[mark249]

I suspect this topic has been aired before.

The EBU promotes ‘Best Behaviour at Bridge’
Law 74 is clear on what is not allowed
However neither specifies what is the penalty for infringement.

We have discussed in committee how to help curb one players persistent derogatory comments about other’s play.
I realised our policy puts all the onus on the injured party. Our disciplinary process requires them lodge a written complaint.
At the time the person affected ‘freezes’ and in an able to act; they later feels aggrieved / ashamed.
The comments are heard by others at the table but they don’t react either - this has been mis-labelled as ‘spectator apathy’ - it is also freeze.
Finally if called as a TD, I would be unsure of my powers.

Has anyone looked at changing the onus on the offender?
Anyone overhearing derogatory remarks is expected to call the TD.
The TD if called is expected to give an A+ / A- for that board.
The person judged at fault is allowed to appeal afterwards …

Apologies if the subject has been done exhaustively on the past but I think a change is overdue,

[blackshoe]

You should be giving score adjustments when a contestant commits an infraction that affects the score. You should be giving Procedural Penalties when the particular infraction calls for them. See the Introduction to the Laws and Law 90. When a player does something that affects "good order and discipline", such as the derogatory comments you mention, you should give a Disciplinary Penalty (Law 91). I don't remember if the White Book gives guidance on Disciplinary Penalties -- I recommend you check it out. Note that Disciplinary Penalties cannot be overturned by an Appeals Committee (Law 93B3).

Absent any guidance in the White Book, I would start with 25% of a top. I once heard a club director here (she wasn't at my table) in Rochester NY suspend a player for thirty days for being abusive first to his partner, then to his opponents, and then to the director. She was backed up by the club owner. When the player returned a month later, he was and remained very well behaved.

The ACBL's Zero Tolerance Policy says that an announcement should be made at the beginning of any session where the policy is in effect stating that it is in effect and the if a player violates the policy the director should please be called. If the director determines that a violation has occurred he shall assign a 1/4 board disciplinary penalty to all players in violation, no matter who started it.

A policy that has no teeth is useless. And the onus to call the director should never be on the victim.

[pescetom]

The Director has both power and liberty in this case. But I doubt he will often have power to suspend a player outside of the event in course.

Certainly not here in Italy, any such suspension is decided by the RA after a hearing initiated by Director's report.

As I understand it, EBU has ethics committees with teeth both at club and national level.

[blackshoe]

ACBL clubs can effectively do pretty much whatever they want.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2026-October-03, 08:30, said:

ACBL clubs can effectively do pretty much whatever they want.

But is it common to empower the Director to decide what happens to a player for the next few months?
If so that is very different from the role of Director over here (and excessive, IMO).

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2026-October-03, 14:54, said:

But is it common to empower the Director to decide what happens to a player for the next few months?
If so that is very different from the role of Director over here (and excessive, IMO).

It wasn't "a few" months, it was one month, and from a director who never gave procedural, much less disciplinary penalties. She was once called to our table by an opponent, who point-blank accused me of cheating. When I said I didn't appreciate that, her response was "we're just gonna let that slide". In the nearly 30 years I watched her direct here, the 30 day expulsion was the only penalty of any kind I ever saw her give. And I may be mis-remembering, since I wasn't at or even close to that table -- possibly she just sent him home for that day, and when she reported that to the club owner, he suspended him for thirty days. If so, I'm pretty sure she'd have done the same thing in her own club.

As for common, I don't have enough data to answer that. I will say that this one incident is the only one I can remember where the director ejected the player. In fact I think it's the only zero-tolerance case in a club I've seen.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2026-October-03, 17:40, said:

It wasn't "a few" months, it was one month, and from a director who never gave procedural, much less disciplinary penalties. She was once called to our table by an opponent, who point-blank accused me of cheating. When I said I didn't appreciate that, her response was "we're just gonna let that slide". In the nearly 30 years I watched her direct here, the 30 day expulsion was the only penalty of any kind I ever saw her give. And I may be mis-remembering, since I wasn't at or even close to that table -- possibly she just sent him home for that day, and when she reported that to the club owner, he suspended him for thirty days. If so, I'm pretty sure she'd have done the same thing in her own club.

