A curious auction

[PeterAlan]

... (even the EBU's 1/10 boards) ...

Very much a detail, but from White Book 2018 onwards EBU differentiated 'standard penalty' from 'standard adjustment' and increased the former to 25% of a top (with related increases for IMPs, VPs etc): White Book 2022 section 8.12.3 (pp 109-110).

[mycroft]

Thanks for that. I will read.

 

However, looking for it I have definitely found my QOTD - and may even change my signature here.

(“You are the country’s most irritating player” is, sadly, not an objective reason to increase a penalty.)

[jillybean]

In a normal tournament session, if I'm assigned primarily to the floor (so, not "only director", and not "computer/start/boards/results..."), the thing that takes up most of my attention is ensuring the game keeps moving, politely and without too much "we're done, so we'll talk. And then wonder why the slow players aren't catching up. But director, I can't play with all this distraction..." This gets interrupted by calls (which of course take priority), and most of them are book rulings (lead or call out of turn, IB, MPC, revoke with obvious results,...) or "can you get us a board" or "do we have a sitout?"

 

Sorry to completely hijack the thread.

 

I think it is apparent that most Directors are far too busy doing everything needed to run a game, they don't have time, resources or whatever to spend on the fuzzy stuff.

Adding staff costs money and that's not going to happen so why aren't the laws simplified?

[blackshoe]

Easier said than done, Jilly.

[mycroft]

I don't understand that question. There are enough directors to do everything - imagine back in the days where everything was entered on tickets, or the games were hand-matchpointed. I don't understand what you mean by the fuzzy stuff, that isn't getting done.

 

Things get done. Do we wish sometimes there was one more on the floor so that we didn't feel like we had to scrimp on X to do Y? Of course. But things get done, even if the game runs 10 minutes longer than intended or the results don't go up for another 5 minutes. If we had one more, we'd wish for one more yet, so that we could do Z and Q as well. Where do you stop? Well, obviously, where the cost becomes too great.

 

With respect to judgement calls where the director has to go away and consult, I reiterate what I started with: you should get an answer; it should come when you have a minute; it should come when it's done; and it should make sense, at least after the session when we both have a bit more time. If you let "when is the ruling going to show up?" or "what will be the result on board 5?" intrude on your thoughts on board 9, you will make more mistakes that will hurt your score more than "there was no damage" when you believe there was.

 

Note that I didn't say you are entitled to a ruling you agree with, or even necessarily understand. But the Law, and the reasoning that applies the Law to the situation, that you should get.

 

And the laws are not simplified because (short of Burn's solution) there's no fair way to simplify them. Or it's one of the laws where all the exceptions and special cases are there to close obvious (once they had been used) loopholes that no, we're not going to open up again. Judgment rulings are complicated because bridge is complicated; and it is not right to use your judgement, or mine, or Kevin Dwyer's, or Hrothgar's, for the person at the table, if said person at the table isn't at your level, or a SB that directs a lot, or a pro, or a system freak playing strong club/relay.

 

And the people who want "two minutes for cross-checking"? Well, that's just a less over the top version of Burn's solution. And I wish we had a bit more of it, but even I know that you get more coöperation from rich people with spare time using carrots than sticks.

[jillybean]

Sorry, the remaining quote was cut off where you refer to polling players, other directors, sometimes spending hours if there is damage etc.

A non tournament Director, Club director, playing Director, I'd even go as far to say some Directors of Sectionals if operating alone don't have the time, resources, whatever, to address issues other than the LOOTs, BOOTs and as said above, a failure to alert/disclose is treated with "call me back if there is damage". In this way, the Laws seem to be unenforceable at the club and lower level games.

[sanst]

… but even I know that you get more coöperation from rich people with spare time using carrots than sticks.

That has nothing to do with wealth, not even with humans. If I remember right, it’s about a donkey. :D

[sanst]

Sorry, the remaining quote was cut off where you refer to polling players, other directors, sometimes spending hours if there is damage etc.

