Teaching the laws at the table

[barmar]

The only difficulty I have with this is that is sounds very silly, even condescending coming from an experienced player to equally experienced opponents.

Seeing it in writing is different from experiencing it at the table. In conversation, people are likely to react favorably when you say things in the right way. It's the whole reason why euphemisms exist: HOW you say things is sometimes more important than WHAT you mean.

[phil_20686]

There are real problems of disclosure for expert partnerships, for me a real problem is in check back and when the later auctions change the meaning of the earlier bids. FOr example, sometimes I make one bid and it shows five or more hearts, and they ask and are told, but later when partner shows a slam try it is always 6 or more hearts, but they don't always ask about the later bids so what is my obligation now? My original information was correct when I gave it, but is incorrect by the end of the auction, and if they never ask any more questions then I never get the chance to inform them. Its true that full disclosure would have been "if partner later shows a slam try then he will always have six hearts", but if you start specifying your bids meanings based on later auctions which may or may not occur, then you are just confusing them with information overload, and it takes forever.

[Zelandakh]

Your first bid showed 5+ hearts. Your later bid shows a 6th heart and a slam try. There is no contradiction here. This is the same as opening a major in Acol (showing 4+) and rebidding a new suit (now promising a 5th card in the first suit). The further auction has not changed the original meaning, it has simply clarified the hand further. An example which matches your description exactly is the sequence 1NT - 2♦ (5+ hearts); 2♥ - 3♠ (splinter with 6+ hearts). The fact that 2♦ can be 6 hearts is no reason not to describe it as 5+! On the other hand, if the initial bid is described as showing 5+ hearts but a subsequent bid changes the meaning to 5+ spades, well now you have a problem as the original description was simply incorrect.

[jillybean]

Tone and abruptness is everything in this one. Another key phrase for certain queries to the TD is "I have no problem with this hand" or "I wish to waive any right to a rectification" - the latter is legal, but should raise the flag nicely - in case the TD decides that you did want a ruling rather than an explanations anyway.

Is this true in ACBL, if there has been an infraction can an opponent of the OS decide to waive the penalty? Where does it say this?

[Bbradley62]

Another key phrase for certain queries to the TD is "I have no problem with this hand" or "I wish to waive any right to a rectification" - the latter is legal, but should raise the flag nicely - in case the TD decides that you did want a ruling rather than an explanations anyway.

These two phrases sound like they should be followed by "but I just want to prove I'm right".

[jillybean]

Seeing it in writing is different from experiencing it at the table. In conversation, people are likely to react favorably when you say things in the right way. It's the whole reason why euphemisms exist: HOW you say things is sometimes more important than WHAT you mean.

Creating a story to teach our opponents, "I was told once that I should wait until the face-down opening lead before asking my questions if I'm going to pass out the hand. I'd like to know what I should do. I'm going to call the TD and find out, she's not busy at the moment." may work for rank beginners but for the rest of us there should be no problem when I say, in a normal voice. "I have a problem with this hand and I'm going to call the director"

[wyman]

My approach, which is incredibly difficult for me, and which I admittedly don't follow all the time, is to just try not to call the director at club games unless something egregious happens (or something totally innocent like a revoke or an exposed card or lead/call out of turn, where it's clear something has happened, and you need someone authoritative to explain things to opps -- I don't like making my own "rulings" at the table, nor explaining laws).

 

I've had a director just basically yell at my opponent before (who admittedly should know better, but...), which should never happen, no matter how much of a jerk the opponent is. And I've had horrendous rulings of all kinds: club directors (ACBL) sometimes (read: often) don't know the laws. It's hard to fault them for this, since the players don't either, so no one ever calls them. But they often just don't know the laws. So, don't call them on matters of law.

 

Basically my new attitude is: club games and results don't matter. I play them for practice or just for fun, and calling the director will undoubtedly make the situation (and my rapport with the opps) more uncomfortable, leaving aside the fact that like > 50% of the time -- even if the director agrees with you -- you won't get a ruling, since the director often has a financial interest in the club, which is sustained by the 5-game-a-week LOLs. Guess who's not getting a PP for saying, mid-auction, "why don't you ever trust my bids?"

 

Yes, you can handle these things gently; ordinarily I do so pleading ignorance of the laws ("I always forget what the laws say about this, so I'm going to just call the director to ask -- no problem"). However, this is disingenuous, and it ends up being on you to tell the director what the law is anyway so (s)he can look it up, so it's hard to pull this off except in the most basic of cases.

 

I would get an ulcer if I called the director as often as the laws suggest I should. The takeaway? Play top-flight regional games where the BCDs have been quarantined in some other section so that they can fight each other for a few red or gold points. The game up top is far tougher, but you learn more, and it probably improves your life expectancy unless you have like an amazingly balanced chi when dealing with morons.

