A matter of conscience

[blackshoe]

The laws do not make any provision for playing directors. They don't prohibit it either.

 

If there is more than one qualified director playing, and if one of the others has already played the hand, the official playing director could (imo should) ask the other one to deal with the problem. If that's not possible the director has to consider whether he can play the hand, or cannot. If he cannot, then he should award an artificial adjusted score, considering his side as directly at fault and the other as not at fault. Even if he can, he should be prepared to award an adjusted score if a problem crops up.

[pran]

The problem with looking at a player's cards before making a ruling is not the UI received by the Director himself but the information he provides for the other players at the table.

 

During our training as directors we were given the following example: A player had a long hesitation before making his call and the Director looked at his cards before announcing: "In my opinion his call is OK"!

[lamford]

+1 for your honesty, Peter. I'm sure other players would have taken advantage of the situation.

-1 for breach of Law 72A, Peter. "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." I, and I hope any other law-abiding player would also "take advantage of the situation" and lead a small club and absolutely no criticism should be made of them. And the TD should not have asked you what you would have done, so -1 for him too. He should just have ruled on the contested claim.

[ahydra]

-1 for breach of Law 72A, Peter. "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." I, and I hope any other law-abiding player would also "take advantage of the situation" and lead a small club and absolutely no criticism should be made of them. And the TD should not have asked you what you would have done, so -1 for him too. He should just have ruled on the contested claim.

 

It's hard to lead a small club when all you have left is spades. :) But yes, declarer conceded and it was well within the bounds of "resolving doubtful points against the claimer" (70A) and "normal play of the remaining cards" (71B) to award the defence both tricks.

 

ahydra

[barmar]

In general, I don't like the director looking in a player's hand before making a ruling, but since there can be no further play, I suppose it doesn't matter in this case.

How is a TD supposed to rule on a disputed claim without looking at all the relevant hands? If the players recount the entire hand he could determine whether the claimant has enough information to make his claim, but he still can't figure out what the possible results could be because it depends on the actual distribution of the remaining cards.

[lamford]

It's hard to lead a small club when all you have left is spades.

I was replying on a small hand-held where ♠Ax looks like ♣Ax.

[sfi]

How is a TD supposed to rule on a disputed claim without looking at all the relevant hands? If the players recount the entire hand he could determine whether the claimant has enough information to make his claim, but he still can't figure out what the possible results could be because it depends on the actual distribution of the remaining cards.

 

By asking all the hands to be put face-up on the table. By the time the director arrives at the table to rule on a disputed claim, no further play is allowed. I ask about the original statement, confirm that with others at the table and then ask all hands to be shown. If I need additional information about earlier play, I have the trick record.

 

Making a ruling during the hand is different. I can and will ask the player clarification on their intent and rule accordingly. Only after leaving the table will I look at the hand record to see whether they were being honest. If not, I can adjust at the end of the hand.

[VixTD]

In our club the director often plays as well (pairs) - for example if someone turns up without partner. I've often wondered what happens if there's a conflict of interest - should the TD be called to adjudicate on a board he or she hasn't yet played. Do the Laws make any provision for this?

 

Naturally I will do my best to avoid acquiring UI: I am not called often and I have trained forgettery, but often you can't avoid seeing dummy and know who is playing the contract and what trumps are likely to be.

I'm not sure what weejonnie means by "trained forgettery", but if he's referring to the ability to study hands or an auction for the purposes of giving a ruling and not taking any of that information away so that he can play the hand later "blind" when he meets it, then I have that gift too.

 

I make a point of looking only at what I need to look at - I make sure I don't see the board number, for example, so I'm not alerted when it comes up. I ask for a minimum of information, so what trumps are, without knowing the level of the contract (if it's a claim). If I am called upon to rule when the auction has started 3♣ - 2NT, I can do so without taking in that someone had a club pre-empt and the next player a strong balanced hand. I'm aware of this when giving the ruling, but when I come to play the board I'm unaware of it, even if someone opens 3♣.

 

This has nothing to do with forgetfulness or a poor memory. For a mediocre bridge player, I have quite a good memory for cards. The difference is that when I'm playing a hand I'm trying to recall who has what holdings and who played what in what order, and to assimilate all this information. When giving a ruling, I'm doing my best not to.

