[bluejak]

Ok, I have replaced it,and it sounds like a view I believe to be wrong. But so what?

"There seems to me to be an impression that in the England TDs do not have a high ethical standard, unlike the ACBL where TDs generally are very ethical. People must fight against this."

So?

[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2012-November-03, 12:23, said:

- Our club / unit does not have an AC. All director calls are final.

The first part of this is legal. The second is not.

Quote

Law 92A: A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director. Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation.

Quote

Law 93A: The Director shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no appeals committee (or alternative arrangement under Law 80B2(k)), or if such cannot operate without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament.

I suppose that one might argue that there's no point to an appeal which will be heard by the same director who made the original ruling. All I can say to that is if your director is not capable of being objective and hearing an appeal on its merits, you should get a new director.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-November-03, 14:50, said:

When you play in a club you pay money: it appears that in the ACBL some of the money goes to the TD. If he does not rule properly in such situations he should give the money back.

Is there any occupation where employees are expected to return some of their salary when they make a mistake?

Of course, if he performs poorly on a regular basis, he probably should lose his job. But you seem to be suggesting something more like a monetary procedural penalty for directors.

[jeffford76]

barmar, on 2012-November-05, 13:26, said:

Is there any occupation where employees are expected to return some of their salary when they make a mistake?

American football players who make illegal hits, for one, and professional athletes / coaches / management in general.

Not that I'm suggesting that directors should do so.

[bluejak]

In Premiership football officials who make fairly gross mistakes are given a week or two off. Since they are paid by the match, not a salary, that comes to the same thing.

But I love the way you say "makes a mistake" as though it is a tiny error. Obviously you do not penalise for a tiny error. But the suggestion was made that some TDs will not rule against a pro ever, and that is not a tiny error: that makes it a totally unfair club. One of the complaints I fight hard against is the view of poorer players that better players get all the rulings. Not true, of course, with a competent TD. I would hate to think that there are clubs in which it is true.

[Phil]

bluejak, on 2012-November-05, 17:29, said:

But I love the way you say "makes a mistake" as though it is a tiny error. Obviously you do not penalise for a tiny error.

'Not' a tiny error, but a tiny difference of one matchpoint between the full extent of the law and what a possible, less stringent and severe outcome would be. The non-offenders were very happy with the outcome. The offenders got to save a little face. Yeah its a 'bad' ruling, but its a completely reasonable approach and leaves both parties as though they won something. Or are the Laws of Bridge as black and white to you as the text and paper they are printed on? The non-offenders have come up to me twice and thanked me for the way I handled it. They have not complained about the one matchpoint they might have received with another director.

Quote

But the suggestion was made that some TDs will not rule against a pro ever, and that is not a tiny error: that makes it a totally unfair club.

By creating an absolute and using the word 'ever', you lose credibility.

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2012-November-05, 23:02, said:

'Not' a tiny error, but a tiny difference of one matchpoint between the full extent of the law and what a possible, less stringent and severe outcome would be. The non-offenders were very happy with the outcome. The offenders got to save a little face. Yeah its a 'bad' ruling, but its a completely reasonable approach and leaves both parties as though they won something. Or are the Laws of Bridge as black and white to you as the text and paper they are printed on?

When someone egregiously misuses UI, why do you want to leave him feeling as though he's won something? I'd want to leave him thinking that deliberately breaking the rules is an unproductive and potentially expensive business, and that it would be better not to do it again.

[CamHenry]

bluejak, on 2012-November-03, 07:59, said:

The problem, of course, with this poll, is that with a trustworthy partner, 3♠ is forcing and stronger than 4♠, so I would choose that. With a less trustworthy partner, perhaps a client or pickup partner, I would bid 4♠ since partner might pass 3♠.

For my part, I chose "3N but would consider spades". Why?
- something's breaking badly, which is likely to be a problem at a suit contract.
- partner's shown fair strength so we may have a little extra for the NT game.
- my club values are less useful at a suit contract.
- on the other hand, we do have (!) a 5-3 spade fit.

As for 3S or 4S - I agree about the fast approach concerns you raise, bluejak, but I do not consider this hand strong enough to make a slam try so I bid 4S signoff.

