Teaching the laws at the table

[Phil]

I played in a club game last week.

 

In one round, a player dropped two cards out of her hand. She might have been nervous, tired, whatever. I asked her to pick it up.

 

In another round, a player is playing a side heart suit from dummy (KQxx remaining I think - Ace had already been played) in a trump contract. She calls 'heart', and my partner plays. Dummy has kind of a startled look on his face and doesn't detach a card but when declarer discards, he reaches for the King (?!). I play a higher heart and lead to the next trick, and all hell breaks loose. Declarer is 100% adamant she said "high heart" but dummy can't corroborate this. She continues this charade with the director, but the director doesn't let it go, and about two tricks go away.

 

In between rounds an hour later, I tell the director who I know very well that if declarer would have been more forthcoming about it, I would have just let it go.

[phil_20686]

I find waiving rectifications causes far more problems and creates more unpleasantness than just playing the game by its rules.

 

This has not been my experience

 

After all, that's what a game is: something that's played by rules.

 

I think this is naive, any game involving humans is too complicated to codify "right" behaviour. My favourite example is playing the colour coup against the partially sighted, or even just the elderly. Is it within the rules, yes, is it acceptable? Not imo.

 

Another example that I personally find distasteful, is that if you are playing a long team match against a pair known to be slow, make sure that you yourself take up your full allocation of time (while being careful not to be slow yourself), even if you are naturally quick. The result will be that they are penalised rather than you.

[RMB1]

I find waiving rectifications causes far more problems and creates more unpleasantness than just playing the game by its rules.

 

Do you object to a player calling the TD because UI has been passed by the opponents, when the player does not think he has been damaged but he wants the opponent's action noted?

 

Should the player say "I do not think I have been damaged on this hand"?

 

Is the player saying that they do not think they have been damaged different from waiving rectification?

[Trinidad]

Do you object to a player calling the TD because UI has been passed by the opponents, when the player does not think he has been damaged but he wants the opponent's action noted?

 

Should the player say "I do not think I have been damaged on this hand"?

 

Is the player saying that they do not think they have been damaged different from waiving rectification?

Yes, it is very different. It's the difference between "giving something away that is yours" (you are entitled to the rectification that you are waiving) and "not steeling" (if you are not damaged, you are not entitled to a rectification. If you would do the opposite and would try to get a rectification that you don't deserve that would be "trying to steel".).

 

If you state that you think that you are not damaged, that is part of giving evidence to the TD. The TD will later decide based on -among others- that evidence. On this evidence you aren't even entitled to a rectification, since there was no damage. You never were entitled to rectification and never will be.

 

If you waive a rectification, the evidence gathering process is finished, there is a prescribed rectification to which you are entitled, and you request that the TD doesn't apply it.

 

In the one case you are giving away something that was legally yours, in the other you are stating: "It is not mine".

 

If a thief breaks into my house and steels my wallet, I may tell the judge that he can have my wallet since he needs the money more than I do. That would be grand, like waiving a rectification.

If a thief breaks into my house and turns up with a wallet in his pocket that is not mine, I can tell the police that this wallet wasn't mine. There is nothing grand about that.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

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.

 

Why not? If you know they are wrong, simply ask them to read out the law to you.

 

Declarer is 100% adamant she said "high heart" but dummy can't corroborate this. She continues this charade with the director, but the director doesn't let it go, and about two tricks go away.

 

 

This incident was rather strange, but I do tend to think that a declarer knows what he said, even if no one else has understood him clearly. I have found that I sometimes swallow "top" or "high" and it can easily be missed.

[Vampyr]

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 :-).

 

Is this an ACBL thing, that you cannot agree facts without a director present?

[aguahombre]

Maybe it is just an ACBL thing where we tell the Director what we know, don't know, agree to, and don't agree with on the facts of the matter...then let him/her do his/her job.

[Vampyr]

Maybe it is just an ACBL thing where we tell the Director what we know, don't know, agree to, and don't agree with on the facts of the matter...then let him/her do his/her job.

