Deterioration of respect for and application of the Rules of the Game

[blackshoe]

I prefer the offending side to call the director.

When attention has been called to an irregularity, all four players at the table are responsible for calling the director (Law 9B).

[Zelandakh]

1. learn to live with it

2. quit playing club games

3. start a game/club where the rules are actually followed

Unfortunately an increasing number of bridge players are choosing option 2. A few months ago the German Bridge Magazine pointed out that there was a sharp decline in club membership at the same time as record attendance at tournaments. If this trend continues then I daresay it is only a matter of time before people put 2 and 2 together and clubs adapt to the (apparent) change in the desires of members. It may well be that sites such as BBO end up catering to many of the non-serious players leaving club membership increasingly on the serious side.

[jillybean]

Kathryn, I want to try and sum up what your main points are, please tell me if I get off track.

 

1) In general, clubs have directors that do not apply the rules in the manner that you think is appropriate

2) The people in the clubs do not know the rules very well, and get offended when you want to call the director for what you perceive to be irregularities

3) The people that do have knowledge about the law tend to try and apply the law themselves at the table rather than call the director, and object to anyone who tries to stop them.

 

Hi Chris, I think my points are a simpler than that.

 

1)The rules are the rules. At times the rules are applied inconsistently or not at all.

 

2) There is a general reluctance to calling the director. Some players overlook certain infractions expect the same from their opponents. Some players make infractions knowing their opponent’s won't call the director or if they do, they are unlikely to receive an unfavorable ruling.

 

3) I doubt if all players who try to apply the laws themselves have knowledge of the laws. At times it is based on "last time this happened we did such and such". I think the point is players are making their own rulings at the table, or avoiding rulings altogether by not calling the director.

 

First of all, let me state my own position on club games: I almost never call the director for hesitations or any other ruling that requires judgment instead of strict application of rules. I don't care enough about the results of the game to ask for my rights to be enforced in those situations, and I do not think that the directors have the training or experience to apply those situations well - these are not by and large professional directors, but rather the club owners or people who are there to make coffee and read from the rulebook in clear cases. Even professional directors regularly screw up judgment rulings in my opinion.

I agree it is rare a hesitation warrants a director call and I also agree that club directors are perhaps not well equipped to make rulings requiring judgement. I don't however believe it is a problem of judgement or interpretation of the laws. It is the player who squirms, reaches to the bidding box 6 times before straining to make a bid, the player who throws the 4S card to the table and says "oh well, I hope this makes", the LOM who at the end of the auction and before his partner has made their face down lead, asks was 3C natural? and hey presto, gets a club lead. I made an insufficient bid yesterday and I called the director. Before the director arrived one opponent said to his partner “you can accept it” and guess what, the bid was accepted. No, I didn't make a fuss or even mention the infraction.

 

 

I think that when you tell people that you are calling the director, that people assume that you are asking their permission, or opening it up to discussion. If it bothers you, just call the director without preamble, explain why you are calling when the director gets there. This is different than getting agreement about a hesitation, and would eliminate some of the problems in point number 3.

Yes, after getting into some heated discussions after trying to explain why I was about to call the director, I simply call the director now. I can't prevent other tables from making their own rulings.

 

I have found that by presenting the facts of the case clinically, with a non-accusatory tone, people tend not to get offended. To be fair, I might get the benefit of the doubt because of the investment I've made in being fair to opponents, pleasant, accessible, and personable with club members. Or I might not get confronted because I am a 6'3" 33 year old guy.

I'm only 5'7 but I think I am fair, pleasant and personable with club members. :)

[blackshoe]

I agree it is rare a hesitation warrants a director call and I also agree that club directors are perhaps not well equipped to make rulings requiring judgement.

If it is rare that a hesitation warrants a director call, do you agree also that it is rare that possible (or probable) use of UI warrants a director call? If not, then I would suggest your reluctance to call the director in order to establish a hesitation is misplaced — unless of course you usually obtain agreement from opponents that the hesitation occurred. Also, what of actions generally — that is, other than hesitations — that might convey UI? Should those also rarely result in calls?

