuss the Law in a nicer way than many players. *AND* the intermediates have seen him direct in important (to them) tournaments, and so can believe that he *is* just saying it because it's correct and they should know for next time - and that what he's saying *is* correct.

 

I know that because at my club, if I explain, politely, after the hand, that they should have done something else to be Lawful or because of potential UI implications, I get the same response as Sven. But I also know that it's because I'm who I am, and not because it's better practise in general.

 

I also agree with him that many people *do* call the cops, and even if they just want education, they want the opponents "schooled". However, if they did the schooling at the table, it would be just as bad for intermediate retention as if they called the TD in that manner - especially if the TD then does "lay down the law". These are the people who call the TD "on" the intermediates and drive them away in general.

 

I also mention to newer players that if a conversation starts "I could call the director here, but I won't", the correct response is "Director, please." Yeah, sure, they might get a ruling against them they wouldn't get if they had just sat for the lecture (but then they'll know for next time, or be able to ask later why), but sometimes they'll be in the right (for instance, the call isn't a LA *for them*, even though it would be *for their more experienced opponents*), and sometimes the opponent who thinks the Law is some way is in fact mistaken (in which case that particular old-wives-tale is stopped at this branch).

[mycroft]

In response to the original post, though - it really depends, Jilly, on what you're trying to accomplish.

 

If you think that what happened may have caused a problem that affected your result, call the director to get the ruling.

If you think that what happened didn't cause a problem, but that's only by luck, maybe it's right to call the TD so they learn a better way to do it.

If you think they actually *do* know better, and do it anyway, it's time to make sure the TD knows (or, assuming the TD does know, maybe he'll decide it's time for "I guess warnings don't get the point across." Who knows?)

If you're just frustrated at this thing that 'always' happens, well, sometimes, life is annoying. I know there are many things that 'always' happen to me that there's really nothing that can be done about. Maybe it's something that can be discussed at an intermediate talk at some sectional/article in the local or tournament bulletin?

[richlp]

Well, as a Naval officer, I learned that guns are mounted on ships, and personal weapons are therefore not guns.....

Heh. I didn't expect to go down this road; I was just trying to be funny. Maybe I should just not do that. :(

 

Every Basic Trainee in the Army (at least as of mumble-mumble years ago when I was one) quickly learned NOT to use the term "Gun" unless referring to (ahem - I guess every grunt from those long ago years pretty much knows what I'm referring to)