 

Edit: Per aguahombre's comment below, which is fair, I realize that the implication, which was unintended, was that BCD and/or club players are morons. I conflate my impatience in these situations with my impatience when dealing with morons (by which I don't even mean the uneducated -- I mean those who are unwilling to see more than one side of an issue, for example). In this situation, the issue is often a lack of education -- not just about the laws and the game, but about the purpose of director calls and the intent of the laws. My issue is never with players who don't know the laws. It's with ones who are rude, ones who are abusive and intimidatory, and ones who violate the laws with disregard for fairness and for others' enjoyment of the game. And it's with the directors who -- rationally or not, depending on their financial stake -- refuse to learn the laws and/or adjudicate. Thank you for calling me out; upon a reread, that statement read far differently than it was intended.

[aguahombre]

post deleted by me, because of first-class edit by Wyman

[wyman]

I was really getting super enthused. This paragraph reflected perfectly my opinion about director calls at Club games, BCD restricted events, and playing up. Then, the bubble burst with one word.

 

modified -- please see above. And thanks.

[blackshoe]

Is this true in ACBL, if there has been an infraction can an opponent of the OS decide to waive the penalty? Where does it say this?

It's true everywhere. Either non-offending player can ask the TD to waive rectification. Only the TD can decide to do it.

 

Law 81C5: The director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:

[snip]

5. to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side.

[jillybean]

Is this true in ACBL, if there has been an infraction can an opponent of the OS decide to waive the penalty? Where does it say this?

 

 

It's true everywhere. Either non-offending player can ask the TD to waive rectification. Only the TD can decide to do it.

 

The answer to my question is "it is false everywhere". A NOP can ask the TD to waive rectification, only the TD can decide to do it.

 

Under what circumstances would a director waive rectification, unless perhaps in a novice game? Doing this could create unfair advantage.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL has dropped the ball where club directors are concerned. For years, becoming a club director was a piece of cake: you took a 120 or so question mostly multiple guess open book test (for which you had three hours), and if you passed, voilà, you were a club director. This is, AFAIK, still the case. One entire section of the test is on the workings of ACBLScore. I took it. Finished with an hour to spare, missed three questions, at least one of which, as I recall, I missed because it was poorly worded. I think another I missed because the "correct" answer was actually wrong. :rolleyes:

 

There is a one day (I don't know how many hours, or what's covered) club TD course given at Nationals, and very occasionally at Regionals (although I've not seen it around here in the last two decades), but you don't have to take it. There's also a refresher course given occasionally, but no one has to take that either. The ACBL's attitude towards club directors is "you passed the test, here's your qualification card, you're on your own". The only ACBL regulation HQ enforces on clubs is "we must receive your monthly report, accompanied by the money you owe us, by the tenth of the following month". If they get that, they don't care about anything else. At least, that's the way it's been. I've heard rumors recently that they're going to be more proactive at dealing with problems in clubs, though not specifically with incompetent directors, but I haven't seen any evidence of it.

[gordontd]

Under what circumstances would a director waive rectification, unless perhaps in a novice game?

Perhaps when a player's disability causes the infraction.

[blackshoe]

The answer to my question is "it is false everywhere". A NOP can ask the TD to waive rectification, only the TD can decide to do it.

Picky, picky. Want me to go back and change my post? Nice trap, though. :D

 

Under what circumstances would a director waive rectification, unless perhaps in a novice game? Doing this could create unfair advantage.

Unfair advantage for who? The OS? I don't see how the NOS asking the TD to waive rectification could possibly be unfair to the NOS, unless they are completely clueless. If you mean it could be unfair to the OS, well, that would be a good reason for the TD to deny the request, don't you think?

 

It's a matter for TD judgment, to be decided case by case.

[jillybean]

The ACBL has dropped the ball where club directors are concerned. For years, becoming a club director was a piece of cake: you took a 120 or so question mostly multiple guess open book test (for which you had three hours), and if you passed, voilà, you were a club director. This is, AFAIK, still the case. One entire section of the test is on the workings of ACBLScore. I took it. Finished with an hour to spare, missed three questions, at least one of which, as I recall, I missed because it was poorly worded. I think another I missed because the "correct" answer was actually wrong. :rolleyes:

It is still the same, I took my CD a few years ago. Since at that time I had only played a handful of games at a club and knew nothing about LOOT's, POOT's etc :) I made the mistake of paying for online "course". I hoped it would help me prepare before attending the directors course at the club. I found ACBL's online course no better than reading the law book for myself, you can learn much more by reading & asking in these forums.

