[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Nov 3 2007, 04:48 AM, said:

Dunno about ACBL rules but calling the TD just because of a BIT seems absurd to me.

[snip]

What I have an issue with is this "slow down your lightening-speed opponents".

Law 16A1 said:

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

This is the basic law (the emphasis is mine). I believe most jurisdictions let it stand as is, but...

Quote

At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed to announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side.

This is how the ACBL has elected to implement the highlighted clause in the law. In practice, players and some directors seem to put a period after "immediately", so they call the TD when a BIT occurs.

You don't need to reserve your rights, anyway. You call the TD when Law 16A2 comes into play:

Quote

When a player has substantial reason to believe* that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage.

Quote

*When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed.

It may, however, be difficult for the TD to establish that a BIT in fact occurred if you don't call at the time. So pragmatically, you get agreement there was a BIT, or you call the TD. 16A1 might have been better worded as

Quote

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he should obtain agreement from the opponents as to the facts, summoning the Director immediately if the opponents dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.

Some months ago, at a club game, one of the better (and sometimes a bit flamboyant) local players was playing a hand rather more rapidly than usual. So fast, in fact, that I literally could not keep up. So I asked him to slow down. He did. Had he not, I would have called the director - and he knows me, so he knew that. If nothing else, Law 74A2 would apply here.

That said, I don't think Rick was telling his readers that the TD should tell a player or pair to slow down just because their opponents are slower than they are. What he's saying is that they should understand that the fact the pair is slower (or faster, for that matter) than than they are does not mean that every call or play they make comes with an automatic break in tempo.

[Winstonm]

I don't think there is as much issue here as is being made. As Beyes correctly points out, it is best to bid and play in tempo, but it is a practical impossibility.

The other point is the statement "he called the director on me." This misunderstanding often makes a player feel as though he were being singled out, but that is not the case. The director was not called "on you". The director was summoned to protect everyone's rights. A director's call is NOT an accusation. All a director's call means is the player who called believes an irregularity has occured.

You simply should not react emotionally to a director's call to the table. To paraphrase "The Godfather": "It's not personal. It's only business."

It is not the break in tempo that is the problem but what occurs a-f-t-e-r the break in tempo - and that is the reason the director is summoned.

[Elianna]

jonottawa, on Nov 3 2007, 12:29 AM, said:

If you say 'Just say to your novice opponent 'Do you acknowledge that there was a break in tempo?'' you're arguably going to rattle a novice worse than if you had called the director. Presumably you're a stranger and your behavior could be interpreted as bullying. The novice might think that the break in tempo itself was an infraction and get emotional. Presumably the novice knows the director and the director will gently explain the situation to the novice.

Usually, in my experience, the novice is the one that is a stranger to the club, and the experienced player is the one the director knows (at least here in LA). And I HAVE seen this used as a bullying tactic. There are several pairs that call after a three second hesitation by opponent, thereby rattling the opponent and causing them to misbid/misplay.

[skjaeran]

Winstonm, on Nov 3 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

It is not the break in tempo that is the problem but what occurs a-f-t-e-r the break in tempo - and that is the reason the director is summoned.

I strongly agree with this.
However, in the letter to Beye LHO called for the TD directly after the slow pass. That's ridiculous IMO.

[matmat]

Elianna, on Nov 3 2007, 02:27 PM, said:

Usually, in my experience, the novice is the one that is a stranger to the club, and the experienced player is the one the director knows (at least here in LA). And I HAVE seen this used as a bullying tactic. There are several pairs that call after a three second hesitation by opponent, thereby rattling the opponent and causing them to misbid/misplay.

this is a fantastic way to encourage people to flock to the game and stay for a lifetime.

[jonottawa]

Elianna, on Nov 3 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 3 2007, 12:29 AM, said:

If you say 'Just say to your novice opponent 'Do you acknowledge that there was a break in tempo?'' you're arguably going to rattle a novice worse than if you had called the director.  Presumably you're a stranger and your behavior could be interpreted as bullying.  The novice might think that the break in tempo itself was an infraction and get emotional.  Presumably the novice knows the director and the director will gently explain the situation to the novice.

Usually, in my experience, the novice is the one that is a stranger to the club, and the experienced player is the one the director knows (at least here in LA). And I HAVE seen this used as a bullying tactic. There are several pairs that call after a three second hesitation by opponent, thereby rattling the opponent and causing them to misbid/misplay.

From my first duplicate, I never felt bullied if someone called the director.