A non tournament Director, Club director, playing Director, I'd even go as far to say some Directors of Sectionals if operating alone don't have the time, resources, whatever, to address issues other than the LOOTs, BOOTs and as said above, a failure to alert/disclose is treated with "call me back if there is damage". In this way, the Laws seem to be unenforceable at the club and lower level games.

I’m wondering what you want TD’s to do. Act if there’s an infraction in the alert procedure? What about insufficient explanation - what is insufficient exactly? And, even more important, what would you want done in these cases?

Basically, a TD acts when:

• There is an infraction,
  
• there is damage,
  
• and the damage is the result of the infraction.
  

If there’s an infraction without damage you might warn the culprit(s) and in rare cases give a penalty, but in clubs that’s unusual, to say the least. Changes are you won’t have any members but the SB’s left in a couple of months or you’re dumped by the members.

[pilowsky]

Basically, a TD acts when:

• There is an infraction,
• there is damage,
• and the damage is the result of the infraction.

 

This syllogism is the reason why Bridge makes so little sense to people new to the game.

 

This kind of logic if applied to everyday life would mean:

Driving while holding a mobile phone is ONLY illegal if there's an accident.

Driving while drunk is only illegal if you crash into a pedestrian.

 

The average person who starts to play Bridge is baffled by the idea that:

There are multiple rules that change whimsically and are different at different levels and in different countries.

The rules - even when available in an easily readable form to the players - are not actually rules because you are free to break them unless damage results.

You don't have to understand the rules to play the game.

 

Bridge appears - to the newcomer - to be a game designed by Kafka and implemented by George Orwell.

[axman]

Sorry, the remaining quote was cut off where you refer to polling players, other directors, sometimes spending hours if there is damage etc.

A non tournament Director, Club director, playing Director, I'd even go as far to say some Directors of Sectionals if operating alone don't have the time, resources, whatever, to address issues other than the LOOTs, BOOTs and as said above, a failure to alert/disclose is treated with "call me back if there is damage". In this way, the Laws seem to be unenforceable at the club and lower level games.

I used to run 54 tables (it was common to turn away half a dozen tables) in 190 to 200 minutes for 26 boards. The only occasion above my pay grade was a question over improper deception by partner of .a defender's bum concession immediately rejected by partner. In that case I made a provisional ruling subject to consultation and life went on. (consultation confirmed the ruling even though I believed the ruling incorrect) Oh, 1/3 of the field didn't play sanctioned tournament. The biggest problem was the time spent verifying the play of 5-10 PCs a session (tough to be in two places at once).

 

The biggest source of infractions are TDs that do not explain the reasoning in their rulings (which is just about all of them except me and Al La Tuchie). Surely they justify not giving the reasoning because they don't have time. But giving the reasoning teaches and thus minimizes the creation of repeat offenses in the future.

[jillybean]

This syllogism is the reason why Bridge makes so little sense to people new to the game.

 

This kind of logic if applied to everyday life would mean:

Driving while holding a mobile phone is ONLY illegal if there's an accident.

Driving while drunk is only illegal if you crash into a pedestrian.

 

The average person who starts to play Bridge is baffled by the idea that:

There are multiple rules that change whimsically and are different at different levels and in different countries.

The rules - even when available in an easily readable form to the players - are not actually rules because you are free to break them unless damage results.

You don't have to understand the rules to play the game.

 

Bridge appears - to the newcomer - to be a game designed by Kafka and implemented by George Orwell.

 

May I add to your excellent post,

A newcomer is unlikely to be able to answer the Directors question - was there any damage, call me back if there was damage.

[sanst]

May I add to your excellent post,

A newcomer is unlikely to be able to answer the Directors question - was there any damage, call me back if there was damage.

Why don’t you answer my question: what would you want TD’s to do if there’s an infraction, even if you find about it without being called or when there’s no damage? This is not about top level tournaments, but the social game that’s played at the average club.