[jillybean]

Unfair advantage for who? The OS? I don't see how the NOS asking the TD to waive rectification could possibly be unfair to the NOS, unless they are completely clueless. If you mean it could be unfair to the OS, well, that would be a good reason for the TD to deny the request, don't you think?

 

No, I mean it would be unfair to the entire playing field. I don't see why a NOS asking for the director to waive rectification

would influence the decision, unless it was against rank beginners.

[blackshoe]

It is still the same, I took my CD a few years ago. Since at that time I had only played a handful of games at a club and knew nothing about LOOT's, POOT's etc :) I made the mistake of paying for online "course". I hoped it would help me prepare before attending the directors course at the club. I found ACBL's online course no better than reading the law book for myself, you can learn much more by reading & asking in these forums.

Ah, I forgot about the online course. And thanks for the compliment to these forums. :)

 

No, I mean it would be unfair to the entire playing field. I don't see why a NOS asking for the director to waive rectification

would influence the decision, unless it was against rank beginners.

There is nothing anywhere in the laws about "the field". When the TD rules, he should not consider the field at all, only the table at which he's ruling.

[mycroft]

The ACBL suggests in such cases that if you are the declaring side that this sort of "information they need to know that they can't reasonably work out they need to know from the auction" should be mentioned. So in Paul's case, if they found out that I had 5+ hearts, and I'm in slam, I'd say "X bid promises 6+ hearts". Other jurisdictions, other regulations, and I know of at least one person who as the opposition would be upset with this - so just a data point, not a suggestion.

[blackshoe]

Upset? Why?

[axman]

 

 

Unfair advantage for who? The OS? I don't see how the NOS asking the TD to waive rectification could possibly be unfair to the NOS, unless they are completely clueless. If you mean it could be unfair to the OS, well, that would be a good reason for the TD to deny the request, don't you think?

 

It's a matter for TD judgment, to be decided case by case.

 

Imo the act of playing god [read- the request to waive penalties] is counter productive. For one reason it is an act of intimidation** [irrespective of any intended kindness]. This is because it imply ‘a dare’ to call the TD on some future irregularity- as in, it can motivate the OS to reciprocate [because they believe there is the expectation o].reciprocity.

 

**by offering to waive the player is put in the position of refusing to accept generosity or not, but either way there is a debt to be repaid for accepting the gift or for having the gift offered; whether the debt is real or just imagined, it persists even after it is ‘repaid’

 

 

However, if you are hell bent upon it…imo, the only respectable technic for waiving penalties is to never [as in forever] draw attention to the irregularity.

 

To give a real life example look at [i believe] the 99 USTT. iirc there had been a revoke that wasn’t penalized. Then later in the match the other side played two cards to a trick which was penalized- the PC shifting a couple of tricks and a boat load of imps. This evidently hurt someone’s feelings because they felt entitled to reciprocation for letting the revoke penalty slide. It is my understanding that WW3 erupted and a lot of players were flogged as a consequence.

 

All things considered. waive penalties at the risk of winning friends and influencing people.

[blackshoe]

All things considered, Ax, I think you're out of your mind. I also think that anyone who "felt entitled to reciprocation" in the case cited was out of his mind. B-)

[mycroft]

Okay, there's two threads going on here, and I missed one. So:

 

The OP started by asking "if you were looking to educate, how would you do it" - and then when someone asked for an example, people were going with "sounds silly from experienced players to experienced opponents" and "...and 'I want to prove I'm right.'" Experienced opponents aren't the problem, in my mind - they should know the rules, and if they don't follow them, then I'm not calling the TD for education, I'm calling to get a ruling on the hand, and assuming that if any education has to happen, the TD will be using the time-honoured "obviously they don't listen with their ears, time to make them listen with their results" method.

 

The problem is the newer players - who just don't get it - and the people who do it often enough to irritate, but probably aren't needing it as a crutch. We're talking alternatives to the Experienced Player's "I could call the TD on that, but I won't" - which *is* condescending, not helpful (because EP can't explain to the newer player why what they did was wrong, in their high dudgeon, not in a way the newer player can understand), and occasionally either flat-out-wrong, or not a problem for the newer player's peers (even if it would be a spectacular problem for the EP and his partner). In those cases, expressing that "I was told something different, and it intrigues me. Let's find out from the TD what's supposed to happen" works better - even if you *do* know you're right (after all, the EP above knows he's right, too, even when he isn't :-).

 

Now, if *I* pulled that "I'm not sure..." trick, when I was in fact sure, everyone would know I was laying it on with a trowel, and it wouldn't work. Better for me to either call the TD for a ruling, or explain carefully myself (if I think these players will accept it), or talk to the TD later and let the TD do what she would with it (including ignore it), or just drop it altogether. But I'm an exception, and there are about 200 of us exceptions in the ACBL.

