Nervous

[jillybean]

I'm running my first game today, a mostly relaxed, "friendly" game so I don't expect any calls for MI, BITs or failure to alert. :)

 

What are the most common calls in a club game?

Insufficient bids and bids out of turn.

Leads out of turn.

Bridgemate problems, I put the wrong xxx in here.

Where are my boards, we have the wrong boards.

 

Thanks

[axman]

I'm running my first game today, a mostly relaxed, "friendly" game so I don't expect any calls for MI, BITs or failure to alert. :)

 

What are the most common calls in a club game?

Insufficient bids and bids out of turn.

Leads out of turn.

Bridgemate problems, I put the wrong xxx in here.

Where are my boards, we have the wrong boards.

 

Thanks

1. write down the movements for the possible number of players (layout the boards correctly too) and strive to have experienced players sit at the relay/bye stands etc, and remember to call skips correctly

 

2. have the instructions to appendix tables and write down the number of an expert on movements in case you need help; also a good idea to have a couple numbers (arrange ahead) you can call if you need help with rulings and bridgemates

 

3. it doesn't make too much sense worrying about what hasn't happened yet- too much overload- so ascertain the facts, if the parties don't concur investigate till you can rule your finding of facts and tell the basis for the finding, read the law book to the players applying against the facts telling them they have the right to lynch appeal rulings that they think are incorrect.

 

It is a good idea greet the players and in particular introduce new faces that they may easily be welcomed at the table by their opponents, introduce yourself as the TD and describe the movement and instructions.

 

And…

Having breaking the ice jitters it is a good idea to resist the temptation to fill-in (to avoid sitouts/ handle singles). Meaning think of your worst enemy (ok you know what I mean) you can impose upon to be available to fill-in in a pinch but probably not play. As a possible enticement offer a free play should you not need him this time after all.

[pescetom]

As axman said, the biggest and worst problems derive from procedural errors - either manual (forget to skip at end of round 4, or whatever) or technical (wrongly configured score program or bridgemates, internet or wifi on the blink etc.).

You're lucky to have Bridgemates which are a pretty bombproof system, but keep an eye on their status especially until the first results are in.

Don't be afraid to ask for advice or help in setting things up, have things written down or printed out or at least photographed in phone, check and double check, have those phone numbers ready.

Think about timing too (punctuality of start, how many minutes per board/round, who is slow) although you don't want to give them a hard time the first day and it depends what they are used to (but do try to avoid some table being a board behind without you realizing).

Table calls are likely to be a relief in comparison, take them in your stride applying the regulations and common sense.

 

Have fun and well done :)

[blackshoe]

Don't have anything to add to the good advice already given, just "Good luck!" B-)

[jillybean]

The most challenging problem so far is trying to enter hand records of boards that were not entered round#1

[jillybean]

It all went swimmingly well until near the end of the penultimate round when the ACBL score program stopped communicating with the Bridgemate server.

I now have a pile of travelers from the last round and no connection to the server. :angry:

[pilowsky]

If nothing ever went wrong games wouldn't need Directors.

[mycroft]

BMR is your friend. But the first time you kind of have to be walked through it. Surviving with pickups/travellers is Just Fine.

 

And I would have said "problems getting the bridgemates up" - wrong table, 6-digit ACBL number,... as well as "can you show me the score on board..." or "we put it in wrong, please clear"

 

"Can you get us a board?"

 

If you don't know your Opening Lead out of Turn spiel straight up, make sure you do, and you've practised it enough that you don't hitch too much. It takes long enough, and is confusing enough, even done cleanly.

 

Yes, insufficient bids and (opening) calls out of turn are most likely, but closely followed by revokes/MPCs (from revokes you didn't get called for) and claims. And they're the tricky, and potentially nasty (players responses), ones.

[jillybean]

Game#2

Where's my board, how do we sign up for more games, we haven't put the HR's in, I've put the board in wrong, twice, and one faintly interesting call...OLOOT

I almost forgot, end of play, all tricks quitted but there's a ♠card face up on the table.

"We think that there has been a revoke in ♠'s but we aren't sure where this card came from."

 

I think most of the players play nice bridge and make their own rulings at the table.

 

BridgeMates! Same problem at the end of round 3, stopped communicating with BM's

Travellers handed out

 

We think we have tracked problem down to dodgy USB port on old DOS PC

Next week I wonder if the BMs will be ok having not completed the movement. Life is never dull

 

OLOOT/LOOT reminds me that some Directors don't tell the player with the penalty card to put it back in their hand after Declarer has exercised their lead restriction rights.