The solution might be to have a monthly 'call the director' novice game where every round (at the end of a hand) someone at the table has to call the director and then pay one of his opponents a compliment when the director arrives. Everyone would be required to call the director at least once. That would get novices used to director calls.

I hate pigs, committees, corrupt politicians, authority figures in general... (I have strong libertarian tendencies) but it would never occur to me to feel bullied by someone asking the referee to do his job.

[matmat]

i think there should also be a class for teaching people how to call and interact with a director.

"director! my RHO clearly hesitated and i don't want LHO doing *blah*" (the entire time glaring at RHO and speaking in a raised accusative tone)
vs
"director! I think there may have been an irregularity, what are my rights?/i'd like to protect my rights."
(speaking directly to the director in an even-keeled tone)

[blackshoe]

Joe Friday used to tell people "the facts ma'am, just the facts." Good advice to follow when explaining to the director why you called.

[jonottawa]

What's silly is not teaching beginners anything about ethics ... or claiming that duplicate bridge is completely a social endeavor for almost everybody. I've yet to meet a player who gets no added enjoyment out of winning.

"Let's wait til they cheat" and then take our 2-way shot. Uh, no. Let's not. Let's get an agreement when UI occurs like we're supposed to (at least, in ACBL, as clearly indicated by blackshoe's references) so that everyone's rights are protected.

Let's teach beginners the rules. Let's be as friendly and polite about it as we can. Then let's follow the rules. Let's teach them that there's nothing scary about a director call. Maybe they'll call the director more often when someone is bullying them instead of just quitting.

Besides, the guy who wrote the letter was taking himself all seriously. He's gonna be a life master someday. The rank is meaningless enough without diminishing it even more by not requiring those who aspire to it to be subject to the same rules/procedures as everybody else.

[mycroft]

I'm a TD. I get really annoyed by people who think they deserve to be treated specially because they're new - when they have more Monsterpoints than I do. I am upset because of the fact that it's considered par for the course now - see NABC Appeals decisions that prefer to "educate" 500+MP holders rather than "take their money" (and it's not even money any more) when they think that the Laws, as explained to them by the TD, the CTD, the screening director, and the appeals committee, don't actually apply to them.

Jonathan is right - we don't tell the beginners what the Laws actually say - just "how to play". And then we have a "be nice to the novices" attitude that means that they never learn until they have been around for 3 years or so, and get 500 Monsterpoints, and the good players figure they're good enough to psych against/understand what the UI partner passed meant/claim properly. They're not - because they have never learned what the game actually means. So they flip out.

Also, the way the election has been interpreted is that yes, you do have to call the TD when the UI happens (not that anybody does. They just agree among themselves that there was a hesitation/excessive speed, and call the TD if there's a problem or can't agree). The A players were calling, as was both their right and responsibility, to protect themselves. They may have done it badly or rudely, and it is likely that the TD is going to say that the hesitation passed no useful UI, so no damage, but eventually, the "new players" are going to have to learn that there are UI Laws and requirements to keep tempo, and if we don't teach it to them in lessons, they get to learn it the same way they get to learn what happens when there's a revoke - by the TD coming over and ruling.

I don't like bullying - and there are many who do so bully. However, calling the TD because an irregularity happened, if it is polite and nonjudgmental, is not only fine, but the right thing to do. You want to play with the big boys (well, they don't, but they have to to get their Life Monster Gold points)? Learn to play the game, not just how to follow suit and what the bids mean.

I'd love to see how far "I should be allowed to go offside a foot or two, we're a weak team playing against experts, and, anyway, the play never got near me" would fly in football (of any stripe) or hockey.

Michael.

[jonottawa]

mycroft, on Nov 5 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

I'm a TD. I get really annoyed by people who think they deserve to be treated specially because they're new - when they have more Monsterpoints than I do. I am upset because of the fact that it's considered par for the course now - see NABC Appeals decisions that prefer to "educate" 500+MP holders rather than "take their money" (and it's not even money any more) when they think that the Laws, as explained to them by the TD, the CTD, the screening director, and the appeals committee, don't actually apply to them.

Jonathan is right - we don't tell the beginners what the Laws actually say - just "how to play". And then we have a "be nice to the novices" attitude that means that they never learn until they have been around for 3 years or so, and get 500 Monsterpoints, and the good players figure they're good enough to psych against/understand what the UI partner passed meant/claim properly. They're not - because they have never learned what the game actually means. So they flip out.