[blackshoe]

I made an insufficient bid yesterday and I called the director. Before the director arrived one opponent said to his partner “you can accept it” and guess what, the bid was accepted. No, I didn't make a fuss or even mention the infraction.

 

[snip]

 

I'm only 5'7 but I think I am fair, pleasant and personable with club members. :)

And yet I'll bet the infraction left a bad taste in your mouth. How is this pair ever going to understand what they're doing wrong if no one ever calls them on it?

 

I'm shorter than you are. I once had a 6'4" player call me to the table, and when I got there he stood up and leaned over me while "explaining" his complaint. I asked him to sit down. 'Huh? But he..." "SIT DOWN!" That got his attention — and that of everyone else in the room. :P

[Phil]

Your experience is practically universal in Southern California in about every club I've played in, which by a rough count is around 25 over the last 15 years.

 

However, you might consider perhaps a different perspective with regards to club games.

 

I do not have to do well at a club game for self-actualization. Club games are seen as strictly an occasional pastime, to prepare for a tournament with a partner, or simply to get reacquainted with having cards in my hand instead of on a computer screen. I will try hard (always do), but if I'm 53% instead of 68% it does not ruin my day, even if it hurts my power rating :). If its a STAC or a club championship, I'll take the game slightly more seriously, since there is more at stake.

 

As a result, I have made a conscious decision to not enforce many rules violations with newer players when I play. I suppose the Bluejaks and Blackshoes of the world, as well as many of the non-directors around here would equate this with tyranny or blasphemy against the Laws, but I feel as though I am taking a very pragmatic approach to club bridge.

 

At a game I directed a few months ago, we had to combine the junior and open sections. Many of the open players were losing patience with newer players for things like asking questions about the auction when they weren't on lead, breaking tempo, and some clear UI violations reacting to their partner's bids, etc.. While I expect this was going on all around the room, I was only getting director calls from two or three pairs.

 

Were some of the calls warranted? Yes, but there is also an undeniable intimidation factor too. Some newer players will stick with the game, but others will always look for refuge in games with limited masterpoints, whether the limit is 50, 300 or even 800 points. I couldn't really tell someone that they weren't allowed to call me over for such things, but internally I thought they were hurting the game.

 

Where do I draw the line for myself? Here's my personal code:

 

Against newer or "C" pairs, the only time I will call the director is for something flagrant like a bid or pass out of turn, where it alters 'normal' bridge. Penalty cards and leads out of turn are asked to be picked up. Even if I suspect a revoke I will ask them if they have any left, but if I cannot tell, I'll call the director after the hand when the revoke is discovered. I will never call the director for anything related to UI, but if I know the person, I'll mention something to them after the hand. In the process, they learn about the rules, and hopefully become better bridge citizens. I also think there is a special place in hell for people that psyche against newer players in club games.

 

I guarantee you most of these pairs are already on edge when they play against me, and I already have a huge advantage in ability. Do I really need to become a SB and ruin their experience?

 

Against more experienced pairs, I'm not quite so accommodating, but unless its something flagrant, I won't call the director for a UI-related offense.

 

In the end, I'm much happier because I have more time to play bridge and not deal with director calls. I'm not ever getting worked up about bad director calls, because I have made a conscious effort not to enforce the rules in many instances, so there aren't director calls. The people I play against appreciate this attitude and they eventually learn the rules, and there is less friction at the table.

 

I cannot force anyone to adopt this same attitude, but judging from the tone of Jilly's letter, she's steamed about what happens in these club games. I would suggest she at least considers adopting a different perspective and approach in a club environment. It might be a more fulfilling experience for her.

[jillybean]

If it is rare that a hesitation warrants a director call, do you agree also that it is rare that possible (or probable) use of UI warrants a director call? If not, then I would suggest your reluctance to call the director in order to establish a hesitation is misplaced — unless of course you usually obtain agreement from opponents that the hesitation occurred. Also, what of actions generally — that is, other than hesitations — that might convey UI? Should those also rarely result in calls?

