[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2017-May-15, 09:41, said:

So, there is someplace in the World where I wouldn't look like that?

LOL many places I'm sure!

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-15, 09:19, said:

Yes, I don't see how a club is less "friendly" when the game is played according to the rules. That's what they are there for. Everyone knows what to expect, and you don't look like an asshole when something happens that cannot be sorted without the director, and you have to call her.

There are two types of rules:

1. There are the basic rules that define how the game is played: you start with an auction, during the play you have tricks of 4 cards, the highest card of the suit led or trumps wins, etc.
2. Then there are the rules that govern what to do with there's an irregularity.

No one wants to avoid the first type of rules, they just have a relaxed attitude towards the second type.

Consider that the first type are common to social bridge and duplicate bridge -- everyone has to learn those rules when they learn to play bridge with their friends and families. There's no director when you're playing around the kitchen table -- you resolve infractions yourself in an equitable way.

[Zelandakh]

Ignoring the second type means forgetting about most UI cases and the like. I have played like that, for example I can remember a league match where one opponent practically reached acorss the table to wave her suit preference card in partner's face holding ♥AQT over ♥KJ in Dummy. And yes, this was indeed completely ignored by everyone at the table (except her partner dutifully returning a heart of course). I am older now and just do not want to play that type of game any more. The rules are there for a reason. If you do nothing when someone breaks the rules then it is the same as playing without those rules, which is just a completely different game, like monopoly without collecting some rents or chess without captures...

In truth it is even worse than this in many places. Even asking the opponents about their bidding is often frowned upon, either because it wastes time or because "it is not the Bermuda Bowl". And of course, in many clubs even if you do get the TD they will rule in favour of their favourite player regardless of the merits of the case. It is a sad truth that club bridge is so beset by these issues that it is barely worth playing.

Which brings us to bridge at home. My experience of that is that someone usually knows the rules well enough to act as TD. My ex-partner and I often enough held little bridge events and essentially I took that role over for us. Somehow playing by the rules managed to be an enjoyable experience for everyone. If noone knows the rules then yes, you obviously just need to muddle through. That then becomes a little like 2 minute blitz chess in the pub - yes it is chess but has little do with tournament play. Only that is at least still played by the same rules, the "fun" bridge really is a completely different game.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-16, 09:10, said:

Ignoring the second type means forgetting about most UI cases and the like. I have played like that, for example I can remember a league match where one opponent practically reached acorss the table to wave her suit preference card in partner's face holding ♥AQT over ♥KJ in Dummy. And yes, this was indeed completely ignored by everyone at the table (except her partner dutifully returning a heart of course). I am older now and just do not want to play that type of game any more. The rules are there for a reason. If you do nothing when someone breaks the rules then it is the same as playing without those rules, which is just a completely different game, like monopoly without collecting some rents or chess without captures...

Being lenient about minor irregularities doesn't mean you also ignore blatant, eggregious misbehavior. We still expect reasonable judgement.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-May-17, 08:56, said:

Being lenient about minor irregularities doesn't mean you also ignore blatant, eggregious misbehavior. We still expect reasonable judgement.

But where do you draw the line?

And do you do it more for people you like than people you don't like?

At the North London Bridge club the directors are competent and friendly. The less experienced directors have plenty of backup. If things go wrong the director sorts it out. That is expected and doesn't, as far as I can tell, detract from anyone's enjoyment of the game.

The game described above where the players do things like discuss their bids during the auction is more like a learning group than a competitive club. That is fine, but then why ask for opinions about a (self-made) ruling? I phone a director when I am playing a match at home, but not when I am playing at home with friends who are learning, or any game at home that is purely social, though my bridge friends are all pretty competitive. (But there are always highly qualified directors in attendance, because even there people prefer to have irregularities sorted out the correct way).

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-17, 20:14, said:

But where do you draw the line?

You try to be reasonable. Most situations are easy to judge, they're either minor and can be ignored, or eggregious and should not be tolerated. If they're in the fuzzy middle, follow the official procedures as a default.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2017-May-18, 08:49, said:

You try to be reasonable. Most situations are easy to judge, they're either minor and can be ignored, or eggregious and should not be tolerated. If they're in the fuzzy middle, follow the official procedures as a default.

If it is understood in this 'loose, relaxed' game that our threshold for enforcing rules includes "egregious" and "not tolerated", we no longer have a loose, relaxed game. We have a built-in negative connotation to every TD call and/or ruling. Draw that line in different terms.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2017-May-18, 11:42, said:

If it is understood in this 'loose, relaxed' game that our threshold for enforcing rules includes "egregious" and "not tolerated", we no longer have a loose, relaxed game. We have a built-in negative connotation to every TD call and/or ruling. Draw that line in different terms.

I suppose that's a possible interpretation. But I think if people are being reasonable, they won't make that association. They understand that some situations are inherently complicated, and need the assistance of the director, even if they're not accusing anyone of deliberate misbehavior.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2017-May-18, 14:08, said:

I suppose that's a possible interpretation. But I think if people are being reasonable, they won't make that association. They understand that some situations are inherently complicated, and need the assistance of the director, even if they're not accusing anyone of deliberate misbehavior.

If not accusing anyone of deliberate misbehavior, they shouldn't draw the line at deliberate misbehavior in describing when they call for rulings. Of course, they won't do that, but that is the way you worded the policy for these games.

[Vampyr]

OK, when they make an opening lead out of turn, you tell them to just pick it up. Now lefty miraculously finds a lead in that suit, and it's the killing lead. Now what?

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-18, 17:54, said:

OK, when they make an opening lead out of turn, you tell them to just pick it up. Now lefty miraculously finds a lead in that suit, and it's the killing lead. Now what?

I asked a similar question at the last but one club I played at. The answer, "Well it depends who it is." Super!

Of course this is the same club (Bamberger Reiter) where someone saying to the table "420 or 500" before making a (penalty) double was cleared by the (nationally known) TD as nothing to worry about, whereas a bid opposite the mere hint of a pause against the TD's wife would tend to result in a ruling. Yes it was a fine club.

[aguahombre]

[quote name='Zelandakh' timestamp='1495185920' post='922939']
Are we overstepping some forum bounds, here?