The process behind UI rulings and tuning judgment

[aguahombre]

Nice idea but it won't happen. The laws are generally NOT enforced at the Club level. The club managers/directors want the players to come and have a nice time and not be scared away by the laws and the secretary birds.

Depends on the club manager/director, and whether he/she has skills to deal with repeated violations such as described, and whether he/she believes the other players are having a nice time being victimized by what this player does.

 

Enforcement action and education for what this LOL does is way beyond "secretary bird" characterisation.

[jillybean]

Depends on the club manager/director, and whether he/she has skills to deal with repeated violations such as described, and whether he/she believes the other players are having a nice time being victimized by what this player does.

 

Enforcement action and education for what this LOL does is way beyond "secretary bird" characterisation.

I think it has little to do with whether he/she has the skills to deal with the violations but rather, is there the desire to deal with it? After talking

with club managers/directors about this, I believe the general desire is to keep the players happy which means not enforcing the laws. The few people who may be turned away by the lack of enforcement is tiny compared to the number of players violating the laws and the perception that they wouldn't come back if the laws were enforced.

[blackshoe]

Nice idea but it won't happen. The laws are generally NOT enforced at the Club level. The club managers/directors want the players to come and have a nice time and not be scared away by the laws and the secretary birds.

 

It is funny when I compare this to my daughter's basketball game. She has just started playing and there are a lot of rules. When she or a teammate break a rule, the whistle is blown and they are penalized. They are learning the rules and they all come back and play next week.

It doesn't help when people label anyone who asks for a ruling a "secretary bird".

 

I suspect that if club players would call the director more often, and directors would get off their asses and make reasonable rulings (and if their rulings aren't reasonable, learn TFLB) the same thing would happen as in your daughter's basketball game.

[aguahombre]

I think it has little to do with whether he/she has the skills to deal with the violations but rather, is there the desire to deal with it? After talking

with club managers/directors about this, I believe the general desire is to keep the players happy which means not enforcing the laws. The few people who may be turned away by the lack of enforcement is tiny compared to the number of players violating the laws and the perception that they wouldn't come back if the laws were enforced.

Yes, we have one director whose sole mission is to not upset any inexperienced player. We have a couple directors who balance the conflicting issues nicely. It is all about having the confidence in one's communication skills and picking one's shots.

[axman]

I think it has little to do with whether he/she has the skills to deal with the violations but rather, is there the desire to deal with it? After talking

with club managers/directors about this, I believe the general desire is to keep the players happy which means not enforcing the laws. The few people who may be turned away by the lack of enforcement is tiny compared to the number of players violating the laws and the perception that they wouldn't come back if the laws were enforced.

 

It is the opposite that is true.

 

An example being a game in Canada that was on its dying gasp because the rules were not applied as written; when a player was asked to run that game he agreed on the condition he would run it in accordance with the rules. In spite of protracted resistance the players agreed. Inside of a year the club wasn't merely growing robustly- it was thriving- and other clubs undertook the same policy.

 

Now, the real problem with not conducting things according to the rules [which is similar to enforcing bad rules] is that the very people that are the substance of the well being of the group [in terms of skill and fair play] are the ones that stay away while it is the ruffians that remain.

[jillybean]

Ok, that is not my experience. I would very much like to see these overt and some not so overt, questionable actions addressed rather

than overlooked.

[bluejak]

Nice idea but it won't happen. The laws are generally NOT enforced at the Club level. The club managers/directors want the players to come and have a nice time and not be scared away by the laws and the secretary birds.

And they ignore the players who are thoroughly upset when their opponents get away with being complete pains in the behind, cheats, and so on, and they stop coming because of this?

 

I find the idea that failing to rule in favour of players who know they have been treated badly keeps them coming is laughable.

[jillybean]

To those posters who think I am out to lunch suggesting that rules are not enforced in club games, how often do you play or direct in a regular

club game?

[aguahombre]

To those posters who think I am out to lunch suggesting that rules are not enforced in club games, how often do you play or direct in a regular

club game?

Suggesting that rules not be enforced at club games is a whole lot different than suggesting that they aren't being enforced.

 

Characterising those TD's who choose to enforce certain basic ethics rules as Secretary Birds is advocating, not merely making an observation about common practice at the club level.

[blackshoe]

I don't think the rules are being enforced evenly and objectively in club games, generally, because I play in such games three or four times a week, and also direct sometimes, and that experience tells me it's not happening. Not to mention that I have had club directors here tell me they don't enforce certain rules — and club owners have asked me to "be careful" about enforcing certain rules (Law 90 in particular) when directing for them. OTOH, I do think the rules should be enforced — all of them, objectively and fairly in all cases. I have noticed that if I do enforce the rules in that way in certain peoples' games, I don't get asked to direct there again if there is anyone else available. :ph34r:

[jillybean]

Suggesting that rules not be enforced at club games is a whole lot different than suggesting that they aren't being enforced.