I was perhaps misspeaking when I said it was rare that a hesitation warrants a director call. When the hesitation is not significant, at an unimportant point in the auction, or the player has tanked and then contributes the 3rd pass card to the auction, I'm not going to call the director. If I feel the hessitation could have created UI I will obtain agreement from the opponents and if they don't agree I will call the director, which happens very rarely.

 

Other actions in general that might convey UI rarely get a director call, but should.

[jillybean]

And yet I'll bet the infraction left a bad taste in your mouth. How is this pair ever going to understand what they're doing wrong if no one ever calls them on it?

Players are rarely called on these infractions and if they are called, it is likely the infraction will be glossed over. I have learned it is not nice to call the director for type of thing in club games. See my original post.

 

I'm shorter than you are. I once had a 6'4" player call me to the table, and when I got there he stood up and leaned over me while "explaining" his complaint. I asked him to sit down. 'Huh? But he..." "SIT DOWN!" That got his attention and that of everyone else in the room. :P

:D

[jillybean]

Phil,

 

I play most of my games in clubs. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or money to travel and play the number of tournaments I would like to.

Does this mean I should pay my $9, be nice and accept that this is the level of club bridge in North America?

 

I am not blaming my result on others infractions. When I do poorly it is because I have played badly.

 

I am NOT talking about infractions by new players. Honestly, I am not really related to Attitla the Hun. I am talking about players who have been playing regulary for many years. The new players are learning the "rules" from these experienced players.

I hope when you did receive the director calls you handled the new players with kid gloves and took the time to gently explain why their action was an infraction.

[Phil]

Phil,

 

I play most of my games in clubs. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or money to travel and play the number of tournaments I would like to.

 

 

Few do.

 

Does this mean I should pay my $9, be nice and accept that this is the level of club bridge in North America?

 

Its a personal choice. You can try to swim upstream and change people (even veterans) and directors and create a frustrating experience and environment for yourself. This isn't my idea of fun and enjoyment. Or you can focus on the good parts and why you are playing in a club in the 1st place. Or you can scrap the whole idea and strictly play online.

 

I am not blaming my result on others infractions. When I do poorly it is because I have played badly.

 

No one said you did, but this is a tertiary matter IMO.

 

I am NOT talking about infractions by new players. Honestly, I am not really a little to the right of Attitla the Hun. I am talking about players who have been playing regularly for many years. The new players are learning the "rules" from these experienced players.

 

There are some players that simply will never learn. They have developed years of bad habits, and think what they do is normal, although when they play against other unethical players, they will scream for the cops LOL.

 

I hope when you did receive the director calls you handled the new players with kid gloves and took the time to gently explain why their action was an infraction.

 

I have a split personality. With new players I am such a softy and have a sense of humor when I come to the table. I try to make so that new players want to call me over. Calling the director should never be a negative experience for anyone.

 

With experienced players that should 'know better', I'm professional, but I'm also pretty dismissive if they question my ruling, although I will listen to reason. If they press me, I can be a hardass, but most people do not.

[paua]

When attention has been called to an irregularity, all four players at the table are responsible for calling the director (Law 9B).

 

Yes, I know that. And I still like to give the offender the chance to call the director.

OK, maybe this causes a scene now and then, but I prefer that to an obnoxious "Director !" without offering a grace period, which just seems rude to me.

OK, in some cases it also makes an educational point, which is not my place as a player.

 

"I think perhaps you/we should call the Director" is my line, with every intention of calling myself in the next 10 seconds if they continue the argument.

 

Earlier this year I had a silver grandmaster make a misclaim.

She tried then to retract all her cards, and I asked her to leave them on the table (strike 2), she then muddled them up (strike 3), and then she refused to admit that she was going one light, so I called the Director. She then turned to me and said quite grumpily "so I made a mistake".

I hope she learned something :)

[jillybean]

I hope she learned something :)

What did the director do?

I bet the player is still making those same infractions.

