Playing director ruling at his own table.

[mr1303]

Last night at the local club, we had a playing director who was very busy.

 

As a result of a few director calls, his table ran out of time. He assigned his table Average + for both sides.

 

Is that right?

[gordontd]

Last night at the local club, we had a playing director who was very busy.

 

As a result of a few director calls, his table ran out of time. He assigned his table Average + for both sides.

 

Is that right?

I wouldn't. A/A+ seems reasonable.

[helene_t]

sounds reasonable. But of course, there should be a depute td who could rule in cases involving the td.

[pran]

Last night at the local club, we had a playing director who was very busy.

 

As a result of a few director calls, his table ran out of time. He assigned his table Average + for both sides.

 

Is that right?

 

I wouldn't. A/A+ seems reasonable.

So the (playing) Director is "partly at fault" because of serving the club in addition to just playing bridge? :unsure:

 

I think A+/A+ is very reasonable.

[PrecisionL]

I would award NP (Not Played = average)

[pran]

I would award NP (Not Played = average)

So you consider both the playing Director and his opponents who unfortunately met him in this particular round partly at fault for not being able to play the board?

[aguahombre]

NP=average? I believe NP results in the board being considered equal to the other boards a pair plays during the session. It could be average if they otherwise were 50% for the session.

 

Or, perhaps you really meant it becomes an average of that pair's results.

[blackshoe]

First off, "not played" is not "= average". Secondly, it's illegal to award NP in cases where a table did not play a board they were scheduled by the movement to play. Thirdly, a playing director should never, IMO, award his side A+ for a board missed because he was performing his directorial duties. I would say average at best, and I would prefer average minus (if he hadn't decided to both play and direct, this problem would not have arisen, so he is "directly at fault"). The playing director's opponents should always get A+, because they were "in no way at fault".

[Vampyr]

So the (playing) Director is "partly at fault" because of serving the club in addition to just playing bridge? :unsure:

 

I think A+/A+ is very reasonable.

 

I understand the reluctance to instruct someone to give themselves A+, and I don't think I would do it myself, but I think this problem must be looked at realistically.

 

Not everyone directs, and while other club members might do their part in other ways, it is only really directing that affects one's performance during the session. In a once-a-week club with maybe 6 or 8 directors, even someone who shows up most of the time will find herself directing a substantial proportion of the time. I feel that it is fair to give this person a break.

[Vampyr]

(if he hadn't decided to both play and direct, this problem would not have arisen, so he is "directly at fault").

 

What do you mean "decided" to both play and direct? You make it sound as if it were selfish to offer to serve the club when you might well prefer to concentrate on your own game. If directors were required to be non-playing, you would get no volunteers. Then how would the game run? Perhaps the club should take on the extra expense of hiring non-playing directors for pay?

 

Honestly.

[blackshoe]

I considered "volunteered" but then figured somebody would say "but he was asked to do it!" I guess I can't win. :(

[mycroft]

If I (as a paid TD) play and direct to fill in the movement, and I don't get to a board because my TD duties come first, I award A/A+. A+ both ways is probably correct, but I'm an employee of the bridge club and my job is to make the game run well and award masterpoints to the paying punters. If I'm that concerned about my own game that I have to award myself A+, I'm not doing my job.

 

If I'm asked to TD this game I intend to be playing at, *especially* if it's not a paid position, then you bet I'm "Not at all at fault" for not being able to play that board. I'm already playing at a handicap.

 

If I'm playing in a game that I run because I want the game to run, then I choose which way it goes. But those games are almost certainly not sanctioned games, so the "award masterpoints to the paying customers" part doesn't apply as much.

[barmar]

At our club, whether the director plays or not depends on how many players show up. Not everyone shows up with a partner, we have quite a few singles. If there are an even number of singles, we pair them up and then I play with my regular partner. If there are an odd number, my partner plays with one of them (he's very accomodating) and I just direct.

[mjj29]

I suspect there's a lot of difference between the ACBL and the EBU here. AIUI many (most?) of the ACBL clubs have a paid director (possibly the owner) who does not generally play, or does so only to fill in the movement. In this case I would agree with the A-/A+ or A/A+ options. In the EBU, certainly at the clubs I have played in, the club is run by the members, all of whom are volunteers. There are obviously larger clubs where this isn't the case, but I get the impression these are in the minority. Where everyone has turned up to play and the director is doing so as a volunteer on a rota in order to see the club run, I have much more sympathy with the A+/A+ or A/A+ views.

 

Being able to play quickly with partners who play quickly certainly helps as a playing TD though. I don't think I've ever had to not play a board when directing due to running out of time (although I have due to playing the wrong board and seeing the results on another board before playing it. I did give myself A- for that :P ).

[Vampyr]

I suspect there's a lot of difference between the ACBL and the EBU here. AIUI many (most?) of the ACBL clubs have a paid director (possibly the owner) who does not generally play, or does so only to fill in the movement. In this case I would agree with the A-/A+ or A/A+ options. In the EBU, certainly at the clubs I have played in, the club is run by the members, all of whom are volunteers. There are obviously larger clubs where this isn't the case, but I get the impression these are in the minority. Where everyone has turned up to play and the director is doing so as a volunteer on a rota in order to see the club run, I have much more sympathy with the A+/A+ or A/A+ views.

 

Yes, quite. I assumed "volunteer" when I read "playing director".

[Vampyr]

At our club, whether the director plays or not depends on how many players show up. Not everyone shows up with a partner, we have quite a few singles. If there are an even number of singles, we pair them up and then I play with my regular partner. If there are an odd number, my partner plays with one of them (he's very accomodating) and I just direct.