It’s easy enough to state that the players should follow the rules, but how do you manage that?

[jillybean]

Why don’t you answer my question: what would you want TD’s to do if there’s an infraction, even if you find about it without being called or when there’s no damage? This is not about top level tournaments, but the social game that’s played at the average club.

It’s easy enough to state that the players should follow the rules, but how do you manage that?

 

I’m wondering what you want TD’s to do. Act if there’s an infraction in the alert procedure? What about insufficient explanation - what is insufficient exactly? And, even more important, what would you want done in these cases?

Basically, a TD acts when:

• There is an infraction,
  
• there is damage,
  
• and the damage is the result of the infraction.
  

If there’s an infraction without damage you might warn the culprit(s) and in rare cases give a penalty, but in clubs that’s unusual, to say the least. Changes are you won’t have any members but the SB’s left in a couple of months or you’re dumped by the members.

 

Somewhere in the laws it tells me that I must call the Director when there has been an infraction, hesitation, rude comment, problem of any kind.

How you handle the call is up to you and your interpretation of the laws.

 

If you only want to be called for certain violations, hesitations, comments or problems then that should be made clear to the players.

If you only want to be called if there has been "damage", that could be very problematic.

[sanst]

Somewhere in the laws it tells me that I must call the Director when there has been an infraction, hesitation, rude comment, problem of any kind.

How you handle the call is up to you and your interpretation of the laws.

 

If you only want to be called for certain violations, hesitations, comments or problems then that should be made clear to the players.

If you only want to be called if there has been "damage", that could be very problematic.

Am I to believe that you call the director every time you think that there has been an infraction, hesitation or problem of any kind? If so, I don’t think bridge is a pleasant pastime for you. I usually let go, especially if I know that my opponents are not aware of all the rules and regulations. Calling the TD would certainly cause “annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game”.

I deliberately leave out the rude comment, because these are in my experience very rare and can usually be handled by the players at the table. You just point out that you’re not happy with this behavior and ask the player to behave properly. I don’t need the TD to do that, although I’ve once asked the director to correct a player who went on and on with blaming his partner for all kinds of real and supposed mistakes. Didn’t help, anyway.

[sanst]

This syllogism is the reason why Bridge makes so little sense to people new to the game.

 

This kind of logic if applied to everyday life would mean:

Driving while holding a mobile phone is ONLY illegal if there's an accident.

Driving while drunk is only illegal if you crash into a pedestrian.

 

The average person who starts to play Bridge is baffled by the idea that:

There are multiple rules that change whimsically and are different at different levels and in different countries.

The rules - even when available in an easily readable form to the players - are not actually rules because you are free to break them unless damage results.

You don't have to understand the rules to play the game.

 

Bridge appears - to the newcomer - to be a game designed by Kafka and implemented by George Orwell.

I’ve read this more than once, but I don’t think you’re right. Newbies are quite often baffled by the complexity of the game, not by the Laws and regulations, which they more often than not don’t know. As a teacher I told them to call the director when they thought something went wrong, like a revoke or a LOOT.

The average person who starts to play bridge is baffled by the difficulties that the auction provide, that are plentiful. They don’t worry about hesitations, sighs and comments like “I don’t know, well, I bid XYZ, but that will not be right, I think”. Never heard anyone new to the game call the director for that. Actually, they solve the problems their way at the table themselves, because they don’t dare to call the director.

I’ve never heard anyone quitting bridge because the rules are not kept rigorously. New players might give up because they find it too difficult or demanding, more experienced players quit mainly for all kind of reasons of age and/or health. A fairly recent one was the result of the covid pandemic when people discovered new hobbies that gave them more fun or satisfaction than bridge.

[blackshoe]

A director who tells players "don't call me except for... " should not be directing. Even at a club.

