Insufficient Bid and Leniency vs Regimentation

[blackshoe]

I think that regularly giving PPs to players who occasionally fail to do what they "should" do might be considered draconian. I do not think that regularly giving PPs to players who fail to do what they "must" do should be considered draconian. There are club owners (and probably players) though who think that giving any PPs is draconian. I suppose they can run their clubs that way if they want, but to me that ain't bridge - it's a bunch of people throwing cards around.

 

I would agree with "the TD has to weigh both concerns" but IME TDs of the "keep the players happy" mindset don't do that.

[mycroft]

Think of it as more as a referee in a football match. Except you aren't allowed to call him the B*stard in the Black...

"You know the other group of people who wear stripes? Thieves and Fraudsters."

 

(having said that, given the match-fixing reports of earlier this week,...)

[Vampyr]

I think that regularly giving PPs to players who occasionally fail to do what they "should" do might be considered draconian. I do not think that regularly giving PPs to players who fail to do what they "must" do should be considered draconian.

 

But this thread is not even about PPs -- it is (initially) about making up rulings to supplement the already far too loose (and very difficult for club directors to understand) L27B.

 

Once at a club Christmas party one of the hands had the rule that you could make any bid you wanted, as long as it was still in your bidding box. Is Grattan still looking for suggestions for the 2017 Lawbook....?

[Vampyr]

The TD is also a representative of the bridge club. Part of his job is to ensure that players enjoy the game, so they'll keep coming back to the club. LOLs don't enjoy draconian enforcement of minor transgressions.

 

What would you consider an example of "draconian enforcement of minor transgressions"?

[barmar]

What would you consider an example of "draconian enforcement of minor transgressions"?

It's in the eye of the beholder. The director in the OP apparently thought that the laws regarding rectification of insufficient bids are too severe.

[blackshoe]

And he's entitled to that thought. What he's not entitled to do is to act on it, and thereby fail to rule as the laws require.

[barmar]

And he's entitled to that thought. What he's not entitled to do is to act on it, and thereby fail to rule as the laws require.

Which is where the conflict I mentioned earlier, between being a marketer of the game and a judge of the rules, comes into play. Sometimes he decides that it's worth bending the rules to keep the players happy and coming back.

[blackshoe]

Well, in terms of the club's bottom line, he may be right, at least for the short term. And for the long term, if his players just want to have a social afternoon or evening, and don't really care what game they're playing.

 

For myself, as a TD, if the club claims to offer "duplicate contract bridge", I consider it unethical to bend the rules to keep any particular player or group of players happy.

[akwoo]

Well, in terms of the club's bottom line, he may be right, at least for the short term. And for the long term, if his players just want to have a social afternoon or evening, and don't really care what game they're playing.

 

For myself, as a TD, if the club claims to offer "duplicate contract bridge", I consider it unethical to bend the rules to keep any particular player or group of players happy.

 

I agree with barmar. I think you're being too strict. The intent of the rules is to provide a standard rectification for unavoidable UI problems. Given the players probably don't even remember the bidding well enough to actually have UI, let's not worry about it.

 

However, I come from the perspective of someone who would have to drive 90 miles to get a face to face game if his local once-a-week game, which averages less than 3 tables, goes away.

[bluejak]

If I'm playing at my club against two elderly half-blind ladies and this comes up, would I let them bid 1N, or would I call the director?

 

I'd let them bid 1N, remind them that the attempted 1S bid is UI, and let the director (who more likely than not is playing) keep playing. Frankly, I'd let them bid whatever they like unless it would be somewhat likely to cause unavoidable UI issues for their partner.

So would I. But the question here is not "Should I call the TD?" but "What should the TD do if called?".

 

What would you consider an example of "draconian enforcement of minor transgressions"?

Giving a PP for leads or bids out of turn, or for giving MI or using UI.

[blackshoe]

Giving a PP for leads or bids out of turn, or for giving MI or using UI.