 

Characterising those TD's who choose to enforce certain basic ethics rules as Secretary Birds is advocating, not merely making an observation about common practice at the club level.

Oh! I didn't mean the directors were the Secretary Birds, rather the players who call after these infractions have occurred.

[aguahombre]

Oh! I didn't mean the directors were the Secretary Birds, rather the players who call after these infractions have occurred.

Either way, the characterization is not appropriate, except maybe in the eyes of the perpetrators.

[jillybean]

Either way, the characterization is not appropriate, except maybe in the eyes of the perpetrators.

I agree, however I think the characterization is the view of the majority. Most people want to play a "nice game" which means

having no director calls and in some cases using these little infractions with impunity. I have come to realise it is futile to

expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws.

[Zelandakh]

The thing I never understood is...when there are convention cards available, asking for an explanation of an opening bid is simply pointless and lazy. If the card says that 1C is 2+ suit, no 5cM unless 65 or greater, then asking is pointless.

Is it? Do you not think I might want to know whether 1♣ was 2 only with exactly 4432 distribution or could be any balanced hand? Not only does it determine the level of nebulousness involved but it might change the defence being used. If I understood the ACBL discussions on the matter then a 1♣ opening showing the former allows only natural defences while a 1♣ opening of any balanced hand allows any defence. Pointless? Lazy? Only for those who think the opponents bids do not matter very much when selecting their own.

[richlp]

It is funny when I compare this to my daughter's basketball game. She has just started playing and there are a lot of rules. When she or a teammate break a rule, the whistle is blown and they are penalized. They are learning the rules and they all come back and play next week.

 

The analogy is not exact. Imagine that an extra free-throw is awarded if the referee determines that the infraction was intentional. Then see how many would drop out after being whistled for a couple of intentional fouls each game.

 

My feeling is that most beginners don't mind so much when a ruling is given for a breach of the mechanical rules of the game. Insufficient Bid, Lead out of turn, Revoke, etc. rulings will not cause somebody to drop out of the club. But a ruling with an implication of cheating (and players at ALL levels feel this way (whether they should or not, they do) when ruled against on matters of UI, MI etc) will send a beginner away from the club and back to the kitchen table where nobody notices or cares.

[Vampyr]

But a ruling with an implication of cheating (and players at ALL levels feel this way (whether they should or not, they do) when ruled against on matters of UI, MI etc) will send a beginner away from the club and back to the kitchen table where nobody notices or cares.

 

In the clubs where I play, no suggestion of cheating is made when UI and MI rulings are made, and players accept an adverse ruling gracefully, for the most part. If they are very unhappy they will appeal rather than stay away from the club.

 

Perhaps there is a cultural divide here? The people who are claiming that enforcing the laws reduces attendance seem mostly to come from North America.

[aguahombre]

Perhaps there is a cultural divide here? The people who are claiming that enforcing the laws reduces attendance seem mostly to come from North America.

This, of all your references to North American faults, is the most accurate yet. I have always thought the British in general were much better at verbal face-to-face communication in potentially confrontational situations than we are over here.

 

IMO, this difference in attitudes (Bridgewise), is mostly on the TD's and teachers who have the first crack at newcomers ---plus, general upbringing.

[mycroft]

True, but not enforcing those rules (and explaining that it's not *them*, it's just that someone who's trying one on would do the same thing, so the Laws are written so that the pattern is ruled against, not the intent) leads to different frustrations.

 

It's a hard balancing act. The TDs should be lenient to obviously inexperienced players - not "we won't rule against them", but "the hesitation simply explained that she'd never seen this auction before and didn't know what her bids meant. Therefore..." - especially when called by the obvious SBs (well, not SBs, exactly, but those who use the Law Book as an aide in the intimidation process. We all know who those are). If you just let it go, though,

 

- the players don't learn that it's not legal, and

- they start relying on it

 

both of which causes a major problem when they go somewhere where they *are* expected to know the Law.

 

I remind everyone, especially club TDs, that there's a bridge game out there competing with you, that costs less, and with some work provides better competition. People come to your club for the things they can't and don't get on BBO; they no longer come because they're addicted to bridge and there's nowhere else to play. The good players leave when they get coffeehoused to death and the TD doesn't want to call the coffeehousers on it for fear of them leaving.

 

It's not easy. Good luck with it. I rule in the club the way I rule in a tournament, perhaps pushing the explanations a little more than I would in Flight A (where they can ask me about it if they want). But that's only partly because it's right; it's mostly because I don't know how to play social games well enough for any other way to improve retention more than that. Being the right thing helps, though!