As for common, I don't have enough data to answer that. I will say that this one incident is the only one I can remember where the director ejected the player. In fact I think it's the only zero-tolerance case in a club I've seen.

Fair enough, just curious.
I imagine and hope it was at least the club deciding, I don't want that kind of power as a Director.

I give plenty of penalties for all sorts of wrongdoings, the last just an hour ago for a trivial card left on the floor. But I cannot go beyond disqualifying from my tournament and even that requires consensus of the organizer.
In a situation of similar gravity to that you describe I have reported players to the RA which can disqualify for months.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2026-October-03, 14:54, said:

But is it common to empower the Director to decide what happens to a player for the next few months?
If so that is very different from the role of Director over here (and excessive, IMO).

In many cases the Director is also the club owner, or is delegated oversight power by the owner.

[jillybean]

The global blight of the modern bystander. People stand by doing absolutely nothing while rules are broken, people are harassed, or worse, right in front of them.

We don’t run a sanctioned game with a zero-tolerance policy; instead, we operate a non-sanctioned duplicate game where clear expectations of acceptable behaviour are communicated to all players. Players who cannot follow these expectations are warned and then suspended. Repeat offenders are not invited back. The game is calm and enjoyable for the players and the director.

[mycroft]

There's a difference between "at the table at the time" and "what do we do with a habitual infractor". Especially one who ignores the cultural mores of the club (and, by signing on to EBU BBB, they are saying that those are part of the cultural mores of the club.(1)).

And yes, we have people who freeze, and then come and complain when they can. And yes, the director says "I can't do anything about it now, but if you call at the time, I can. But I need to have heard about it, thank you." And if they can override their freeze reflex (and yes, I know, beating that training, especially if you are of a certain family upbringing and gender, can be Very Hard to Impossible), then fine. If not, then there are other options.

An alternative is to get partner to step up, if you know you'll have to fight the freeze. Away from the table (preferably away from the club), have a discussion with partner that this happens, this is how I react when it happens, but I want it to be pointed out; if you see it, can you call please? Yes, some are worried that if they say anything, they'll now be on the bully's list and start getting it from them as well. And sometimes they're right. But it's another option.

But if you (as TD) hear, from several people, independently, that this person does this, sure, you don't have a smoking gun to do anything at the time - but. Raise it with the club management(2). Raise it with the other directors. Keep logs of the reports. And then have somebody from management discuss with the player - "We've heard from several people that.... That is not acceptable behaviour at this club. Whether that was what happened or not, it's what's being reported; I'm sure it won't happen again, will it?" And if that doesn't solve the problem, then you are likely to be able to catch the bully doing it just by wandering around the room; and if you do, then after that warning (and documentation), the next thing club management does has the word "months" in it.

And if it doesn't, then, well, that's clearly the "cultural mores" of this club. Your option is to continue to play there or not (or open a club yourself).


(1) Yes, "saying it". Following up with enforcing it is - another issue.
(2) Which reminds me, I need to write a report myself...

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-October-08, 10:54, said:

And if it doesn't, then, well, that's clearly the "cultural mores" of this club. Your option is to continue to play there or not (or open a club yourself).

I agree with most of what you say, but I see this as a very last option.
Around here at least, most clubs are barely self sustaining in terms of participation and skill perpetuation.
Also frequently prone to such splits by dissidents which do lead to a new "club" (sanctioned or not) but which is often either even worse or not self sustaining.
I've seen it happen time and time again, in many clubs in many sports.
Here at least, we have a third option of contesting the leadership democratically with the hope of becoming part of the directive or even President and putting things right.
That implies giving up being a Director and I'm still in the second option of trying to improve the "cultural mores", even without the support of higher powers.

[mycroft]

Yes, agree with the third option. Strongly.

But "start your own game" frequently reminds people of how much they can actually put up with to avoid all *that* work (and bad language, and frustration, and level of complaints, and...)