[Zelandakh]

-800 + PP (use of UI) + DP (trying to intimidate the TD) sounds about right. It is one of the very worst things for the club atmosphere when players consistently get away with these things and it only encourages them more, and worse, encourages the other players to follow suit (not in the revoke sense).

[bluejak]

Phil, on 2012-November-05, 23:02, said:

'Not' a tiny error, but a tiny difference of one matchpoint between the full extent of the law and what a possible, less stringent and severe outcome would be. The non-offenders were very happy with the outcome. The offenders got to save a little face. Yeah its a 'bad' ruling, but its a completely reasonable approach and leaves both parties as though they won something. Or are the Laws of Bridge as black and white to you as the text and paper they are printed on? The non-offenders have come up to me twice and thanked me for the way I handled it. They have not complained about the one matchpoint they might have received with another director.

TDs should make their minds up on rulings before they find the effects out, so the ruling should be given without knowing it makes one matchpoint difference.

As others have said, the idea of encouraging people to break the rules by giving them a reward for it, however small, is unfair on players who follow the rules.

[aguahombre]

Perhaps, some day in a thread where Bridge laws haven't been broken, it would be valuable to discuss the breaking of partnership laws ---such as blasting out of 3H to 4S instead of cooperating with a simple 3S to establish the fit and allow partner to continue with a slam try if she has more than mere game aspirations. The given hand has no reason to apply fast arrival, even if we did want to be able to stifle a virtually unlimited partner with such space-gobbling.

However, in this thread it is just a distraction.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-November-06, 07:44

[Phil]

bluejak, on 2012-November-06, 05:30, said:

TDs should make their minds up on rulings before they find the effects out, so the ruling should be given without knowing it makes one matchpoint difference.

I think this occurred in the 5th round of 13, and at the time the only better result for NS was +790 in 4♠ x'd (it takes perfect timing and some good guesses to core this; but there are chances for a misdefense), so I didn't know for sure what the final result would be. It isn't tricky to see that +500 for a NV part score hand would be a cold top in some sections.

[Fluffy]

Its easy to stand and award PPs and worse imaginable scores on a forum, but live the things are very different (at last for me), I think Phil did a great job. But beware becuase after this things my experience says the pro will find as many local players as he can and explain things his way to criticice you.

[Phil]

Fluffy, on 2012-November-06, 09:24, said:

Its easy to stand and award PPs and worse imaginable scores on a forum, but live the things are very different (at last for me), I think Phil did a great job. But beware becuase after this things my experience says the pro will find as many local players as he can and explain things his way to criticice you.

Thanks Gonzo.

Small talk is a two way street. This pro used to have a regular following of clients, and many of them are in this club. Some of his former customers are friends of the non-offenders and I don't think his table demeanor helped earn back their business.

[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-November-03, 14:02, said:

This appears a gross generalisation. Some players are very ethical. Some are notably sleazy. Some are in the middle. This is true of pros and amateurs in the UK as well as elsewhere. [I am reminded of a hand against two UK pros, who no longer play with each other. One of them deliberately thought for ages before switching to a doubleton, just to make sure partner knew it wasn't a singleton. Partner, almost without thought, played him to have a singleton, letting the contract through. One of the two is very ethical. The other isn't.]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-03, 15:17, said:

It is not reasonable to say what you think if what you think is offensive (and that is aside from it being untrue anyway). Replace "American pros" with any group you want (how about British tournament directors?) to see how it comes across.

bluejak, on 2012-November-03, 15:46, said:

Ok, I have replaced it,and it sounds like a view I believe to be wrong. But so what? "There seems to me to be an impression that in the England TDs do not have a high ethical standard, unlike the ACBL where TDs generally are very ethical. People must fight against this." So?

I think it's wrong to attack individuals rather than arguments. I agree with BlueJak, however, that it is usually OK to make informed criticisms of professions. Nevertheless, in this context, my guess is that Frances Hinden is nearer the mark. The ethics of professional Bridge-players in America seem similar to the ethics of their UK counterparts --and not much different from ordinary bridge-players -- or society as a whole. And perhaps the moderators should step in before this thread turns nasty. :

[aguahombre]

They might, if the thread hadn't died 3 weeks ago.