 

You mean when you don't agree on the facts? Yes, the director has to be called in every jurisdiction when that happens. But in many places facts, eg a break in tempo, can be agreed without the director's presence.

[blackshoe]

Why not? If you know they are wrong, simply ask them to read out the law to you.

 

Last time I asked a club director to do that, she declined, on the grounds that "the book is in the car". :(

[blackshoe]

This incident was rather strange, but I do tend to think that a declarer knows what he said, even if no one else has understood him clearly. I have found that I sometimes swallow "top" or "high" and it can easily be missed.

 

Perhaps so, but it is up to the director at the table to decide, on the preponderance of the evidence.

[Vampyr]

Last time I asked a club director to do that, she declined, on the grounds that "the book is in the car". :(

I thought most directors arrived at the table with the Laws in hand.

[blackshoe]

In England, they're taught that, so they probably do. They're taught that in these forums, too, but the only local director who reads these forums, AFAIK, is me. As I've mentioned before, club directors in North America aren't really taught much of anything, unless they manage to find a mentor somewhere, and even then they may not be taught to bring the law book to the table. Couple that with players' impatience with "wasting time" looking things up in the book and, well, you see where this is going, I'm sure. ;)

 

It seems to be a point of pride among some directors in NA that they "don't need" the law book, because they have at least the commonly referenced laws memorized. :blink: :huh: :(

[mjj29]

It seems to be a point of pride among some directors in NA that they "don't need" the law book, because they have at least the commonly referenced laws memorized. :blink: :huh: :(

Where as I see it as a much better 'point of pride' not to get rulings wrong (not that I always succeed either, of course)

[jillybean]

It seems to be a point of pride among some directors in NA that they "don't need" the law book, because they have at least the commonly referenced laws memorized. :blink: :huh: :(

Some of our TD's here in NA do carry the law book but that can be deceptive. We had a call at our table where the TD came over carrying the law book but made a ruling without referencing the book. So what you say, he must have known the law without the need for the book. When he was asked to read the relevant law from the book he first went off to ask another TD where to find the law. WTH???!!

 

OTOH other TD's do carry the law book and are happy to open it and read from it, I wish all did.

 

 

My latest forray into "teaching the laws at the table" happened at the sectional this weekend. Playing team match against B/C players, not newbies! Their auction 1♣ 1♠ 1nt 2♦ pass pass I look over at their CC to see that nmf is checked, my partner picks up their CC. 3rd pass, nothing is said about the failure to alert and they play in 2♦ rather than their ♠ contract. No damage this time tyvm but what do you suggest we should do here? IMO calling the TD now is ludicrous and will make it more uncomfortable for the opps no matter how you try to conceal the meaning for your td call.

[Bbradley62]

... what do you suggest we should do here?

Defend the hand, collect your good score and move along. It appears that one of them forgot they were playing nmf; it would be rude of you to do or say anything about this.

[jillybean]

Defend the hand, collect your good score and move along. It appears that one of them forgot they were playing nmf; it would be incredibly rude of you to do or say anything about this.

We have another 7 boards to play against these opponents. One of them forgot they were playing nmf but apparently remembered after the auction ended but still didn't say anything. The other forgot or didn't know we should be told that there has been a failure to alert before we make our lead. No damage this time but perhaps next time we will be, is it best to wait until we are damaged?

 

edit.. I know we can't be teaching laws at the table without running the risk of making our own, incorrect rulings and other reasons regarding etiquette and manners. I feel it leaves me in an impossible situation where I can't say anything or call the TD without being a pain in the ass but leaving it until there is damage is unsatisfactory as well.

The solution: play in A/X :)

[Bbradley62]

Yes

[blackshoe]

Where as I see it as a much better 'point of pride' not to get rulings wrong (not that I always succeed either, of course)

 

Oh, I agree with you 100 percent.

 

We have a club director here who never gets a ruling wrong. Don't believe me? Just ask him! :rolleyes:

[barmar]

We have another 7 boards to play against these opponents. One of them forgot they were playing nmf but apparently remembered after the auction ended but still didn't say anything. The other forgot or didn't know we should be told that there has been a failure to alert before we make our lead.