 

If someone calling the director annoys or embarrasses someone else then either the tone of the director call was problematic, or the annoyed player is too sensitive or doesn't understand the purpose of director calls. Either case should be handled calmly and objectively by the director, and then he should deal with the reason for the call. I will say that if a director tries to penalize, or even mildly censure, a player who called him without being accusative or mean about it because the mere fact of a director call annoyed someone, well, that director should turn in his director card.

[jillybean]

Am I to believe that you call the director every time you think that there has been an infraction, hesitation or problem of any kind? If so, I don’t think bridge is a pleasant pastime for you. I usually let go, especially if I know that my opponents are not aware of all the rules and regulations. Calling the TD would certainly cause “annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game”.

I deliberately leave out the rude comment, because these are in my experience very rare and can usually be handled by the players at the table. You just point out that you’re not happy with this behavior and ask the player to behave properly. I don’t need the TD to do that, although I’ve once asked the director to correct a player who went on and on with blaming his partner for all kinds of real and supposed mistakes. Didn’t help, anyway.

And this is where the problem starts. Why would calling the Director cause "annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game" ?

 

If I yell "Director !!! This twit Bob has led out of turn again". - now you have 2 infractions to deal with

[blackshoe]

Law 74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

A director call is not a remark nor is it an extraneous action. Therefore if it causes annoyance or embarrassment to another player, or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game, that's not legally relevant. "Sorry you feel that way. Now why was I called?"

[barmar]

This syllogism is the reason why Bridge makes so little sense to people new to the game.

 

This kind of logic if applied to everyday life would mean:

Driving while holding a mobile phone is ONLY illegal if there's an accident.

Driving while drunk is only illegal if you crash into a pedestrian.

 

The average person who starts to play Bridge is baffled by the idea that:

There are multiple rules that change whimsically and are different at different levels and in different countries.

The rules - even when available in an easily readable form to the players - are not actually rules because you are free to break them unless damage results.

You don't have to understand the rules to play the game.

 

Bridge appears - to the newcomer - to be a game designed by Kafka and implemented by George Orwell.

There's a difference between bridge and real life.

 

In real life we penalize most infractions as a deterrent. Even if you didn't cause an accident this time, if you keep acting this way you're likely to cause an accident in the future, and that could be a disaster. So we use penalties as incentive to follow the laws.

 

I know it may be heresy to say it, but bridge is just a game. The primary goal of when dealing with infractions is restoring equity, not punishment or deterrence. The assumption behind this is that most infractions are innocent mistakes, due to losing concentration, not deliberate. Punishment is not likely to be very effective in preventing this, unless everyone without perfect concentration is driven away from the game due to the appearance that this is too severe.

 

If players deliberately and/or repeatedly violate the Laws, we do have the option of Procedural Penalties and Disciplinary Penalties. These are considered extreme actions, and only used in exceptional situations. And in more serious cases, bridge organizations can prohibit players or pairs from competing at all, strip them of titles, etc.

[mycroft]

There are people who believe that nobody would follow the rules if there wasn't somebody watching over them with a big stick. Frequently because they, themselves, fit that category to one extent or another.

 

But most of the world, and a huge majority of bridge players, prove that belief wrong. People follow the rules because they're expected to follow the rules, and if they make a mistake, they welcome gentle correction so they get it right the next time, and are willing to accept an adjusted score if getting it wrong actually caused a problem.

 

Even in - perhaps especially in - the rare heights of the game where good results are how the players feed their family, and where one would expect "every little advantage you can legally get" to be taken. Interestingly enough, the culture that has grown up there gives higher respect, and higher fees, to those who do slightly worse playing by the rules - note, not necessarily "the Laws", but "the rules of the professional Game" - than those who are known to play every angle. Partly because the line between "playing angles" and "cheating" is so easy to cross; partly because the clients who hire the angle shooters find it harder to also hire the players who don't want to be known as associating with "angle shooters"; probably for a number of reasons I don't have enough in to the professional world to hear about or work out.