[jillybean]

I have a 2008 copy of the Laws Book. I know this is lazy and I should search the changes but can someone tell me what changes if any I should be aware of for simple club bridge. thanks

 

Clarification on penalty cards

Declarer is playing in 4S, a defender drops ♥7 card on the table when playing to a club trick, they have club cards. Attention is drawn to the irregularity.

Director comes to table, establishes that the ♥7 is a minor penalty card and explains law 50C (first I've heard of this law at the table)

 

Partner is on lead and has only trump and hearts to lead and so is permitted to lead a heart.

 

♥3 ♥10 at the player with penalty card turn to play, they may play ♥7 OR elect to play a heart honour (AKQJ) from their hand.

 

They win the trick ♥3 ♥10 ♥Q ♥4

 

Offender is on lead with ♥7 minor penalty card on the table.

 

He may lead ♥A from hand, or any other card he choses?

 

And this is why it is easier, and often, the offender is told to put the minor penalty card back in their hand. It is so tempting to do this but this is where the problem of players telling their opponents "just put it back in your hand" originates from and I am sure I will get push back if I try to apply 50A. I will go back and read previous comments regarding minor penalty cards.

 

 

The above does not apply to Major penalty cards, if there is a penalty card, of the trick being played, it must be played to that trick and cannot be substituted for an honour card. (50D1a)

However, if declarer exercises their rights to lead restrictions, the penalty card is returned to the hand. (50D2a)

[mycroft]

It's very lazy. There are significant changes.

 

It's available online, you can download it to your phone. I'd suggest the WBF gender neutral laws, because the ACBL PDF is harder to search and scroll.

 

I actually have a "Laws you need to know about" document, but that was more aimed at players. Laurie Kelso (WBFLC Secretary) has this explainer, copied on the ACBL web site:

 

https://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/laws/2017LawsChanges-Kelso.pdf

 

Big ones:

Everything around insufficient bids and calls out of turn has changed. Comparable call, yes, but also what happens (for example) when a pass out of turn isn't in LHO's seat, and importantly, lead penalties.

UI status of penalty cards (minor, but important to the director. Also, changed because "everybody did it anyway").

Law 15 has changed. Good: fewer boards thrown out. Bad: especially in Howells, ugly disruptions and late starts (because you *must* allow the board to be played if started).

There are lots of "make it match what people play anyway" (or "allow what people do", or "avoid having to mindread/accuse players of doing something deliberately") changes, but no worries.

 

I guess if you can't pull the whole thing, at least print 23-32 and attach it to the book. But get the 2017 Laws.

[jillybean]

Thanks, 2017 book is on it's way.

The fact that I have a 2008 Laws Book is really an indication of the time that has lapsed between taking the CD course and actually running a live game.

 

 

Law 20G2 Incorrect Procedure A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to elicit an incorrect response from an opponent. :lol:

 

Has anyone used this law?

[axman]

I have a 2008 copy of the Laws Book. I know this is lazy and I should search the changes but can someone tell me what changes if any I should be aware of for simple club bridge. thanks

 

 

1. Your idea of what you need to be aware of may not coincide with what others suggest.

2. I think the WBF site lists several versions of the 2017/2018 final drafts. The one that likely is useful shows the ADDITIONS highlighted. I don't recollect if the version (the really useful one) that highlights the CHANGES (new AND deleted) is available. The revisions are numerous to the point of not seeing the forest for the trees.

3. What is likely is that the significance of the changes may be so subtle that one may go his merry way and then get gobsmacked. I've had that feeling.

[jillybean]

Reading the new laws is making my head spin, could we not make a simplified version for a club game.

[blackshoe]

If by "we" you mean the denizens of this forum, then no. We could ask the WBFLC to do it, but I don't expect they would. "Too much work" they might say.

[mycroft]

Sure. What do you want to allow? (Penalty, due to forced pass) doubles after insufficient bids? Revoke penalties on trick 12, or after the hand is over? Revokes are always 2 tricks? (or 1 trick?) "Just make it sufficient"? Always correct partner's misinformation after the auction? Three passes ends the auction even if one was out of turn? Asking questions for partner's benefit (or to hook the opponents into a UI trap)?

 

The problem with bridge is that it's not simple, and even at the club level, people know how to game the rules. A lot of the "complication" in the Laws comes from "closing loopholes", and they're necessary. And some, even if they weren't gamed on purpose, obviously feel wrong (like equity after revokes), so the complication is put in so that doesn't happen.

 

A lot of the other complications come from "multiple irregularities" (second revoke in same suit, multiple penalty cards, next player accepts an illegal call); those you can as a club director safely ignore, as long as you remember in the back of your head that "I remember reading something about this..." so that if it comes up, you can find the law again and do it.