[Vampyr]

"I think perhaps you/we should call the Director" is my line, with every intention of calling myself in the next 10 seconds if they continue the argument.

 

Why wait for the argument to start? I normally call the director as soon as an irregularity has occurred, and if it's not something obvious like a lead out of turn I will usually say something like "We'd better get the director here".

 

Suggesting that the director be called and then sitting back waiting for someone else to do it strikes me as obnoxious.

[Bbradley62]

At a game I directed a few months ago, we had to combine the junior and open sections. Many of the open players were losing patience with newer players for things like asking questions about the auction when they weren't on lead...

<<snip>>

Here's my personal code:

 

Against newer or "C" pairs, the only time I will call the director is for something flagrant like a bid or pass out of turn, where it alters 'normal' bridge.

So, when is a new player told "you can only ask questions when it's your turn"? And by whom? Not chastising such behavior is the equivalent of approving it. These people show up one day and they are no longer "C" players, so they discover that the rules have changed for them?

[Vampyr]

So, when is a new player told "you can only ask questions when it's your turn"? And by whom? Not chastising such behavior is the equivalent of approving it. These people show up one day and they are no longer "C" players, so they discover that the rules have changed for them?

 

I'm not sure, but what I think is being suggested is that these people are told the proper procedure at the table, without involving the director. I think this is probably OK, but that there may be a fine line between informing players of the correct procedure and making rulings at the table.

[Phil]

So, when is a new player told "you can only ask questions when it's your turn"? And by whom? Not chastising such behavior is the equivalent of approving it. These people show up one day and they are no longer "C" players, so they discover that the rules have changed for them?

 

I usually find that these questions are not nefarious. They don't know better to wait until the proper time. Many veteran players get worked up about these matters, but the questions a newer player asks generally dont (edit) usually pinpoint interest in a suit.

 

I would never 'chastise' anything a new player does.

[Bbradley62]

So, you still don't ever tell them that they're supposed to wait until it's their turn? Help me here, Jillybean!

[paua]

Why wait for the argument to start? I normally call the director as soon as an irregularity has occurred, and if it's not something obvious like a lead out of turn I will usually say something like "We'd better get the director here".

 

Suggesting that the director be called and then sitting back waiting for someone else to do it strikes me as obnoxious.

 

The Anglican vicar who taught me this would politley disagree with you.

[Bbradley62]

The Anglican vicar who taught me this would politley disagree with you.

Anglican vicars can't be obnoxious? I know several Catholic priests who are...

[aguahombre]

I'm not sure, but what I think is being suggested is that these people are told the proper procedure at the table, without involving the director. I think this is probably OK, but that there may be a fine line between informing players of the correct procedure and making rulings at the table.

There is a way for a player or for a director to inform players of correct procedure without making a ruling or seeming to be making a ruling at the table. Wait for there to be no one else but you and the newbies ---between rounds or away from the table ---and use your vast communication skills to present the subject matter palatably.

[paua]

Anglican vicars can't be obnoxious? I know several Catholic priests who are...

 

blasphemer ! :P

[phil_20686]

I agree with other Phil.

 

Also, it would help if you [jilly] cultivated a little bit of internal arrogance. When in your mind you start to think of all the club players as `basically beginners' even when they have been playing for 60 years, it becomes much easier to ignore their infractions, in the same way that you have no problem with for actual beginners.

 

I am reasonably sure this is the real reason that it is hard to find expert players who call the director on club players with any regularity.

[jillybean]

Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

[barmar]

Players are rarely called on these infractions and if they are called, it is likely the infraction will be glossed over.

It sounds like it's this "glossing" that compounds the problem.

 

If you only call the TD for serious issues in a club game, as Phil suggests (and I'm similar -- I can't recall ever calling the TD about UI in the club), and these still get ignored, then the director is not doing their job. While players may not enjoy being accused of doing something wrong, neither do people enjoy being ignored when they think they've been wronged in the first place. The TD should consider both side's concerns, but it sounds like many of them simply can't be bothered and don't want to deal with these types of calls. It seems wrong that they should err on the side of the offending side.