 

Thank you, barmar, for saying what I was going to say last night (but decided not to post) in the polite and civilized way that I was failing to be able to do.

[mycroft]

One side note (from that not-posted response): those that read and understand L9B1 (and all should, and all should follow it; it's The Rule that the rest of the Laws revolve around) need to ensure they also read and understand "The purpose of the Laws" in the introduction (without force of Law, sure, but the rest of the Laws are clearly written with that purpose in mind).

[sanst]

Barmar hits the nail on the head: “I know it may be heresy to say it, but bridge is just a game.” The primary goal of most players at the lower levels in the clubs here is to have a nice afternoon or night , not even to win or score the best they can. These players don’t care much about infractions and call the director only when there’s a situation they can’t handle themselves. Think about discovering, usually sometime during the play because they don’t count their cards, that one player has more cards than the others and another having one less. An insufficient bid, if noticed at all, is solved by bidding something sufficient or passing, a LOOT is mostly not noticed either, but, if necessary, ‘corrected’ by taking the card back. A revoke is handled in the same way.

The rules are ignored on a massive scale. Opening leads are standard face up, if you ask about their agreements, you get answers like “Huh? I don’t know but (s)he probably has this or that, I guess”. Thereafter the player him or herself corrects it. Quite often a player who makes an alertable call says to the partner “You should alert”, whereafter the partner unasked says “Can be two clubs”. That, because they know that an opening bid of 1♣ which can be made with a doubleton is alertable. Usually no other call is alerted and they even don’t like it if a beter player alerts according to the regulations. UI is passed freely and used quite innocently, because they even don’t know that that isn’t allowed.

I for one am not going to try to make these people stick to the rules. It won’t help, they will still see calling a director in such cases an accusation of cheating. Let them enjoy their game as they like, but be serious at a more serious level, also in the club, if only because the clubs couldn’t survive without these members.

[jillybean]

I occasionally play at a game like that, it's a 5 minute walk away at a Community Centre, costs $3 a game and a nice place to meet up with a friend for a visit and a game of cards. It's not an sanctioned game awarding master points. If others want to charge $10 a game, call themselves sanctioned and award masterpoints, that's obviously at their discretion but shouldn't it be clear what the rules, if any, of the game are, and be told when players should call the Director? Perhaps only if you can't sort it out yourself.

 

I imagine, and hope that the occasional lower level player eventually becomes a tournament player. They will be so ill prepared that should anyone dare call the Director, it will be such an unsettling experience, I bet they won't be back.

[jillybean]

One side note (from that not-posted response): those that read and understand L9B1 (and all should, and all should follow it; it's The Rule that the rest of the Laws revolve around) need to ensure they also read and understand "The purpose of the Laws" in the introduction (without force of Law, sure, but the rest of the Laws are clearly written with that purpose in mind).

Yes! Unfortunately L9B1 is ignored for a myriad of reasons, thus the "Purpose of the Laws" is irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

It may surprise some here, but in general I agree with barmar and Mycroft and sanst: it's just a game. Also, if people don't call the director IAW Law 9B1, ie, they handle irregularities themselves, well, the director can't do much about things he doesn't know about, can he?

 

I do believe that organized tournaments and sanctioned club games should be played more strictly, but again if the players don't call, the director can't help. For that reason when the opportunity arises I try to teach them that they should call, that calling is not in itself an accusation of cheating, and that the director's main purpose is to help the game run smoothly, not to smack errant players on the knuckles.

 

I know I've consistently advocated more attention to procedural penalties than is usual, but that's because I strongly believe that constant warnings are worse than useless --- they result in contempt for the rules. That's how cheating gets its nose in the tent.

 

BTW, the Introduction to the Laws, and the Definitions, are part of the laws. So maybe the "purpose" paragraph doesn't have the force of law (whatever that means) but it's certainly part of the laws.