Should it be less than it is? Yeah, of course. Should the clubs (and the EBU) push harder to make the meaning behind "BB@B" (and "Active Ethics", and at least all but the actual Z word(*) of ZT over here) more than just lip service? Yeah, of course. Should we all be allowed to be hothouse flowers in what is, frankly, even at the club level, a very competitive, hard-fought game where sometimes people's reactions may not have enough thought behind them (and frankly, if it's aimed at partner, why should they think about how the opponents will take it? Yes, we all know why, but would that be anyone's first, or even third, thought)? I think we're allowed to expect that the world, even our world, is a little less delicate than that, while still aiming to be better.

(*) ZT, in general, is a tool for lazy or landshark-averse administrators to duck responsibility for finding responsibility. It is frequently a tool of the bully themselves (ask me how I know (but know I won't answer)); and frequently harms the bullied at least as much as the bully. I will (and have) fight any attempt to actually insist on "zero", as it causes more harm than it solves.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-October-08, 19:05, said:

Yes, agree with the third option. Strongly.

But "start your own game" frequently reminds people of how much they can actually put up with to avoid all *that* work (and bad language, and frustration, and level of complaints, and...)

Should it be less than it is? Yeah, of course. Should the clubs (and the EBU) push harder to make the meaning behind "BB@B" (and "Active Ethics", and at least all but the actual Z word(*) of ZT over here) more than just lip service? Yeah, of course. Should we all be allowed to be hothouse flowers in what is, frankly, even at the club level, a very competitive, hard-fought game where sometimes people's reactions may not have enough thought behind them (and frankly, if it's aimed at partner, why should they think about how the opponents will take it? Yes, we all know why, but would that be anyone's first, or even third, thought)? I think we're allowed to expect that the world, even our world, is a little less delicate than that, while still aiming to be better.

(*) ZT, in general, is a tool for lazy or landshark-averse administrators to duck responsibility for finding responsibility. It is frequently a tool of the bully themselves (ask me how I know (but know I won't answer)); and frequently harms the bullied at least as much as the bully. I will (and have) fight any attempt to actually insist on "zero", as it causes more harm than it solves.

Agree with that too, and thanks for the push (I should have done it last opportunity, but I was too optimistic).

As for ZT*, my thought has always been that it should be (a genuine) LT.

* the one time that my RA did declare ZT was for misbehaviour online in R*B* during Covid. I disqualified a player for a vile insult to opponent, he got a reprimand (in normal times it would have cost him 6 months).

[jstbwk]

My advice would be to taken the player apart on a appropriate moment and tell him (or her) that this behaviour is unacceptable and explicitly forbidden by the Laws. Warn the player that you have the right to give a disciplinary penalty and wouldn't hesitate to do so if he doesn't change his ways and that you might also suspend him for the session. Law 91 doesn't give you any more powers, nor does in Holland the law. The decision to suspend a player for a longer period or even completely from the club, is up to the club committee, which can be called to account by the menbers.
Last, but not least, keep your eyes and ears open and buttonhole the player when you discover that he persists in behaving inappropriately. And don't hesitate to use your powers. The club might also decide to appoint a confidential contact person.

[pescetom]

jstbwk, on 2026-November-01, 16:12, said:

My advice would be to taken the player apart on a appropriate moment and tell him (or her) that this behaviour is unacceptable and explicitly forbidden by the Laws. Warn the player that you have the right to give a disciplinary penalty and wouldn't hesitate to do so if he doesn't change his ways and that you might also suspend him for the session. Law 91 doesn't give you any more powers, nor does in Holland the law. The decision to suspend a player for a longer period or even completely from the club, is up to the club committee, which can be called to account by the menbers.
Last, but not least, keep your eyes and ears open and buttonhole the player when you discover that he persists in behaving inappropriately. And don't hesitate to use your powers. The club might also decide to appoint a confidential contact person.

Agree with almost all of that, but I'm not thrilled by the idea of a club committee and your last sentence sounds downright creepy.
I'm happy that in my country the decision to suspend a player for a longer period is made by an independent court on request of TD to RA, neither the TD nor the club have any say.

