[jillybean]

mrdct, on 2012-January-16, 06:46, said:

Some jurisdictional and other contextual information would be useful here. Are we talking about a supervised play session here? A club duplicate at the senior citizens centre? A country congress? Something more serious?

A regular club game, regular players who have been playing for several years, or decades. I am not talking about new players as a large part of this thread has been focuced on.

[aguahombre]

Yep, we did stray a bit. But I do think people's comments have been useful about manner of instruction, and about situations where "teaching" might be more appropriate. If we stick to non-newbies and normal games, I vote for no teaching or preaching at the table.

Perhaps the weaponry part was a bit off.

[mycroft]

So, sometimes "not teaching at all" is the best thing to do at this table. Let's just hope that the next time they do this, it's not at one of those "DIE-REC-TOR!" tables.

I'm sure that Sven can explain what's going on to the intermediates in a nicer way than many directors, and that he can call the TD to discuss the Law in a nicer way than many players. *AND* the intermediates have seen him direct in important (to them) tournaments, and so can believe that he *is* just saying it because it's correct and they should know for next time - and that what he's saying *is* correct.

I know that because at my club, if I explain, politely, after the hand, that they should have done something else to be Lawful or because of potential UI implications, I get the same response as Sven. But I also know that it's because I'm who I am, and not because it's better practise in general.

I also agree with him that many people *do* call the cops, and even if they just want education, they want the opponents "schooled". However, if they did the schooling at the table, it would be just as bad for intermediate retention as if they called the TD in that manner - especially if the TD then does "lay down the law". These are the people who call the TD "on" the intermediates and drive them away in general.

I also mention to newer players that if a conversation starts "I could call the director here, but I won't", the correct response is "Director, please." Yeah, sure, they might get a ruling against them they wouldn't get if they had just sat for the lecture (but then they'll know for next time, or be able to ask later why), but sometimes they'll be in the right (for instance, the call isn't a LA *for them*, even though it would be *for their more experienced opponents*), and sometimes the opponent who thinks the Law is some way is in fact mistaken (in which case that particular old-wives-tale is stopped at this branch).

[mycroft]

In response to the original post, though - it really depends, Jilly, on what you're trying to accomplish.

If you think that what happened may have caused a problem that affected your result, call the director to get the ruling.
If you think that what happened didn't cause a problem, but that's only by luck, maybe it's right to call the TD so they learn a better way to do it.
If you think they actually *do* know better, and do it anyway, it's time to make sure the TD knows (or, assuming the TD does know, maybe he'll decide it's time for "I guess warnings don't get the point across." Who knows?)
If you're just frustrated at this thing that 'always' happens, well, sometimes, life is annoying. I know there are many things that 'always' happen to me that there's really nothing that can be done about. Maybe it's something that can be discussed at an intermediate talk at some sectional/article in the local or tournament bulletin?

[richlp]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-15, 16:11, said:

Well, as a Naval officer, I learned that guns are mounted on ships, and personal weapons are therefore not guns.....
Heh. I didn't expect to go down this road; I was just trying to be funny. Maybe I should just not do that.

Every Basic Trainee in the Army (at least as of mumble-mumble years ago when I was one) quickly learned NOT to use the term "Gun" unless referring to (ahem - I guess every grunt from those long ago years pretty much knows what I'm referring to)

[aguahombre]

This is my rifle; this is my gun. This one's for fighting; this one's for fun.

[jillybean]

I know many men are obsessed by their dicks but do we really need reference to them here?

[blackshoe]

Perhaps not. We certainly don't need to make an issue of it.

[Zelandakh]

In my (limited) experience what drives players away more than anything with respect to Director calls is inconsistent rulings, especially when those being decided in favour of are regulars or a part of the club committee. When you can explain to players why a ruling has to be as it is then it is accepted - what is difficult to accept are rulings that cannot be explained in terms of the rules and leave a feeling of unfairness.

That said, I usually only call the Director when I feel I have to, for example in the case of a revoke, a contested claim, or something being said or done that is blatantly passing information to partner. In terms of teaching I might do so if the opponents ask me to do something against the rules, such as playing on after a contested claim, but generally it just is not worth it and goes down badly in any case. On BBO I regularly tell dummy not to make claims for declarer. That doubles not simply as a form of teaching (of sorts) but primarily as a final warning before they are booted from the table.