[Vampyr]

People come to your club for the things they can't and don't get on BBO;

 

I find this statement amusing. I think you grossly overestimate the role of BBO in most bridge players' lives. (And in fact, even among the posters to this forum there are people who have never (or just once or twice) played on BBO. Perhaps quite a few people!

[jillybean]

The analogy is not exact. Imagine that an extra free-throw is awarded if the referee determines that the infraction was intentional. Then see how many would drop out after being whistled for a couple of intentional fouls each game.

 

My feeling is that most beginners don't mind so much when a ruling is given for a breach of the mechanical rules of the game. Insufficient Bid, Lead out of turn, Revoke, etc. rulings will not cause somebody to drop out of the club. But a ruling with an implication of cheating (and players at ALL levels feel this way (whether they should or not, they do) when ruled against on matters of UI, MI etc) will send a beginner away from the club and back to the kitchen table where nobody notices or cares.

It is not the beginners causing the problems, im my experience the offenders are long standing members who have been playing several times a week for many years. Often the club manager/director is not going to rule against these players.

[jillybean]

It's not easy. Good luck with it. I rule in the club the way I rule in a tournament, perhaps pushing the explanations a little more than I would in Flight A (where they can ask me about it if they want). But that's only partly because it's right; it's mostly because I don't know how to play social games well enough for any other way to improve retention more than that. Being the right thing helps, though!

I want to play in your games :)

[bluejak]

The analogy is not exact. Imagine that an extra free-throw is awarded if the referee determines that the infraction was intentional. Then see how many would drop out after being whistled for a couple of intentional fouls each game.

 

My feeling is that most beginners don't mind so much when a ruling is given for a breach of the mechanical rules of the game. Insufficient Bid, Lead out of turn, Revoke, etc. rulings will not cause somebody to drop out of the club. But a ruling with an implication of cheating (and players at ALL levels feel this way (whether they should or not, they do) when ruled against on matters of UI, MI etc) will send a beginner away from the club and back to the kitchen table where nobody notices or cares.

We are not talking about beginners. Of course no-one but a pillock tries to get MI and UI rulings against beginners.

 

But 98% of club players are not beginners, and the approach to upset the ones in the right so as not to upset those in the wrong is flawed in my view.

 

Furthermore, these things do not happen quickly. But if a club slowly pushes for the rules to be followed it will finish up a friendlier club. Failure to follow the rules means more bad feeling.

[mycroft]

I find this statement amusing. I think you grossly overestimate the role of BBO in most bridge players' lives. (And in fact, even among the posters to this forum there are people who have never (or just once or twice) played on BBO. Perhaps quite a few people!

Oh certainly. However, the bridge club Back East I played in had this issue - the TD ruled in favour of the pair that he thought wouldn't come back if he ruled against them. The other pair was "addicted", and would be back, ruling or no.

 

I left when I left (and very happy to leave, frankly; should have done it earlier), which was about when BBO was getting into real swing; a couple of years later, I ran into a couple of people I knew from before. They told me that all the good, clean players had left, and just played online. Plus a couple of the good, not quite so clean players :-). Not really surprised.

 

Of course, this was the same club owner that was so concerned that half his tables would leave if he raised the game price (to $5) that people had to walk away with the ♠A in their purse to get the cheap paper decks changed more than once a year. Sometimes, you could even tell the difference between the dirt and the ink on the ♠A.

 

And yet, years later, there are still TDs that think that the only people they have to worry about are the ones that will go back to kitchen bridge...

[Vampyr]

I left when I left (and very happy to leave, frankly; should have done it earlier), which was about when BBO was getting into real swing; a couple of years later, I ran into a couple of people I knew from before. They told me that all the good, clean players had left, and just played online. Plus a couple of the good, not quite so clean players :-). Not really surprised.

 

 

Did you ever try to get together a few people and start a bridge club? (not a full-time one with premises, but a once or twice a week club in a hired venue?)

[mycroft]

Did you ever try to get together a few people and start a bridge club? (not a full-time one with premises, but a once or twice a week club in a hired venue?)

Well, at the time, there were other reasons why that would not have worked. Also, the "city" I was in could support two evening games and a couple of afternoon games, and that's what was there :-)

 

But as for now, Oh HELL NO.

 

I like playing. I like directing. I like to think I'm pretty good at both of those. Administration? Hate it, absolutely hate it; won't do the 10 minutes a month it takes, and I'm horrible at it when I do push myself into it.

 

That doesn't say I wouldn't be up for a bit of "Oh, they asked me to direct, and I happened to be free, so..."

 

In answer to your actual question, though, mostly it was "all the bridge that was available was already being played; and the good players went online or into their kitchens." Bringing them back would have been difficult. For it to be me that led that revolt would have taken a fair bit more experience and less being 20 years younger than anyone else to pull off - even without the "don't wanna" and "can't" above.