[pescetom]

Sure. What do you want to allow? (Penalty, due to forced pass) doubles after insufficient bids? Revoke penalties on trick 12, or after the hand is over? Revokes are always 2 tricks? (or 1 trick?) "Just make it sufficient"? Always correct partner's misinformation after the auction? Three passes ends the auction even if one was out of turn? Asking questions for partner's benefit (or to hook the opponents into a UI trap)?

 

The problem with bridge is that it's not simple, and even at the club level, people know how to game the rules. A lot of the "complication" in the Laws comes from "closing loopholes", and they're necessary. And some, even if they weren't gamed on purpose, obviously feel wrong (like equity after revokes), so the complication is put in so that doesn't happen.

 

A lot of the other complications come from "multiple irregularities" (second revoke in same suit, multiple penalty cards, next player accepts an illegal call); those you can as a club director safely ignore, as long as you remember in the back of your head that "I remember reading something about this..." so that if it comes up, you can find the law again and do it.

Agreed, but a lot of the complications come from those misguided recent modifications to "make it more like what actually happens" or "let them play bridge" and others from the initial Bridge culture of "let's not punish mistakes, let alone contemplate that they might have been deliberate". You ask with concern "revokes are always 2 tricks"? I read the original rules of Whist recently, a revoke was 3 points (odd tricks), period. I doubt there was confusion or complaints (or revokes).

[pilowsky]

The problem with bridge is that it's not simple, and even at the club level, people know how to game the rules. A lot of the "complication" in the Laws comes from "closing loopholes", and they're necessary. And some, even if they weren't gamed on purpose, obviously feel wrong (like equity after revokes), so the complication is put in so that doesn't happen.

 

The laws of Bridge are so complicated and byzantine that Kafka stopped playing and took up writing instead.

So there's one win for civilisation I guess.

 

 

[mycroft]

I agree, but that's what the players want. If bridge was a game for directors, that would be fine. But it's not.

 

I would be happier if there were more actual obvious penalty rectifications; more "we actually expect you to follow these rules, and maybe a sharp shock will help you remember" than "let's try to get back to what would have happened". But then the deadly "win from the director what they couldn't at the table" comes into view...

[jillybean]

Today, some calls; declarer had ♣Ace played from dummy, RHO ♣5 and declarer had ♦10 face up, off to one side.

It became apparent that Declarer had erroneously led from their hand when the lead was from dummy and one or more of the players "knew" enough to make the ♦10 a penalty card (54D?) and I assume had not accepted the lead, or did not know that they could. The opponents were now telling Declarer, with no clubs in their hand, that they had to play the ♦10 (50D1?) Declarer was asking if they could choose another card.

 

Declarer, on lead, has placed a card face up on the table and now wanted to change the card and was pleading that it is allowed until LHO had played a card. (45C 4b?)

 

A player had bid 1♥ over RHO's 1♠ opening bid which I assume was not accepted and was now being instructed to bid 2♥ but they must pass for the rest of the auction. (27B?)

 

Who knows how many more irregularities were "corrected" at the table.

 

(I've added which laws I imagine the player has heard about to make these statements)

[pescetom]

I agree, but that's what the players want. If bridge was a game for directors, that would be fine. But it's not.

 

I would be happier if there were more actual obvious penalty rectifications; more "we actually expect you to follow these rules, and maybe a sharp shock will help you remember" than "let's try to get back to what would have happened". But then the deadly "win from the director what they couldn't at the table" comes into view...

Another book I skimmed was from 1933, when Auction bridge was still dominant in UK. Arguing courageously that Contract Bridge was the future and not just a fad, it praised the new Laws and said that "maybe this will be the game that finally convinces us all to abandon the widespread and absurd conviction that someone who demands to play a card game by the rules is not a person we are happy to acquaint with".

 

Maybe it could have been, too, with just a little more effort in the right direction, who knows? Some games hit the sweet spot in terms of conformity culture (rugby, golf) most do not.

[sanst]

It’s a pity that you don’t read Dutch. We have both a booklet explaining how to handle the most common irregularities and an app, android and Ios, that does the same, guiding the director with a decision tree. You answer yes or no to the questions and the app tells you what the decision should be. Of course it can’t solve the comparable call problem or a claim, but it’s quite handy. Free for all at the site of the union (bridge.nl), but unfortunately for you only in Dutch.

[axman]

I agree, but that's what the players want. If bridge was a game for directors, that would be fine. But it's not.

 

I would be happier if there were more actual obvious penalty rectifications; more "we actually expect you to follow these rules, and maybe a sharp shock will help you remember" than "let's try to get back to what would have happened". But then the deadly "win from the director what they couldn't at the table" comes into view...

