barmar Posted December 1, 2018 Report Share Posted December 1, 2018 I continue to be perplexed that there is a sport where people are worried about punishing any infraction, let alone any infraction that happens to gain :)The problem is that some of these things are not really infractions, but SB wants to punish them anyway. Transmitting UI is not in itself an infraction, taking advantage of the UI is. SB would like to treat any situation where there's UI and the result is favorable to that side as if they'd taken advantage of the UI. SB regularly asks us to rule against the hapless RR for "could have been aware" situations when he's barely aware of what the contract is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted December 3, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2018 The problem is that some of these things are not really infractions, but SB wants to punish them anyway. Transmitting UI is not in itself an infraction, taking advantage of the UI is. SB would like to treat any situation where there's UI and the result is favorable to that side as if they'd taken advantage of the UI. SB regularly asks us to rule against the hapless RR for "could have been aware" situations when he's barely aware of what the contract is.On this hand, SB is claiming that ChCh used the UI that RR was far less likely to have a singleton club, as he took some time to lead. He had a clear logical alternative to ducking the opening lead, and that was less successful. This is a very common situation in bridge, and one that TDs seem reluctant to act on because it implies that the opening leader is "communicating" by the speed of the lead. I can certainly remember having to decide whether the lead is a singleton before, and I have always carefully avoided using any UI. Ruling against SB here is truly awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weejonnie Posted December 3, 2018 Report Share Posted December 3, 2018 On this hand, SB is claiming that ChCh used the UI that RR was far less likely to have a singleton club, as he took some time to lead. He had a clear logical alternative to ducking the opening lead, and that was less successful. This is a very common situation in bridge, and one that TDs seem reluctant to act on because it implies that the opening leader is "communicating" by the speed of the lead. I can certainly remember having to decide whether the lead is a singleton before, and I have always carefully avoided using any UI. Ruling against SB here is truly awful.If OO determines that there was a BIT then it is very hard not to rule in favour of SB. Players should be taught to always try and play in tempo even when the play is obvious. If they are taught this while learning then they won't feel (unjustifiably) annoyed if the TD rules against them on 16B 73C and 73D when they enter the real world. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted December 3, 2018 Report Share Posted December 3, 2018 There is in my opinion a very simple solution to the difficulties with RR in this club: Whoever in charge should politely (if possible) tell him that he apparently does not fit in this club and suggest that he finds another club more suitable to his level as bridge player. Harsh? Yes, but if you cannot live with his manners and are unable to "educate" him then get rid of him. In the clubs where I play we are anxious to have players feel welcome, and we do whatever possible to achieve this. That includes telling possible SBs to behave and friendly education when needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted December 3, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2018 There is in my opinion a very simple solution to the difficulties with RR in this club: Whoever in charge should politely (if possible) tell him that he apparently does not fit in this club and suggest that he finds another club more suitable to his level as bridge player. Harsh? Yes, but if you cannot live with his manners and are unable to "educate" him then get rid of him. In the clubs where I play we are anxious to have players feel welcome, and we do whatever possible to achieve this. That includes telling possible SBs to behave and friendly education when needed.RR averages around 51%, although many think he is incredibly lucky when he lands on his feet after a ridiculous action; if TDs like you also ruled in his favour, he would do even better. If you exclude him, you would be excluding over half of the club, many of whom average around 45%. And the last committee meeting decided to post Laws 74A and B (Proper Conduct and Etiquette) on the noticeboard, and warn SB that he will get a DP for each breach. He is quite happy with that, and thinks that 10% of a top is well worth it, despite it being a "should" Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted December 3, 2018 Report Share Posted December 3, 2018 And the last committee meeting decided to post Laws 74A and B (Proper Conduct and Etiquette) on the noticeboard, and warn SB that he will get a DP for each breach. He is quite happy with that, and thinks that 10% of a top is well worth it, despite it being a "should" Law.Fine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted December 4, 2018 Report Share Posted December 4, 2018 ... a DP for each breach. He is quite happy with that, and thinks that 10% of a top is well worth it, ... In EBU events, a DP is 50% top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted December 4, 2018 Report Share Posted December 4, 2018 In EBU events, a DP is 50% top.That is better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted December 5, 2018 Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 Ruling against SB here is truly awful.You may be right, though my first thought was "how can ruling against SB be that bad?" B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted December 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 In EBU events, a DP is 50% top.Indeed, the White Book states that they are normally "twice the standard penalty", but the committee decided that the standard PP for breaches, in general, of "must" or "may not" laws was 25%, so there was no logic in punishing the miscreant so heavily for a breach of a "should" law, which is described in the introduction as "not normally punished". The committee decided not to adopt the recommendations in the White Book, as they would also have to fine RR 50% of a top as a disciplinary penalty every time he breached 74B1. Last night that was on 24 separate occasions, and he would have ended up with a score of -1% (his actual 49% less 24 DPs of 50%). We therefore decided that for breaches of Law 74, 10% was the maximum, and this was unanimous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weejonnie Posted December 5, 2018 Report Share Posted December 5, 2018 There is in my opinion a very simple solution to the difficulties with RR in this club: Whoever in charge should politely (if possible) tell him that he apparently does not fit in this club and suggest that he finds another club more suitable to his level as bridge player. Harsh? Yes, but if you cannot live with his manners and are unable to "educate" him then get rid of him. In the clubs where I play we are anxious to have players feel welcome, and we do whatever possible to achieve this. That includes telling possible SBs to behave and friendly education when needed.Where? There are only two players in London as 'good' as RR - that makes 3 - hardly enough for a single table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.