[schulken]

The whole problem with the stop card is that it is poorly understood and the ACBL (perhaps other sanctioning bodies as well) have done little to improve the process. There is no penalty for failing to use it and there is no penalty for using it when you shouldn't. I have even heard that its use is going to be phased out. I am accustomed to seeing both with a fair degree of regularity when playing, although I haven't been called to a table (in my limited experience) about either.

What I have done is recommended to teachers that I know to spend just a little time teaching the rules to novices, rather than spending all their time on bidding and hand play. I borrowed two minutes before a 199er game that a friend runs as a teaching game, complete with supervised play. I read L41A to them and I could literally see the lights go on. In the course of the following three hours, we got NO DIRECTOR CALLS for OLOT. Two of the participants thanked me after the session as they had never heard that rule. I recommended to my friend that she come up with a list of other rules-related topics to infuse into her teaching sessions. Simple things like counting your cards before you look at them, keeping your hand off the bid box until you're ready to make a call and proper use of the stop card could be at the top of the list.

The two experiences I can recall where I was called for an infraction (face down opening lead withdrawn and failure of a defender to arrange his tricks in accordance with L65B3) and turned it into a teachable moment were handled by ruling at the table and going over the law privately with the offender at a break. In both cases, it was news to them and they appreciated the "lesson".

[helene_t]

last week this conversation took place:

(partner leads face down)
Helene: what do you know about declarer's hand?
Dummy: 15-16 points.
Helene: Has he denied a 4-card spade suit or a 4-card diamond suit?
Dummy (annoyed): All I can say is that he has 15-16 points. I am not making any inference beyond that.

It really pisses me off that Acol players in UK so often complain about pairs playing other systems that the latter have the advantage that their system is unfamiliar to the opposition, while at the same time they refuse to explain what variant of Acol they play themselves.

I mentioned this to another partner of mine (someone with good logical reasoning but only two years of bridge experience so not so routined in making inference from auctions). She said she strongly disagreed with me. She said I shouldn't expect opponents to be able to explain what they know about declarer's hand. I really don't understand this but it seems to be true. Because while this particular opponent was just annoyed and sounded like he thought I wasn't entitled to know their actual agreements, I know that many friendly opponents actually try to provide the information but struggle to do so.

More generally, it is difficult to find a way to deal with legal issues which is comfortable to everybody. In London and Amsterdam there are plenty of club to chose from so I can chose one kind of clubs and the non-informative Acol players can chose a different one. But here in North England there is only one club per city and people like me have to accept that we are the minority. We will have to adhere to the laws/regulations ourselves and if we occasionally get fixed by opps who (for whatever reason) don't adhere to the laws/regulations then there is nothing we can do without making ourselves unpopular.

Yesterday I played for the first time at a different club:

1NT-(2♦)-pass-(3♣)
pass-(pass)-X-(all pass)

My p opened 1NT. 2♦ was explained as astro (spade and another). I thought my spade holding would be useful in defense. Not so. Maybe the explanation was incorrect and if so, maybe I would have been able to convince the TD that we had been damaged. But especially when being at a new club it is not a good idea to label oneself as the director-caller. In fact I think I will never call the director at that club except maybe if I am dealt 12 cards or such.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on 2012-January-17, 12:44, said:

last week this conversation took place:

(partner leads face down)
Helene: what do you know about declarer's hand?
Dummy: 15-16 points.
Helene: Has he denied a 4-card spade suit or a 4-card diamond suit?
Dummy (annoyed): All I can say is that he has 15-16 points. I am not making any inference beyond that.

It really pisses me off that Acol players in UK so often complain about pairs playing other systems that the latter have the advantage that their system is unfamiliar to the opposition, while at the same time they refuse to explain what variant of Acol they play themselves.

I mentioned this to another partner of mine (someone with good logical reasoning but only two years of bridge experience so not so routined in making inference from auctions). She said she strongly disagreed with me. She said I shouldn't expect opponents to be able to explain what they know about declarer's hand. I really don't understand this but it seems to be true. Because while this particular opponent was just annoyed and sounded like he thought I wasn't entitled to know their actual agreements, I know that many friendly opponents actually try to provide the information but struggle to do so.

