Help
This topic is locked
http://www.worldbridge.org for bridge laws. You probably need to know laws before you can really direct bridge.
http://bridgebase.com/tourney/help/ for BBO TD format. How to adjust scores, set up a match, etc. Please read this document to find out. Its a little outdated, but most of it is very relevant.
------------------
Lusobrasil's lecture itself:
About claims:
The problem in table bridge is that when there is a contested claim the fact that someone contests it gives information to the claimer that he cannot of course use.
Only way to treat this in a sensible way is how it is actually done, play stops, opps state why they disagree and the TD adjusts the result if opps are right.
Claimer is bound to normal (including careless) lines of play, opps can be brilliant with open cards. But they can´t say "I require claimer to play this or that".
In online bridge there are similar problems. When someone claims the fact that the claim is rejected gives unauthorized information to the claimer.
He doesn´t know from where it comes, but he knows something is not running...
An extreme example: Claimer is in dummy with xxxx in a suit, and AKQ109 in hand. No entries to dummy. "All mine".
Someone objects. Claimer could think: "I will of course cash AKQ, only way for someone to object is to have the J long onside or offside. If it is offside I´m done, so it must be onside for me to have a chance.
If play continues, someone someday will try to finesse! The only way to deal with claims online, in a way that avoids this kind of problems, is to adopt a policy similar to what happens in table bridge:
Claimer states a line of play with the claim statement. If opps reject the claim, they simply call the TD that adjudicates the result.
About undos:
The easiest and simplest approach in tournament play is to have "undos not allowed". I understand that the policy of each "organization" may strongly push for undos allowed (and that is a good thing for the general ambiance).
With undos allowed a lot of information problems can happen, because there are three bits of info that are unauthorized for one of the partnerships:
A) The card is exposed
B ) The player didn´t want to play that one.
C) The player has a different choice to play.
B.1) There was a genuine misclick
B.2) There was a mistake from the player, not paying enough attention
B.1 is one thing, B.2 is completely different. And sometimes it is impossible to distinguish between the two.
For example, when there is something like AQ in dummy, declarer goes for the finesse but LHO plays the K. Without noticing it declarer plays the Queen. Of course he would "never" play the Q under the K.
A smart TD will ask privately "why did you play the Queen? I presume you didn´t see the King"... But a smart declarer will say, anyway, "Of course I saw it, I wanted to click the Ace". It will be impossible to know.
When an undo is requested the TD should be called. When it is a clear case of misclick, and if the tournament is on "undos allowed", the TD should give a green light to players stating the unauthorized info stuff anyway.
When it could be a case of paying not enough attention, or change of mind, the TD should NOT allow the undo, and state the unauthorized info stuff about partner not being permitteed to use the info that player had another thing in mind - partner "never saw" the undo.
Actually, it would be a good thing to not allow the undo to be seen from partner´s point of view unless the request comes after partner played already a card AND the LHO of the "undoer" says he is willing to accept the undo. In this case, the unauthorized information problem would vanish and most of the problems too.
In the example case, I would not allow the undo unless I was pretty sure that the player genuinely wanted to play the Ace and that there would be no future problem with unauthorized information on the Queen.
A good TD is a good "question-asker"...
The way to ask the questions sometimes makes all the difference in the world, for getting the facts straight
It is classical for example in hesitation problems:
If you ask "did you hesitate?"
Player will say "no, immediate bid"
If you say "how long do you hesitate? 1 minute, 30 secs, 10 secs..."... he will say "not much, maybe 10 secs only"
I once had a player that said "I didnt hesitate..."
then I asked "but if you had !sxxx !hxxxx !dxxx !cxxx?"
He replied "ah, then I would pass immediately... ":-)
The player was not "hesitating". In his view that was different from "thinking"
So... think on the question to ask before asking. Facts can show up on a much brighter and clear light
Some typical examples on rulings:
Silly system, but illustrating a point: Bidding goes, with opponents silent and actually with nothing to bid at anytime: 1!c (strong, taken as nat by partner) 1!h (nat, taken as !s, positive by partner) 6!s (nat of course, taking into account the meaning understood from 1!h) 6NT (I dont know what is happening). 12 top tricks. Opps feel damaged because of the different explanations.