 

It's all very well my saying this, but persuading the other players that I'm not taking advantage is another matter. Most of the time the players are happy to get a ruling and trust me, particularly if it's an ordinary club night. If it's a more significant game (a county league match or qualifier), I might take another approach, e.g. talk the players through the claim rule without looking at the cards and without hearing the repeated claim statement, and see if I can get the players to agree among themselves, or asking them to write down the claim position and statement so I can look at it later. (This is all assuming, of course, that there is no other competent TD who has played the board who could deal with it.)

 

The next edition of the White Book (appearing August 2018) has a new section on the club director that gives advice in this sort of situation.

[blackshoe]

How is a TD supposed to rule on a disputed claim without looking at all the relevant hands?

He's not, and I didn't say he is. What I said was that claims rulings are an exception to the general rule that a director should not be looking in a player's hand. Perhaps the rule is better worded "should not be looking in a player's hand until the play of the hand is over".

[661_Pete]

-1 for breach of Law 72A, Peter. "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." I, and I hope any other law-abiding player would also "take advantage of the situation" and lead a small club and absolutely no criticism should be made of them. And the TD should not have asked you what you would have done, so -1 for him too. He should just have ruled on the contested claim.

OK Lamford - we'll just have to agree to differ! :rolleyes: I suppose it all depends on the level of bridge being played - I'm talking of friendly club level, and I emphasise the word "friendly". Moreover I have every confidence in the TD concerned ....

[lamford]

OK Lamford - we'll just have to agree to differ! :rolleyes: I suppose it all depends on the level of bridge being played - I'm talking of friendly club level, and I emphasise the word "friendly". Moreover I have every confidence in the TD concerned ....

If it was bridge after dinner, or with friends learning the game, I would agree with you, but I think club duplicates should be played according to the Laws.

[weejonnie]

If it was bridge after dinner, or with friends learning the game, I would agree with you, but I think club duplicates should be played according to the Laws.

What a novel suggestion!

 

Even club players can get a bit upset with a claim ruling.

 

Called last week, declarer claimed the last 5 tricks with one trump left in the hand and had forgotton that the Ace of clubs was out. (no other claim statement).

 

Ruling: play trump and then a club: defence take 4 (Ace of clubs and three diamonds) of last 5 tricks. The laws are pretty clear on this matter - declarer can't even say "I would have forced out the Ace of clubs first" - even though it was 'blatently obvious' , since he did not know it was still out. If you were that player aren't you going to be a bit upset at losing three tricks?

 

This has often been discussed: NOT applying the full rigour of the laws early on in a player's career is counter-productive. (Obviously some allowance for UI has to be made under a supervised novice session, since the whol point of the session is to give players knowledge).

[Vampyr]

If he cannot, then he should award an artificial adjusted score, considering his side as directly at fault and the other as not at fault.

 

No, unless the director is paid and was serving also as host.

 

For volunteers, being a playing director is distracting and time-consuming enough (not every time, but potentially). If they are expected to receive A- when they are called to the table the pool of volunteers would soon dry up.

[barmar]

For volunteers, being a playing director is distracting and time-consuming enough (not every time, but potentially). If they are expected to receive A- when they are called to the table the pool of volunteers would soon dry up.

I don't think you're giving enough credit to volunteers, who generally do so because they love the game.

 

I'm a fill-in director at my club, and while I get paid for doing it, the fee is not really my incentive, especially if I can play at the same time. I don't think the possibility of occasionally getting an A- would change my mind.

[blackshoe]

This has often been discussed: NOT applying the full rigour of the laws early on in a player's career is counter-productive. (Obviously some allowance for UI has to be made under a supervised novice session, since the whol point of the session is to give players knowledge).

I couldn't agree more.

 

No, unless the director is paid and was serving also as host.

 

For volunteers, being a playing director is distracting and time-consuming enough (not every time, but potentially). If they are expected to receive A- when they are called to the table the pool of volunteers would soon dry up.

Dura lex, sed lex.

 

I don't think you're giving enough credit to volunteers, who generally do so because they love the game.

 

I'm a fill-in director at my club, and while I get paid for doing it, the fee is not really my incentive, especially if I can play at the same time. I don't think the possibility of occasionally getting an A- would change my mind.

It certainly never changed mine.