 

I have been known to call and say "I'm sure the player did everything correctly, but this situation occurred, and I just want to make sure we all agree on the facts." Sometimes, it's been because I was reserving my rights, and sometimes it was (as the other opponent has occasionally remarked) "he just wanted to let you know that there are issues when you bid after my long hesitation." I just smile - and I won't tell you which is which :-).

 

 

Now, the other comment - about wishing to waive my right to a rectification - the way the laws read, it is one of my rights to request, (as it is one of the TD's rights to deny that request). The TD can't waive the penalty on her own, nor can I (once the infraction has been brought to attention). But I can ask, and the TD can grant my request. In an education call, the alternative is to not mention the infraction and not call the TD - which waives my rights very effectively as it turns out. Given that both of those actions are legal, the field can go hang. And so can any opponent who thinks I'm looking for a break later - after all, if I feel like I need to do some education, any penalty that comes by is the least of the insult. I don't expect a break at all, unless the education gets received clearly (and usually I get a "thank you", and they try to beat me on the next hand), and sometimes not even then.

 

I'm reminded of the time I actually used the phrase - the very Polish and obviously new-to-Canada opponents opened 2♦, 5-5 in two suits not both minors. When the hand had ended, I mentioned that I "thought" that may not be legal in our game, and called the TD. I requested to waive any penalty, and claimed that I thought my partner and I should be able to handle the call (after all, the previous week we were playing a crazy Swedish-style club system against a homegrown forcing pass, for fun) but in case they came up against a pair who was less laidback than we, could you confirm that this is legal?

 

And the phrase in the lawbook is "for cause". Certainly, disability is such a cause - such as the time one player sorted her hand, then lost control of one of her hands and dropped 4 clubs, face up, on the table. But it's not the only one. I personally treat "for cause" very liberally, and I'd be unwilling to meet someone's request when the cause is clearly "these are my friends, and I don't want to hurt their score, given our 30% game" and that's pretty much it.

 

Blackshoe: re: upset at volunteered information before the OL: I didn't get it either. I'm not able at this time to do the forumsearch, but the last time I mentioned it, I did get such a response.

[phil_20686]

Waiving rectification is just routine. The most obvious time is when a LOL plays two cards instead of one and you just get them to pick it up and play on. Penalty cards are vastly annoying for declarers, as it means you cannot compare your experience of the hand to another declarer in a PM as you have to play to take advantage of the penalty card.

 

Also, it just generally leads to a nicer atmosphere if you don't go calling the director on issues that don't really meaningfully affect the game. Most importantly, it often ruins the fun for me. Often penalty cards just mean you can make extra tricks by finessing into the penalty card. Great, but basically I like to beat the other declarers, not just have random tricks fly at me for no reason.

 

Bridge is basically meant to be fun, sure when I play at the top tables you should be enforcing the laws, but against some random LOL it just leads to hurt feelings for no reason, and bridge is not worth that imo.

[blackshoe]

I don't disagree, Phil, particularly if you're a better player playing in a local club and that's the "culture" at that club. But in this forum, we try to teach what the rules are. The rules say "call the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity". They don't say "call the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity, except if you don't feel like it". So while I have no problem saying "in a club game, you might not call the TD" so long as it's clear that calling the TD is what the law says to do. Consider two "random LOLs" playing against each other. While one of them might decide on her own initiative not to call the TD, we don't want her to come away from this forum with the feeling that she can't call the TD, because "in spite of what the rules say, it's just not done".

 

I do feel a little uncomfortable not calling the TD if I'm not absolutely sure that not doing so will not deprive the other side of some of their rights. Meh. A lot of "nots" in that sentence, I could probably have worded it better. :blink:

[gordontd]

Waiving rectification is just routine. The most obvious time is when a LOL plays two cards instead of one and you just get them to pick it up and play on. Penalty cards are vastly annoying for declarers, as it means you cannot compare your experience of the hand to another declarer in a PM as you have to play to take advantage of the penalty card.

 

Also, it just generally leads to a nicer atmosphere if you don't go calling the director on issues that don't really meaningfully affect the game. Most importantly, it often ruins the fun for me. Often penalty cards just mean you can make extra tricks by finessing into the penalty card. Great, but basically I like to beat the other declarers, not just have random tricks fly at me for no reason.

 

Bridge is basically meant to be fun, sure when I play at the top tables you should be enforcing the laws, but against some random LOL it just leads to hurt feelings for no reason, and bridge is not worth that imo.

I find waiving rectifications causes far more problems and creates more unpleasantness than just playing the game by its rules. After all, that's what a game is: something that's played by rules.