Also, the way the election has been interpreted is that yes, you do have to call the TD when the UI happens (not that anybody does. They just agree among themselves that there was a hesitation/excessive speed, and call the TD if there's a problem or can't agree). The A players were calling, as was both their right and responsibility, to protect themselves. They may have done it badly or rudely, and it is likely that the TD is going to say that the hesitation passed no useful UI, so no damage, but eventually, the "new players" are going to have to learn that there are UI Laws and requirements to keep tempo, and if we don't teach it to them in lessons, they get to learn it the same way they get to learn what happens when there's a revoke - by the TD coming over and ruling.

I don't like bullying - and there are many who do so bully. However, calling the TD because an irregularity happened, if it is polite and nonjudgmental, is not only fine, but the right thing to do. You want to play with the big boys (well, they don't, but they have to to get their Life Monster Gold points)? Learn to play the game, not just how to follow suit and what the bids mean.

I'd love to see how far "I should be allowed to go offside a foot or two, we're a weak team playing against experts, and, anyway, the play never got near me" would fly in football (of any stripe) or hockey.

Michael.

Crap. I hate it when other people make my point for me better than I was able to.

I hope you drop a line to editor@acbl.org

[jonottawa]

mycroft, on Nov 5 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

I'd love to see how far "I should be allowed to go offside a foot or two, we're a weak team playing against experts, and, anyway, the play never got near me" would fly in football (of any stripe) or hockey.

Though technically, if the play never got near you it's probably not going to get an offside call in football (soccer.)

"A player in an offside position is only committing an offside offence if, "at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team", in the opinion of the referee, he is involved in active play."

[geller]

Bill Shankly, a famous football (soccer) manager, said the following about the offside law:

Quote

If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

Jonathan is right - we don't tell the beginners what the Laws actually say - just "how to play".

And your conclusion is therefore if we punish them enough, they'll learn what the rules actually say? Come on.

Quote

Also, the way the election has been interpreted is that yes, you do have to call the TD when the UI happens (not that anybody does).

Actually, you can call when UI is used or potentially used, as well as when it occurs.

Quote

They may have done it badly or rudely, and it is likely that the TD is going to say that the hesitation passed no useful UI, so no damage, but eventually, the "new players" are going to have to learn that there are UI Laws and requirements to keep tempo

Law 73D. It's not actually required.

I'd love it if Directors would penalize people who called the director on a hesitation when said hesitation clearly passed no useful UI. Calling the director to "educate" your opponents is against the rules, and as a director, I can tell you that few things upset the opponents more than an educational "call".

Quote

However, calling the TD because an irregularity happened, if it is polite and nonjudgmental,  is not only fine, but the right thing to do

Which is fine if there's an irregularity. But a break in tempo is not an irregularity- only passing UI is. When you call about a hesitation which does not pass UI, it is:

1. Pointless. There is no equity to restore when a BIT when no action "...could demonstrably have been suggested over another..." (73F1).

2. Upsets beginning players. Heck, upsets most players.

3. Doesn't "protect" anything.

If you can read anything into a BILie taking 10 seconds to figure out what's going on in an auction where all four players bid, good for you. But I can assure you that they'd likely take that extra time regardless, especially if the prior bids were quick. Heck, I wait an extra 2-3 seconds any time my RHO bids in case they're being slow to make an alert (which is common). In fact, when I play face to face, after my first bid I put my cards on the table. After the RHO bids, I wait a few seconds for an alert, pick up my cards, fan them, take 2-3 seconds, and then make a call. This is for any hand, any strength. Why? Because some assholes feel the need to "protect" themselves if I spend the entire 6-7 second procedure looking at my hand. Never mind that the extra time is thinking about what THEIR bids meant, if I need to ask, if there is perhaps a missed alert, and what my partner's call meant in context, none of which has anything to do with what my hand looks like or whether I have anything to think about irt my next call. I could, of course, simply ask about my opponent's bids on the first round of the auction every single time, and I do know people who do that (and there was recently a thread about one of those that went to the AC).

If a break in tempo obviously and demonstrably suggests one action over another, by all means call the director, regardless of what level your opponent is. If it did not, leave it alone. If later, they take an unusual action that you think may have been influenced by the earlier UI, call the director then. But people who call the directors on beginners because they took a couple of extra seconds during a competitive auction when no UI was passed should be punished for it.

Quote

I'd love to see how far "I should be allowed to go offside a foot or two, we're a weak team playing against experts, and, anyway, the play never got near me" would fly in football (of any stripe) or hockey.

No, this is more like complaining to the referee 11 times in a game that the opponents socks are too low. You know that there's been no damage. You know the referee isn't going to rule in your favor, and you know that the referee shouldn't rule in your favor. You're either hoping that the ref screws up and gives you a bonus, or that you'll manage to rattle the opponents. Either way, YOU should be penalized for it.