Where is the damage? Just because the explanations don´t match the hands, or the agreed system (they don´t seem to have one here) that doens´t immediately grant the right to an adjusted score.
Players in this example landed in the top spot by chance, but opps would have done nothing different, for whatever amount of extra information given to them. No damage from the different explanations, no adjustment.
Example hand
Scoring: IMP
West North East South
- 3♠ Dbl RDbl
**td call
On the RDBL North says "why did you redouble?". South kept silent all the time. TD is called. North is warned for not talking on the table, especially this kind of talk, and play continues.
In the end East doubles, and 4!s is made. EW require an adjustment. Where is the damage? Was any of the NS actions changed by the comment? No.
Was any of the EW actions influenced by the comment? Even if it was, EW take their own inferences from the NS action, haste, hesitation, remark, gesture (in table bridge), or the like, at their own risk. So if East says "I doubled because of the comment", that "is his problem". He would be entitled to redress only if the comment could have been made deliberately to gain something from the EW actions, which in no moment appeared to be the case.
Consequent and subsequent damage:
Consequent damage is damage that results directly from an infraction. For this there may be redress. Subsequent damage is damage that stems from what happens after the infraction and not directly related. And for subsequent damage there is no redress.
The WBF inclusively recommends that when there is consequent and subsequent damage in the same hand, redress is given only to the consequent part (normally in the form of some imps or mps being transferred).
Hesitations: In online bridge it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a genuine connection problem and a hesitation.
When there is an hesitation the partner cannot choose from logical alternatives one that could demonstrably be suggested by the hesitation. When he does that TD must use his judgment to eventually adjust the score, based on what would have happened if that action was not taken and giving the benefit of the doubt to the non offending side. This is "more or less easy".
Well, it is not. Judgment calls are a tough thing... Anyway, they´re part of the job.
What if the player says "I had a connection problem"? Sometimes there are conn problems that dont get a red light but result in delays. My approach is this:
"I am very sorry that you had a connection problem in the precise moment where there was a tempo-sensitive auction going on, and I must rule that your partner might have used that (of course accidental) variation in tempo"
For partner the approach is "Of course I believe that you particularly didn´t use the variation in tempo, but a player in your situation, with taht auction, might have taken the actions you took with the help of it". I just say "might have", like the laws state.
We never call a player "unethical" or worse. That requires a lot of proof. We should use the approach of "might have done" that is used in the laws. This way we can adjust against a player without having to call him anything or getting a lawsuit...
However, when in my soul I "know" something might be going on, I normally find a way to tell the player(s), politely, that in case they might be doing it they should know that I know that they know that I know that...
Differences in approach:
There are a lot of cultures around in terms of TDing. Some countries are typically stiff on applying penalties, some are more "easy going". As we can not apply penalties in BBO, this reflects on the easiness with which one adjusts results. My two lectures were geared towards convincing this marvellous audience that adjustments are not penalties are should be given where is damage and where damage results from an infraction. If this approach is followed, the different cultural approaches ease off a lot.
When penalties are enabled the culture and style differences will surface. My approach is to regard always TDing as a service to players. Impoliteness, rudeness, etc., should get the appropriate "reward". Infractions that are genuinely involuntary should get some leeway as long as the player knows it is an infraction and does all his best to avoid it again.
Humanizing the TD job is the way to go on these matters.
Do not, please...
1 - Run tourneys on "no adjustments".
2 - Run tourneys on "Playing TD". It is enough work already to run a proper tournament, and if you want to play just join one of the hundreds of events always going on
3 - Run "automatic penalty of this or that". Automatic things make me nervous, because if you say that you are automatically doing something you unhumanize the job and dont get space to be tolerant when required.
4 - Run "no psyches" unless eventually it is a tournament geared for beginners or a very specific audience. He who never sinned (psyched) throw the first stone...
Do, please...
Run nice and fair events, properly cared for, with polite and competent TDs
Thank you all.