Bullies

[jillybean]

In the BCD Teams at the sectional yesterday our opps began with this auction.

 

(1♠) - P - very long tank (2♦)

 

After the 2♦ bid I said 'do you agree there was a long pause before the 2♦ bid?'

 

2♦ bidder agreed that she had tanked, her partner however did not agree and simply started

to argue that it wasn't relevant, finishing with a threatening "what are you going to do, call the director?"

 

I find that this type of intimidating behaviour is not uncommon in BCD games.

[hrothgar]

In the BCD Teams at the sectional yesterday our opps began with this auction.

 

(1♠) - P - very long tank (2♦)

 

After the 2♦ bid I said 'do you agree there was a long pause before the 2♦ bid?'

 

2♦ bidder agreed that she had tanked, her partner however did not agree and simply started

to argue that it wasn't relevant, finishing with a threatening "what are you going to do, call the director?"

 

I find that this type of intimidating behaviour is not uncommon in BCD games.

 

Call the director

 

Start by asking for a zero tolerance infraction

Follow up by registering that the was a hitch

[Phil]

In an auction like 1♠ - pass - (sloooowww) 2♦, I honestly wouldn't bother with the usual, "do you agree there was a hesitation"? I would just let it go. Its going to be difficult to sort out the UI six bids later. Contrast this with a tank after a high level competitive sequence where its clear to protect yourself.

 

You are probably dealing with newer players that don't understand the the concept of reserving your rights.

[ahydra]

In an auction like 1♠ - pass - (sloooowww) 2♦, I honestly wouldn't bother with the usual, "do you agree there was a hesitation"? I would just let it go. Its going to be difficult to sort out the UI six bids later.

 

Might the infraction not come earlier than that? Having said that, it's hard to see what a slow 2D suggests - it might be a 9-count, or if opps are inexperienced (which they are by the sound of their attitude) it might be an 18-count.

 

I think calling the TD is best here. He can friendly-ly explain that the OP has every right to ask about a hesitation.

 

ahydra

[Vampyr]

finishing with a threatening "what are you going to do, call the director?"

 

Just say mildly, "yes, it's best if we establish the facts now."

 

 

I find that this type of intimidating behaviour is not uncommon in BCD games.

 

A good solution is not playing in them.

[Bbradley62]

You are probably dealing with newer players that don't understand the the concept of reserving your rights.

which is exactly why you call the director and let him explain the concept to the newbies.

[Bbradley62]

I find that this type of intimidating behaviour is not uncommon in BCD games.

A good solution is not playing in them.

Not everyone is born a Flight A-caliber player.

[jillybean]

In an auction like 1♠ - pass - (sloooowww) 2♦, I honestly wouldn't bother with the usual, "do you agree there was a hesitation"? I would just let it go. Its going to be difficult to sort out the UI six bids later. Contrast this with a tank after a high level competitive sequence where its clear to protect yourself.

I see the difference between 1♠ tank 2♦ and a tank after a high level competitive sequence but I'm not sure that I don't want to protect my rights here. This was not a hitch but a significant BIT. I don't know what the long pause suggests, I don't know the opponents system but that is for the director to sort out later, if needed.

It should be a simple matter to establish the BIT here.

 

 

 

A good solution is not playing in them.

What a fabuloos suggestion.

 

 

which is exactly why you call the director and let him explain the concept to the newbies.

Agree. Unfortunately I think the BIT may be addressed but not the bullying.

[Phil]

Again, I wouldn't worry about this one.

 

If you start reserving your rights every time your opponent tanks, you are in for a long, unpleasant day.

[aguahombre]

I agree with Phil's philosophy about this situation, while not disagreeing with Jilly's techincal right to say what she said or to call the TD when the facts were not stipulated.

 

The one opponent who actually hesitated seems to have understood and responded objectively. The opening bidder seems to have (incorrectly, I hope) felt he/she was the one being intimidated. ZT would not be appropriate here, merely education about reserving one's rights by establishing agreement on the facts.

 

BTW, I don't ever recall either our side or the opponents ever attempting a stipulation about a slow first response in an uncontested auction. If it were my partner who had made the slow bid, I would agree about the B.I.T and get on with matters. The "UI" I possess is that she finally came up with the appropriate game-forcing response and has a follow-up plan in keeping with our system.

[jillybean]

If it makes any difference, the 2♦ bidder was a passed hand. I didn't post the auction correctly sorry, my focus was on my lho, not the bidding sequence :)

[aguahombre]

If it makes any difference, the 2♦ bidder was a passed hand. I didn't post the auction correctly sorry, my focus was on my lho, not the bidding sequence :)

It merely would eliminate "game-force" from my last paragraph. It doesn't change anything relevant to what occurred, since that paragraph was a side issue.

[gnasher]

Your obnoxious opponent doesn't sound like a beginner to me. It sounds more like someone who's been playing for years without ever becoming any good. Anyway, I would respond with "That's a good idea. Director please."

 

Personally I wouldn't bother to complain about the player's behaviour - life's too short. Just get the facts agreed before the other opponent gets a chance to change her mind.

[mycroft]

"Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Director, please."