I find it surprising that a TD wouldn't understand the difference between offsides and a BIT. Maybe it shouldn't.

[jonottawa]

jtfanclub, on Nov 6 2007, 05:50 PM, said:

Quote

Jonathan is right - we don't tell the beginners what the Laws actually say - just "how to play".

And your conclusion is therefore if we punish them enough, they'll learn what the rules actually say? Come on.

Quote

Also, the way the election has been interpreted is that yes, you do have to call the TD when the UI happens (not that anybody does).

Actually, you can call when UI is used or potentially used, as well as when it occurs.

Quote

They may have done it badly or rudely, and it is likely that the TD is going to say that the hesitation passed no useful UI, so no damage, but eventually, the "new players" are going to have to learn that there are UI Laws and requirements to keep tempo

Law 73D. It's not actually required.

I'd love it if Directors would penalize people who called the director on a hesitation when said hesitation clearly passed no useful UI. Calling the director to "educate" your opponents is against the rules, and as a director, I can tell you that few things upset the opponents more than an educational "call".

Quote

However, calling the TD because an irregularity happened, if it is polite and nonjudgmental,  is not only fine, but the right thing to do

Which is fine if there's an irregularity. But a break in tempo is not an irregularity- only passing UI is. When you call about a hesitation which does not pass UI, it is:

1. Pointless. There is no equity to restore when a BIT when no action "...could demonstrably have been suggested over another..." (73F1).

2. Upsets beginning players. Heck, upsets most players.

3. Doesn't "protect" anything.

If you can read anything into a BILie taking 10 seconds to figure out what's going on in an auction where all four players bid, good for you. But I can assure you that they'd likely take that extra time regardless, especially if the prior bids were quick. Heck, I wait an extra 2-3 seconds any time my RHO bids in case they're being slow to make an alert (which is common). In fact, when I play face to face, after my first bid I put my cards on the table. After the RHO bids, I wait a few seconds for an alert, pick up my cards, fan them, take 2-3 seconds, and then make a call. This is for any hand, any strength. Why? Because some assholes feel the need to "protect" themselves if I spend the entire 6-7 second procedure looking at my hand. Never mind that the extra time is thinking about what THEIR bids meant, if I need to ask, if there is perhaps a missed alert, and what my partner's call meant in context, none of which has anything to do with what my hand looks like or whether I have anything to think about irt my next call. I could, of course, simply ask about my opponent's bids on the first round of the auction every single time, and I do know people who do that (and there was recently a thread about one of those that went to the AC).

If a break in tempo obviously and demonstrably suggests one action over another, by all means call the director, regardless of what level your opponent is. If it did not, leave it alone. If later, they take an unusual action that you think may have been influenced by the earlier UI, call the director then. But people who call the directors on beginners because they took a couple of extra seconds during a competitive auction when no UI was passed should be punished for it.

Quote

I'd love to see how far "I should be allowed to go offside a foot or two, we're a weak team playing against experts, and, anyway, the play never got near me" would fly in football (of any stripe) or hockey.

No, this is more like complaining to the referee 11 times in a game that the opponents socks are too low. You know that there's been no damage. You know the referee isn't going to rule in your favor, and you know that the referee shouldn't rule in your favor. You're either hoping that the ref screws up and gives you a bonus, or that you'll manage to rattle the opponents. Either way, YOU should be penalized for it.

I find it surprising that a TD wouldn't understand the difference between offsides and a BIT. Maybe it shouldn't.

You have the right to be wrong. Must you be wrong so loudly?

A slow pass (or slow double) transmits UI 95%+ of the time. You're about the 4th person who's tried to tear down a straw man by saying that it's silly to call the director for a break in tempo alone. We're talking about a break in tempo followed by a pass and have been from the beginning. That virtually always transmits UI.

If you think it's right to call the director when UI is transmitted, but wrong to call the director when an opponent breaks tempo and then passes in a competitive auction, explain yourself.

[jonottawa]

This whole 'coddling beginners' philosophy seems to be a recurring theme. It doesn't do them any favors.

For a long time we were teaching beginners 16-18 NTs and requiring 13 HCP to open (the Club series.) Dumb idea. Didn't help them at all. They should have been learning normal (most 12 counts) openers, 15-17 NTs, transfers, the LAW and udca from the beginning. Instead, they had to unlearn everything they'd learned, which is way harder than learning it right the first time.

We generally don't teach them a thing about ethics. Dumb idea.