 

I am confused. Are you saying that, as a volunteer director, you are willing to forego playing? Or are you saying that, as a paid director, you arrive with a partner? I can't figure out which is more unlikely.

[bluejak]

This has been discussed here and elsewhere a number of times. No consensus is ever reached. I would award myself Ave not Ave Plus but I have some sympathy with people who award themselves Ave Plus.

 

As explained earlier, Not Played is illegal so do not do that.

 

I tend to think in terms of an unpaid TD, ie a volunteer who has often been "persuaded" to do the job. But I remember the rules of the Festiniog Railway, which was run by full-time staff, part-time staff, and volunteers: to be a volunteer you had to accept that your responsibility was the same as if you were paid full-time. In the same way I accept the duties of a TD as being the same whether I am unpaid, given a free go, or paid.

 

One thing that does make a difference is the status of the TD's partner, who has to accept the Ave or Ave Plus. If he has arranged to play with a TD then it is reasonable enough if he gets Ave. But if the TD is playing to fill in with a paying customer who came with no intention of playing with the TD, now I think Ave Plus is more reasonable.

 

Having said all that, this reminds me somewhat of the thread on slow play: it seems a problem that will not occur generally in a well-run club. After all, I cannot remember ever losing a board while directing because of giving a ruling.

[barmar]

I am confused. Are you saying that, as a volunteer director, you are willing to forego playing? Or are you saying that, as a paid director, you arrive with a partner? I can't figure out which is more unlikely.

I'm not our club's regular director, but fill in on occasion (it's a weekly game, and there are a couple of us who take turns when the regular TD is away). Although I get paid ($50 for the session), I would do it without being paid, so I consider myself to be a volunteer. My regular partner shows up, and depending on the number of singles, he either plays with one of the singles or me.

 

The regular director doesn't have a regular partner, so he only plays if there are an odd number of singles. If he actually wants to play with someone, he prearranges the date and asks one of the backup directors to fill in for him that night.

[Oof Arted]

First off, "not played" is not "= average". Secondly, it's illegal to award NP in cases where a table did not play a board they were scheduled by the movement to play. Thirdly, a playing director should never, IMO, award his side A+ for a board missed because he was performing his directorial duties. I would say average at best, and I would prefer average minus (if he hadn't decided to both play and direct, this problem would not have arisen, so he is "directly at fault"). The playing director's opponents should always get A+, because they were "in no way at fault".

 

 

Rather harsh Ed so a player who out of the kindess of his or HER heart or felt duty to his Club should Penalise himself for TD ing

 

How do you suggest little clubs manage without Volunteers :angry:

[mycroft]

I have never lost a board because of directing; I have however had to cancel a board because I couldn't play it with any confidence of lack of bias after a ruling (actually with that board, multiple rulings on the same hand at different tables that meant that I saw two hands, both dummy).

[blackshoe]

Rather harsh Ed so a player who out of the kindess of his or HER heart or felt duty to his Club should Penalise himself for TD ing

 

How do you suggest little clubs manage without Volunteers :angry:

I have never lost a board because of directing; I have however had to cancel a board because I couldn't play it with any confidence of lack of bias after a ruling (actually with that board, multiple rulings on the same hand at different tables that meant that I saw two hands, both dummy).

 

I'm with Mycroft here. I've been a voluntary playing director. The only boards where this came up were where I'd seen one of the hands. I gave my pair A-. I've never had a problem with that from anyone. I have had comments from people along the lines that if I'd given myself A+ (we have a director here, widely considered incompetent, who does this regularly) there would have been a problem.

[mycroft]

I don't think that I am completely at fault for this - I would be assigning my table A=/A+. But I wouldn't be giving myself a 60% at a game that I was running because my TD responsibilities caused me to lose a board - unless, as I said before, I had come to play and found out that I had to direct at or very near playing time.

 

But I usually find that when I do know about a hand or an auction that I can organize the play so that I hold the known hand, and point out to the opponents that "I know something about this hand. I'll tell you what it was afterward, or if I feel I can't honestly play it." Sometimes I end up declaring and ask if it's okay if partner plays my cards, or whatever. Usually I realize I should have told them about this board only after I played it, totally oblivious to the UI I have. I've never had a problem with this (except for the board I had to cancel because I couldn't in honesty play it) - but, the players know me and know that I'm honest (and certainly don't care enough to win my own club game to try to gain an advantage that way).

 

I also try to postpone my "judgment rulings" or my "adjusted score based on an assigned contract" rulings until after I play the hand. Almost always if I explain that that's what I'm doing, they're good with the delay.

[Chris3875]

I'm not quite sure what difference it makes whether you knew you were going to be the unpaid playing director a week before the event or found out just before play commences as far as deciding what result you give yourself when you are unable to play a board. I am the unpaid playing director at our club every week and I think it would be a bit tough on my partner to have to wear an A or A- whenever we cannot play a board for reasons related to my directing duties. He is no more at fault than the opponents and I, quite honestly, cannot see that I am at fault either for doing my (unpaid) job.

[bluejak]

I also try to postpone my "judgment rulings" or my "adjusted score based on an assigned contract" rulings until after I play the hand. Almost always if I explain that that's what I'm doing, they're good with the delay.

I always postpone judgement rulings and adjusted scores until the end of the session. But that's nothing to do with whether I have played it, I just consider it good TD practice.

[Vampyr]

Although I get paid ($50 for the session), I would do it without being paid, so I consider myself to be a volunteer.

 

ROFLMAO