More generally, it is difficult to find a way to deal with legal issues which is comfortable to everybody. In London and Amsterdam there are plenty of club to chose from so I can chose one kind of clubs and the non-informative Acol players can chose a different one. But here in North England there is only one club per city and people like me have to accept that we are the minority. We will have to adhere to the laws/regulations ourselves and if we occasionally get fixed by opps who (for whatever reason) don't adhere to the laws/regulations then there is nothing we can do without making ourselves unpopular.

Yesterday I played for the first time at a different club:

1NT-(2♦)-pass-(3♣)
pass-(pass)-X-(all pass)

My p opened 1NT. 2♦ was explained as astro (spade and another). I thought my spade holding would be useful in defense. Not so. Maybe the explanation was incorrect and if so, maybe I would have been able to convince the TD that we had been damaged. But especially when being at a new club it is not a good idea to label oneself as the director-caller. In fact I think I will never call the director at that club except maybe if I am dealt 12 cards or such.

Hi Helene, I find all of this a very sad state of affairs and I am familiar with the type of player you are referring to. I wonder how much the directors are aware of and if they are, why do they condone it?

Your comment "We will have to adhere to the laws/regulations ourselves and if we occasionally get fixed by opps who (for whatever reason) don't adhere to the laws/regulations then there is nothing we can do without making ourselves unpopular."

I find it is the weaker (or unethical) players who ignore the laws and so I have no qualms if I need to make myself unpopular with this group. The better players adhere to the laws and if I director call is needed, it's made and noone thinks twice about it. Though I do know what you are saying, some players make it very difficult and uncomfotable you to make a td call.

[nige1]

pran, on 2012-January-13, 08:55 said:

If the mood at the table calls for it I may make a friendly comment that "you should have used STOP here".

Does this remark "call attention to an infraction"? If so then is Sven legally obliged to call the director?

[pran]

I have written: If the mood at the table calls for it I may make a friendly comment that "you should have used STOP here

nige1, on 2012-January-18, 10:38, said:

Does this remark "call attention to an infraction"? If so then is Sven legally obliged to call the director?

And as

Law 9B1{a} said:

The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

- not must, I don't think so under the circumstances.

[nige1]

jillybean, on 2012-January-18, 10:09, said:

Hi Helene, I find all of this a very sad state of affairs and I am familiar with the type of player you are referring to. I wonder how much the directors are aware of and if they are, why do they condone it? Your comment "We will have to adhere to the laws/regulations ourselves and if we occasionally get fixed by opps who (for whatever reason) don't adhere to the laws/regulations then there is nothing we can do without making ourselves unpopular." I find it is the weaker (or unethical) players who ignore the laws and so I have no qualms if I need to make myself unpopular with this group. The better players adhere to the laws and if I director call is needed, it's made and noone thinks twice about it. Though I do know what you are saying, some players make it very difficult and uncomfotable you to make a td call.

After a Bridge event, when you discuss boards with experienced partnerships, you often become aware of the depth of their understandings -- and the inadequacy of their disclosure at the table. A possible solution:

Suppose you ask about an opponent about his partner's call and he trots out a stock-reply (e.g. "No agreement" or "No understanding" or "Just Bridge"). If you are unhappy, you can call the director. In theory, he has the discretion to ask the opponent who made the original call to explain the systemic-meaning of his own bid. The director can take a player away from the table to diminish unauthorised information.

In practice, in my experience, directors never do this but If directors started to use this option routinely, they would soon have no call to do so. The sudden improvement in players' memory of systemic agreements would be dramatic

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2012-January-18, 10:09, said:

I find it is the weaker (or unethical) players who ignore the laws and so I have no qualms if I need to make myself unpopular with this group.

I understand about the unethical players, but I think you are pretty snotty if you don't want to be friendly with the weaker players.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-January-18, 10:58, said:

I have written: If the mood at the table calls for it I may make a friendly comment that "you should have used STOP here


And as [the law says players should call the director - ER]
- not must, I don't think so under the circumstances.

Well, the use of "should" simply indicates that a procedural penalty for failure to call the TD will rarely be given. The failure is still an infraction of law.