 

If I was feeling particularly passive-aggressive today, I would explain everything that happened, in calm polite tones, exactly as I remembered hearing it, ending with "and opener said 'no, there wasn't a long hesitation, and it isn't relevant anyway, and what are you going to do, call the Director?' I'm not sure there's any issue, but I figured it was best to call."

If I was even more passive-aggressive, I would add "[best to call], on LHO's suggestion." but I think that would be pushing it a bit.

 

It sounds (knowing the 2♦ bidder is a passed hand) that she was trying to remember if she played 2-way Drury with this partner or not. Probably not an issue, but not something I would want to have the discussion about at the end of the hand if we hadn't had this discussion after 2♦ :-)

[Oof Arted]

:rolleyes:

 

Answer seems very simple to me

 

Do Not stand for bullying Fetch the TD that is partially what TD is there for to Stop this type of thing happening :angry:

[bluejak]

In some ways, the responses suggesting that it is not worth establishing a hesitation are red herrings. Yes, it may not be worth the trouble, and I would not, but once you have done so you must not stand for bullying: call the TD.

 

As for playing in B/C/D events, bridge is meant to be a pleasant social yet challenging game. While someone like myself will always play in the highest level game I am allowed to, and have felt that way since my university days, that certainly does not apply to everyone. The fact that it is a B/C/D game is no excuse whatever for unpleasantness of this sort, and we must deal with rude players at that level.

[jillybean]

I too would rather get bloodied and beaten in A/X than play in B/C/D but this usually only happens when I am playing with someone who

does not qualify for B/C/D. It is very hard impossible to persuade a B/C/D team to play in A/X, some partners will play up.

 

Having played a few times now in both B/C/D and A/X, I have experienced more unpleasantness and unethical behaviour in B/C/D.

[TimG]

Having played a few times now in both B/C/D and A/X, I have experienced more unpleasantness and unethical behaviour in B/C/D.

Someone once said: "Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity".

 

I think most of the unethical behavior you see in B/C/D events is simply players not knowing better, that is they are not consciously doing improper things. In A/X, they are at least supposed to know better, though they often do not.

[RMB1]

..., finishing with a threatening "what are you going to do, call the director?"

 

I would suggest replying "Yes", calling the TD, telling him the exchange with the opponents, and mentioning zero tolerance.

[jillybean]

Has anyone had any experience in calling the director on these zero tolerance matters?

[jeffford76]

Has anyone had any experience in calling the director on these zero tolerance matters?

 

I've called the director a couple times for rude behavior (in the Pacific Northwest). I've never seen a zero tolerance penalty assessed, and in fact the most common response has been to completely ignore the complaint and give a generic "Let's just play bridge" talk to the table, as if the unpleasantness is everyone's fault. That said, I don't think our most competent area directors took those calls.

[mycroft]

So, did the rude behaviour stop? If so, it was a successful TD call. After all, unless you're in a KO, any ZT score penalties applied would not affect your score.

 

If it didn't of course, that's another - very uncomfortable - story.

 

And yes, I've seen and given ZT penalties that weren't warnings. We may still be giving too much tolerance (I happen to believe that Z is wrong by definition, whenever ZT policies are set up, by the way), and I will cop to my share of that, but you will get called on it.

 

I have also been in situations where the correct ZT ruling would be a wash; I do try to suggest "let's just play bridge, here, ok?" in those scenarios. I so hate seeing 8-8 VP ties :-)

 

(Machlin's story from the Bad Old Days (and really, it was; I played at the end of them):

Player: "Did you hear that? He called me an ass!"

TD: "Yes, I did; but you called him a jerk, and that call is forcing for one round." )

[blackshoe]

The problem is this: the ACBL's ZT policy is rigid. It does not allow TD judgment beyond "was there in fact a ZT violation?" If there was, the policy requires the TD to give a penalty. So when a TD doesn't give a penalty, either he saying that there was no ZT violation, or that he doesn't care what the policy is, he's not giving a penalty. TDs not giving penalties for the kinds of things the ZT policy prohibits (which are and have long been against the laws of the game) is why the ZT policy was implemented in the first place. I can only conclude that the ZT policy is an at best incomplete success.

 

I was once accused of "deliberately hesitating in order to induce me to take the finesse" - which happened to fail to my partner's singleton king. When I opined that I didn't appreciate being accused of cheating, the TD's response was "we're just gonna let that slide". Every time I think about that incident, I wonder whyinhell I haven't given up the game. :angry:

[mycroft]

I, too, agree that ZT is at best an incomplete success. ZT as written would definitely be an incomplete success, so I'm glad we aren't implementing it (see above and many other places re: my opinion of ZT in general, not just in duplicate bridge). I think that we still could be Less T than we are; I certainly could. Guess I'm too much of a softie.

[jeffford76]

So, did the rude behaviour stop? If so, it was a successful TD call. After all, unless you're in a KO, any ZT score penalties applied would not affect your score.

 

It taught the other player the lesson that they can be as rude as they want as long as they stop once the director is called. I wouldn't call this a success.

 

I'm not a fan of zero tolerance policies in general because I think the people in charge lose some of their ability to handle things effectively when the penalties are proscribed and overly harsh. But unenforced zero tolerance policies are even worse.