[campboy]

Ah, yes, that Max Bavin paper was probably what I was thinking of as I've definitely read it. There's something by Ton in the WB as well, again just about 27B1a.

[Xiaolongnu]

Thanks so much for the replies everyone (:

First some clarification. I was writing the story in shorthand, as blackshoe has pointed out, I did do the necessary. When I said the player told the Director, I meant the player told the Director without letting the others know, I have also not skipped the choice to accept and etc, only skipped narrating it (:

It appears that the consensus is that this ruling is overly exceedingly lenient even by the spirit of being patient with the elderly and infirmed. For professional events, I wouldn't even have needed to discuss this in the first place. The hidden point of what I am consulting is a more philosophical question of what really is the job of a Director? My humble opinion is that a Director's job is to take care of the players, just like how a disciplinary master's job (at the end of the day) is to take care of the students, and train them in skills academic and leadership alike, not, as often misquoted, to enforce the rules and to punish the students. For this reason and comparison, directing, just like being the headmaster, is often a thankless job, only because the cane that one holds gives a bad name.

So the next question I have is, to what extent are we required to be Secretary Birds? Or, do our powers of interpretation and discretion extend to allow us to second guess the players based on what we know of them, personally or the field at large? To do so, of course, comes with a great risk of being biased. This isn't really a problem of law, it is common sense, flexibility and practical considerations.

[Vampyr]

As director, your job is not to be the players' mommy; your job is to ensure that the game of duplicate bridge is played according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. When there is a problem, your function is to sort things out according to those Laws.

[mr1303]

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...

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-07, 02:25, said:

As director, your job is not to be the players' mommy; your job is to ensure that the game of duplicate bridge is played according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. When there is a problem, your function is to sort things out according to those Laws.

It's not really that simple.

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.

I know some are thinking "if he lets my opponents off the hook, that hurts my enjoyment of the game." That may be true, but the TD has to weigh both concerns.

[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]

mr1303, on 2013-February-07, 05:53, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-07, 10:53, said:

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]

barmar, on 2013-February-07, 10:26, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-07, 19:15, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-07, 19:53, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-07, 20:12, said:

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]

akwoo, on 2013-February-01, 23:50, said:

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?".

Vampyr, on 2013-February-07, 19:15, said:

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]

bluejak, on 2013-February-11, 08:27, said:

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

Quote

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.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2013-February-11, 08:27, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-11, 16:57, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-12, 12:14, said:

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.