[jstbwk]

 pescetom, on 2026-November-01, 16:47, said:

Agree with almost all of that, but I'm not thrilled by the idea of a club committee and your last sentence sounds downright creepy.
I'm happy that in my country the decision to suspend a player for a longer period is made by an independent court on request of TD to RA, neither the TD nor the club have any say.

It's the national law that gives the elected club committee the exclusive right to suspend or ban a member. That member can ask the general meeting of the club to lift the suspension or ban and, if not readmited, turn to a court of law.
What's creepy about having a person to whom the members can turn in case of inappropriate behaviour, assured of confidentiality? It's almost obligatory in most sports in this country and the Dutch bridge union encourages clubs to do so. A bridge club should be a save environment, which is what Law 74A demands.

[blackshoe]

Different strokes. Here, few clubs have "committees", most are sole proprietorships, and neither the Federal nor the State government gets involved in these situations. Nor, for that matter, does the ACBL. Not sure about the ABA but I doubt it does either. Nor, I'm pretty sure, does the USBF, which is really an NBO in name only, created to satisfy the letter of the Olympic Charter. Jan Martel may disagree with me on that, but it's how I see it.

[pescetom]

 jstbwk, on 2026-November-02, 04:24, said:

It's the national law that gives the elected club committee the exclusive right to suspend or ban a member. That member can ask the general meeting of the club to lift the suspension or ban and, if not readmited, turn to a court of law.
What's creepy about having a person to whom the members can turn in case of inappropriate behaviour, assured of confidentiality? It's almost obligatory in most sports in this country and the Dutch bridge union encourages clubs to do so. A bridge club should be a save environment, which is what Law 74A demands.

There are (at least) three different types of misbehaviour to investigate and discipline, let's not conflate them.

Safeguarding against sexual and social abuse, violations of rights, discrimination against disability etc. is obligatory in all sports in this country too, and of course there is a contact person and protocols to ensure privacy.

A club must defend itself against wrongdoing by members and violations of statute or damage to reputation of the club. In our statute, the club management committee accuses in such cases but there is an independent set of monitors (elected like the committee) whose job is to hear the case and decide disciplinary measures (which can be appealed to a plenary meeting of members).

Last of all, what this topic is about, defending against violation of laws and regulations of bridge during play. As said above, our model is that any matter too serious to be written off once play is over is reported to the RA which organises an independent trial and disciplines the members involved. I'm not thrilled with the (UK) model whereby each club has an internal ethics committee to do the same and I would regard any mechanism for anonymous reporting of misbehaviour at table as creepy and misguided.

[EugeneLS]

In my experience, in my f2f bridge days, at our small club the Director was also one of the players (hopefully, a matter of trust, that they wouldn't take advantage of seeing a board they hadn't yet played). It was all, 99% of the time, very friendly. If we had to call the Director it was usually to rule on an obvious infringement like a revoke or insufficient bid - and no-one could object to that.

However, I recall a slightly unpleasant incident when "Director!" was called against me. I'd just doubled my RHO's bid and he promptly called the Director, I couldn't fathom why. It transpired that he'd seen my partner 'grimace' in some way when I doubled. I'd not noticed this at all, I was looking at my hand and the bidding cards. Honest!

The Director, thankfully, ruled that this was a non-event and the board should be played out as normal. But for some time after that I harboured a bit of a grudge against the opponent in question. Could he have handled his suspicions a bit more tactfully?

[EugeneLS]

I can remember another incident which, quite by accident, played havoc with the whole afternoon's session. My partner - alas! - was partly to blame: I think he was relatively new to duplicate.

The club had the familiar oblong boards, in which North and South face the short edges and East and West the long edges. Sitting North, I was dummy and my partner rotated the board 90° to give me more space to table the dummy. I, and the opponents, should have noticed and stopped him, but we didn't.

You can guess the rest! We replaced our cards in the wrong slots; it wasn't noticed until the scoring computer threw a wobbly, and the whole board had to be cancelled.

I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't the only ones! But luckily my partner, who owned up, wasn't penalised. Lesson learnt!