 

It would seem that for some reason (that lowers to grotesque status) that the law requires declarer have no PC. Thus, a trick has begun and declarer's card is on the table (since some previous trick not having been retracted) being a faced card, it is played (a done deal)- not to be retracted except as L47 enumerates. Such an experience is likely to impart indelible memories… and profuse** broadcasts of the news that will suppress the desire by others to have the experience; and correspondingly instill a motivation sooner to find out for themselves what the law says.

 

** the recent Mike Levine slow play ruling at the Bermuda Bowl trials comes to mind

[mycroft]

I really like Law 10B. I am ambivalent about Law 11A, but axman should be happy: "you know that even as the offending side, you should be calling the TD and not getting rules advice from the opponents who want to do well. Yes, the result is worse than the penalty the TD would have ruled. But you chose to accept it at the time, and you get to keep it. Of course, we're assigning the result the 'non-offenders' would have got if I had been called at the time as the Law requires."

 

Nah, he'd probably want a PP as well. As would blackshoe. And they ain't wrong.

 

Oh, and I still remember the second motorcycle riding lesson, way back in the day. More than one person said "it's amazing how many bikes were out on the road this weekend". Remember, that even not counting violations of 46A (which is so expected the whole rest of Law 46 exists) I'd guess we probably average one infraction per table per hand, even in Flight A. How many of them are even noticed, never mind "corrected at the table"...

[mycroft]

The way Mike Levine was treated was a travesty. Of course, I am putting "by his team" in that mix, to what extent would depend on opportunity.

 

"We're going to need more time and assistance"

"Here's what we'll give you"

do not test it until "the day" to find out that 15 extra seconds a hand (plus whatever cushion the pair would normally have - the "time per pair" is a maximum, not an intended) isn't enough, and therefore have no argument other than "it took longer than expected" (like "yeah, it takes a long time to read the cards and make the inputs, but he's definitely using that time to think too") against not following the rules.

 

All respect to that team - and I've played against Mike a few years ago, and I didn't see him as particularly slow - but the time to protest is before the event starts, with documentation from testing/practise.

 

All respect to the USBF, but 3 minutes added on to a 15 board session seems like a ludicrously short window for what was expected to be needed.

 

I would suggest, however, that "profuse broadcasts" (especially on That Site, with its Alternative Title and desired readership) are nothing compared to what happens when you actually try enforcing the rules to "BB trials" level for the 99.8% of players (and 100.0% of the new players) that don't play at the BB trials. How much of that is that we don't actually teach the [-] Laws...

 

 

 

The reason declarer doesn't have penalty cards is obvious - there is no possible use of that information that will aid the offending side. The fact that declarer has that card can only help (or be of no consequence to) the defence, unlike the obvious benefit the defenders can get by "showing partner their hand". It's not a penalty for playing wrong, it's an attempt to minimize the damage of the leaked information.

 

I do understand that's your point - that it *should be* a penalty for playing wrong - but it's by no means "grotesque" and "some (implied - unknowable) reason".

 

And you are still talking to the person who missed his first ever chance of making day 2 of a national event because the spade 2 touched the table in its never stopping circle back to declarer's hand (instead of missing by an inch). So, it's not like it's always "don't care, it's declarer".

 

 

 

But I am actually quite happy to play a game where "two minutes for cross-checking" isn't the policy. Especially given the inability to (at cost) constantly surveil all the tables for "cross-checking". I am actually quite happy for the instruction that "yes, 81C3 exists, and it must be followed. Because it's not fair to those tables you're *not* watching, that means you do not kibitz as a TD; and while you're wandering the tables, try to not pay the kind of attention to the play that would trigger 81C3. Of course, if they make it obvious..." Especially in a "fun" club.

 

No matter how much I wish for ASL's A.2 (*) and its footnote (**), I'll settle for 10C3.

 

 

(*) Please note that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge could fit quite comfortably in *the index* for Advanced Squad Leader. Having said that:

All results stand once play has progressed past the point of commission. In other words, if an error is discovered after play has progressed that point, the game cannot be backed up to correct the error, even if such error is in violation of a rule..."

(**)

to the unscrupulous, these mechanics for handling errors might be viewed as a license to steal. We do not mean to intimate that cheating is acceptable behaviour; rather, that backing up a game to accommodate a forgotten rule/unit is a drag on play. In essence, the player's knowledge of the system and methodical application of its benefits as opportunities present themselves becomes an added skill factor better reflecting the abilities of an experienced battlefield commander. Ultimately, the only protection against a cheater is not to play them.