[jillybean]

nige1, on 2012-January-18, 12:26, said:

After a Bridge event, when you discuss boards with experienced partnerships, you often become aware of the depth of their understandings -- and the inadequacy of their disclosure at the table. A possible solution:

Suppose you ask about an opponent about his partner's call and he trots out a stock-reply (e.g. "No agreement" or "No understanding" or "Just Bridge"). If you are unhappy, you can call the director. In theory, he has the discretion to ask the opponent who made the original call to explain the systemic-meaning of his own bid. The director can take a player away from the table to diminish unauthorised information.

In practice, in my experience, directors never do this but If directors started to use this option routinely, they would soon have no call to do so. The sudden improvement in players' memory of systemic agreements would be dramatic

I don't recall many problem with disclosure by experienced pairs, most pairs playing complex systems seem to take care to fully explain their bids. I'm not so sure about their depth of understanding and if that is something that should be disclosed. Maybe I am just naive, could you give an example?

Vampyr, on 2012-January-18, 15:13, said:

I understand about the unethical players, but I think you are pretty snotty if you don't want to be friendly with the weaker players.

Oh! I'm firendly at the table and I doubt people would consider me snotty but if you measure friendliness by the number of infractions I am willing to ignore, then indeed I am not "friendly".

[Trinidad]

jillybean, on 2012-January-18, 18:09, said:

I don't recall many problem with disclosure by experienced pairs, most pairs playing complex systems seem to take care to fully explain their bids. I'm not so sure about their depth of understanding and if that is something that should be disclosed. Maybe I am just naive, could you give an example?

I guess Helene's point is that people who play complex systems will fully disclose their system. The problem lies with experienced pairs who play a "poppa-momma system".

The complex systems have been "designed". The system builders have made conscious choices how to assign concrete meanings to each call. Therefore, they are easy to explain, despite the fact that the system may be convoluted.

Poppa-momma systems have "grown". All bids are -in principle- natural and therefore "just bridge". However, sometimes it is inevitable that you need to tell a lie in the auction. This is also "just bridge". However, experienced poppa-momma pairs know exactly what bids are reliable and what bids are doubtful for their partnership or for this particular poppa-momma system in general. That is no longer "just bridge" and needs to be disclosed.

There are also other things that are part of the system that should be disclosed when asked. As a simple example, one can play 4 card majors where, when there are two four card suits, the priority would be say ♥-♣-♠-♦. If the auction starts 1♣-Pass-1♦-Pass; 1♥ then responder knows that opener has 5+ clubs (with 4♥-4♣ he would have opened 1♥). When responder is asked what opener has shown, he should tell that he knows about the fifth club. Many responders just shrug their shoulders and think that this is general bridge knowledge. It isn't. It is a consequence of the priority that they chose in opening two four card suits. And therefore it is bridge knowledge that is specific for this pair.

Many "natural" players think that what they play is "general bridge knowledge" when in fact it isn't. Players of complex systems know that what they play is not general bridge knowledge.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

This reminds me of my experience when I first moved over to Germany and tried to play Acol with a new partner. My first question was "Which suit do we open with 4432 hands?", to which I got a blank look and the response "Let's just play bridge". I still do not know what the local custom is although I know it is different if the 2 4-card suits are touching or not. English Acol (♥ > ♠ > minors) and Swiss Acol (minors > ♥ > ♠) are much simpler to explain, although there is still some discrepancy with (23)44 hands.

An example of something I play in an Acol context that I think needs to be alerted is the auction 1♦ - 2♣; 2♦ which is forcing and can be made on a 4=4=4=1 hand. In Acol this is a fairly unusual treatment. A secondary aspect of that (which I do not alert) is that 1♥ - 2♣; 2♦ promises 5 or more hearts, whereas in traditional Acol it can be the aforementioned 4=4=4=1 hand.

As you say, these subtleties are different for each partnership and really should be explained on request. Trouble is, my experience of dealing with unethical players is that most clubs support them if they are regular members that pay their dues every year. Whereas a player that is ethical but also psyches or plays a complex system that the regulars do not like is regarded as a nuisance to be tolerated only so long as necessary. I find such attitudes very strange and this is one reason I avoided bridge clubs as much as I could for 15 years or so.