When it's my legal opportunity to ask questions (before the lead if I'm opening leader, otherwise after partner makes his face-down lead), I usually ask "Was there a failure to alert 2♦?" I believe this is necessary to comply with ACBL's regulation that says experienced players should try to protect themselves if they think there has been misinformation due to a failure to alert.

[aguahombre]

"Was there a failure to alert?" is quite commonly used as Barmar does. But, going along with the thrust of this thread, I feel awkward phrasing it that way. I say something like, "Was ... a natural bid?" And if it wasn't, "Oh, I didn't hear the alert." (If they haven't already apologized for failing to alert).

[mycroft]

Vampyr: prior to the current Lawbook, the ACBL regulation was that the TD must be summonned on transmission of UI, so that the opponents know what their options are. This has changed, but still the TD will be called "just to note" much more often than is common in the EBU. People are used to it, and it doesn't cause too much of a problem. Certainly it causes less of a problem than some of the obnoxious ways some people use to gain agreement of the facts.

 

In education cases, of course, the whole point is that it's clear that they *don't know* what their responsibilities are - or their rights, for that matter. At which point, "agreeing the facts" will damage the opponents, because they don't understand to what they're agreeing anyway.

[Vampyr]

Vampyr: prior to the current Lawbook, the ACBL regulation was that the TD must be summonned on transmission of UI, so that the opponents know what their options are. This has changed, but still the TD will be called "just to note" much more often than is common in the EBU. People are used to it, and it doesn't cause too much of a problem. Certainly it causes less of a problem than some of the obnoxious ways some people use to gain agreement of the facts.

 

In education cases, of course, the whole point is that it's clear that they *don't know* what their responsibilities are - or their rights, for that matter. At which point, "agreeing the facts" will damage the opponents, because they don't understand to what they're agreeing anyway.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I don't understand the last part, though. Why would opponents agree something if they didn't understand what they were being asked to agree?

 

You ask, for example, "Do you agree that 3♠ was slow?", and a person will not say "yes" unless they understand what you have said.

[blackshoe]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't understand the last part, though. Why would opponents agree something if they didn't understand what they were being asked to agree?

 

You ask, for example, "Do you agree that 3♠ was slow?", and a person will not say "yes" unless they understand what you have said.

 

You're asking "why would someone do something stupid?" People do stupid things all the time, including agreeing to something they don't understand.

 

If I had a nickel for every time a North American bridge player has initialed a pickup slip, thereby agreeing to the scores on it, without having actually read it, I could move back to Hawai'i and live in comfort there.

 

Besides, it's not whether partner's bid was slow that they don't understand, it's the ramifications of that fact.

[mycroft]

Do you agree partner's bid was slow? Yes.

 

Do you agree that as a result, you have Unauthorized Information, and you must carefully avoid using that Unauthorized information (and that "what I always would have bid" isn't carefully avoiding), throughout the rest of the auction and play, and that if I think it's possible you didn't follow that to the letter, I can call the TD to get an adjusted result? And do you realize that as the transmitter of the UI, you are *not* under those restrictions - and that it's not, actually, wrong to have to think about a hand?

 

Uh, what?

 

But by "reserving one's rights" or "agreeing we have a slow call", you're asking that entire litany of questions, and probably more that I can't think of off the top of my head. But I bet there are thousands of bridge players who don't know what that "entire litany" is - and they're just going to answer the question asked. And that puts them in a disadvantageous position that is unwelcome (unless you're the kind of player who likes having those kinds of ethically dubious advantages - which I'm sure none of the people here are, but we all know one!)

 

When playing in the rare air of Flight A, one can assume that we all know the whole game. Others' club games may be different, but I wouldn't expect the C pairs to understand it all.

[blackshoe]

The other side of the coin is that the C players are quite likely not to agree there was a hesitation, because they weren't paying attention in the first place. Of course, now you tell them they should call the TD, and they won't.