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”

Leads and bids out of turn fall under "does" - so no suggestion of a PP. Similarly, there is no suggestion of a PP when MI is given. However, on the subject of using UI, Law 16B clearly says that a player "may not" do so. According to the quoted passage in the Introduction to the laws, violation of this law should result in a PP "more often than not". If a player violates Law 73C, which says he "must" carefully avoid taking advantage of (i.e., using) UI, this is an even more serious offense.

 

No doubt "custom and practice" will be invoked here to say that it's just not done to give PPs for use of UI, but IMO when custom and practice is clearly in conflict with the law, it is custom and practice that is wrong, not the law.

 

If the example irregularity was "giving UI", I'd have agreed with no PP. B-)

[Vampyr]

Giving a PP for leads or bids out of turn, or for giving MI or using UI.

 

I would agree with this (with the modification suggested above). I don't know why the other poster brought up "draconian etc" since this sort of ruling was never mentioned in the OP or any other post.

[barmar]

I would agree with this (with the modification suggested above). I don't know why the other poster brought up "draconian etc" since this sort of ruling was never mentioned in the OP or any other post.

I was addressing the general point of why club directors sometimes bend the law when making rulings. Maybe "draconian" was an overbid, but I think it reflects how the recipients of the penalty sometimes feel.

 

Most of us in this discussion understand the laws and how they're intended to be applied. When we make a mistake, we understand that there's a proscribed rectification, and we accept it gracefully. But LOLs aren't students of the Laws, they just want a pleasant game. Some penalties may seem too severe for the crime, such as rectifications that bar a player from bidding.

 

TDs are servants of two masters: the Game and the Club, and sometimes they compromise in favor of the Club.

[blackshoe]

John Probst was famous for telling the club they were wrong, and for sticking to his guns and quitting if they didn't back down. Happened several times, as I understand it.

[barmar]

John Probst was famous for telling the club they were wrong, and for sticking to his guns and quitting if they didn't back down. Happened several times, as I understand it.

So your point is that you could lose players by not following the letter of the law, too? Sure. But there are more LOLs than Probsts, I believe.

 

More specifically, the director knows the specific players involved in any ruling. He knows whether he's dealing with LOLs or Probsts, and may need to behave accordingly.

 

Is this really fair? No, it isn't. It's life in the real world.

[blackshoe]

Apparently I should have made it clear that John "Maddog" Probst was the director at the club in question.

[barmar]

That's certainly a reasonable attitude as well, preferring to maintain your integrity over a job.

 

But I think people need to put things in perspective. I don't think I would commit a crime because my boss asked me to, but tempering bridge rulings doesn't rise to that level.

[mycroft]

I realized when I started directing that I have no interpersonal skills, and can't make the fine judgements involved in tempering my rulings to anything but the law book. Also, I played at a club where the rulings went in favour of the pair the TD thought most likely not to come back if he ruled against them, and I felt insulted (and very happy to get out of there); I wasn't going to be that person.

 

But I also realized that there are ways and ways of calling the TD and asking for a ruling, and ways and ways of delivering that ruling, and that the places in the Law Book where it says to take into account the ability and experience of the player work both ways. And yes, I tailor my rulings around those three things. And I am more likely than most to point out the players' option to ask the TD to waive the penalty (not at the time explicitly, although I might hint).

 

I believe I am known as a fair (as opposed to unfair, not in the bad-good continuum) TD. Most accept my rulings even though I am WRONG, WRONG, wrongity WRONG, and clearly have the bidding judgement and playing skills of a TD ("those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, go into administration"). And maybe I have driven some players out of my game. But I've heard of many more *players* who have done so, either by chewing through partners at a horrendous rate, or "I don't want to play against them", or "if I don't show up with a team, I'll be playing with [incompetent] and whoever Mycroft can scratch up to play with her".

[barmar]

I do wonder whether the fears that rulings against them will drive some players away from the club are overblown.

[blackshoe]

Depends on what you mean by "overblown". Certainly there are some players who will not play at games where certain people direct. I've been on both sides of that. Whether the number of such players is significant is another question. The real problem, IMO, is the director who rules so as to placate one player or pair, and never considers the impact of his ruling on the other pair.