On Sunday I played in a club game. There was supposed to be a mentor-mentee game on the side but only 1.5 tables showed up for that game so we all played together.

One mentee had a bad habit of reaching into the bidding box, clamping down on a bid, and then studying her hand a while longer. Normally I'd have said something, if it was a pair of novices, for instance, but isn't that what a mentor is for? The mentor didn't say a word. Neither did I.

Against the same pair, they had the uncontested auction 1D - 1S - 1N - 2H - 2S - 4S (the mentor opened 1D.) The mentee turned up with a 17 count.

On the very next hand, again the mentor opened 1D and the auction proceeded: 1D - 1S - 1N - 2H. This time, the mentor had a 2-4-4-3 13 count. She bid 4 Hearts. I thought the mentor was supposed to teach the mentee how to play, not the other way around. Of course, the mentee had smiled and said 'deja vu' before quickly bidding 2H this time. I wonder if the mentor would have found the same call over an agonizingly slow 2H.

Against another pair, a LOL followed suit in trumps and with it came the Ace of Spades. I was dummy. My pard let her pick it up. I probably wouldn't have, but I'm not going to overrule my pard the declarer and call the director as dummy (used to be I wouldn't have had the option, but I believe any player (including dummy) can call the director in case of an irregularity these days.)

Against 2 other pairs, the recurring issue of 'do you let someone see a trick again once all 4 players have turned it face down?' came up. Both times I waited to see what partner wanted to do. Both times he turned it up and so I followed suit. Many times as a novice (and still once in a blue moon these days) I kicked myself for turning a trick over too quickly. Not once have I ever asked to revisit a trick that's face down.

In short, I'm willing to cut novices LOTS of slack, especially at club games. But I'm not sure I'm doing them any favors by doing so and when they start DEMANDING that I do so, my inclination to comply quickly dissipates.

[jtfanclub]

jonottawa, on Nov 6 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

Look, you put up a survey. The survey says that most people either disagree with you or don't care. So you got your answer. Whining about it isn't going to change it.

Quote

We're talking about a break in tempo followed by a pass and have been from the beginning.  That virtually always transmits UI.

Bullshit.

The average call in a competitive auction is always going to be slower by a beginner than a call in a noncompetitive auction. In fact, for 90% of experts a the average call in a competitive auction is going to be slower than in a noncompetitive auction, if only to make sure that the opponent isn't just slow about getting an "alert" out.

Quote

You're about the 4th person who's tried to tear down a straw man by saying that it's silly to call the director for a break in tempo alone.

And you're the first and only person to whine about it. Have you ever considered that there might be a reason for that? Like...maybe it isn't a strawman?

Quote

If you think it's right to call the director when UI is transmitted, but wrong to call the director when an opponent breaks tempo and then passes in a competitive auction, explain yourself.

This person sat down at a table, made an opening bid, and took X seconds for his next call in competition. It doesn't matter whether X is 2 seconds or 15. How could the opponents possibly know whether the player in question always takes that long?

If I bid quickly when only one side is bidding (after the first round of the auction), and if I always take 6-8 seconds to bid in competition, is that a BIT? I suppose. What UI am I passing? That it's a competitive auction? This was the player in question's second call in the auction, and the first call in competition. So the opponent called the director for what? In case sometime in the future the opponent might pass at a different tempo in competition?

Do you have any evidence that this person took any more or less time than they usually do to pass in a competitive auction? No. Did their opponents? No. Did they call the director anyways? Yes. Why?

I'm guessing it's probably for the same reason that you feel the need to quote an entire page of somebody else's work to add a "Me too!" underneath it.

[jtfanclub]

jonottawa, on Nov 6 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

This whole 'coddling beginners' philosophy seems to be a recurring theme. It doesn't do them any favors.

All of which is valid, but you picked a really bad example.

[helene_t]

It is tempting as a mentor to correct the mentee's mistakes during the event, but in general I think it's better not to give unsolicited advice but address it afterwards. So the mentor is not there to make comments during the event, but to take notes for comments after the event. This applies to ethics as well. Keep the game realistic, i.e. the mentor p must not comment on bidding-card-grabbing. Maybe as an opp you could call the TD in case of a potential infraction, such as when the mentor bid 4♥ after the "deja vu" remark. This may be something to discuss with the mentor - does he appreciate that you as an opp participate in the mentoring by acting as an opp should do in serious competition, or does he prefer that you don't call the TD because the mentee is not that far and he's confused enough about other issues?

(Of course there is no excuse for the mentor's 4♥ bid.)