[jillybean]

The following letter was submitted to the Editor, ACBL Bulletin, unfortunately it was not accepted for publication.

It is likely that I had a very uncommon start to my bridge addiction. I first learned to play at a community night school and then played on BBO, but soon I found myself enthralled with the laws of the game. I ran some games on BBO and ultimately studied the laws and took the ACBL club director course. All of this was before I had played much club bridge at all. I dabbled with directing online for a while but then I had an opportunity to work on my game with a local mentor, stopped running games on BBO and focused on my game, although I still read the laws forums.

As a new player at the club, I would not hesitate to call the director when I thought there had been an irregularity. When my opponents pointed out one of my irregularities (often hesitations in bidding), I would squirm, tell them I was “allowed to think” and that they should call the director. The typical reply would be "oh no, we wouldn't do that, this is a friendly game”. I soon learned that it was “not nice” to call the director for this type of irregularity.

It appeared to be acceptable to call the director for the mechanical irregularities such as bids out of turns, leads out of turn, revokes etc. As my playing skills improved and I was playing against better players, I learned that not all of these irregularities needed a director call. Especially in the case of an exposed card or a revoke (discovered before completion of the trick), I would say that it is common practice to leave the penalty card on the table and continue play. The director may be called if the partner of the player who made the revoke ends up on lead, maybe not. Leads out of turn and bids out of turn are at times overlooked and the player making the irregularity is told to put the card back in their hand or the bidding box. I am not sure when this is deemed appropriate and when it isn't, perhaps it is judged on the apparent skill level of the opponents.

Is it a problem? Absolutely YES! We have players and bullies running the games and enforcing their own version of the laws.

I think the problem is two-fold. First of all we have some directors, particularly at the club level, who would benefit from more training, as well as some who have the belief that if certain laws are enforced which may cast doubt on a player's character (UI, MI, hesitations), then the players 'won't come back' if they get an unfavorable ruling. The effect of this is that players never learn that their comment, mannerism or hesitation may suggest something to their partner, is in violation of the laws or could restrict their partner's actions. Penalties and even warnings are unheard of in club games and I would say also very rare in local tournaments. I often see recommendations for procedural penalties on bridge forums, but that is so far from reality here, we may as well be using different regulations. Secondly, there are the players who should know better but who do not call for the director and rather make their own rulings. Then we have the “bullies” who have learned that they can use the laws, or lack of enforcement of the laws, to their advantage.

Unfortunately, this situation hasn't developed overnight but rather over years and to change it will be pushing against the tide. There will be players who become upset and may not come back. Correcting the situation will involve reeducating all involved, players, directors, and club managers. The alternative is I think the gradual erosion of the game, with the players with the most authority or table presence ruling the game and the newcomers learning (in some cases improper actions) from these players.

[Vampyr]

It's a pity; from this and other posts it seems that you play in the worst clubs in the world. Are there like-minded people with whom you could start a club of your own? If you started a weekly members' club, you could promote a culture where the director is called to keep it a friendly game; and while you probably wouldn't be able to afford a paid non-playing director, you could direct the games at first, and eventually encourage people to attend the ACBL directors' course -- but if that is too expensive and/or time-consuming, maybe you could get an experienced director to run seminars. I have done this for local directors, who have found it very useful. We have quizzes, discussions and simulations, just like a real training course.

PS It's simpler not to call the director when there is a hesitation in the bidding -- just agree that there was a hesitation; often there will not be damage and the director won't have to get involved. But that's the only time that I or people I play with and against, don't call the director after an irregularity.

[Hanoi5]

How many clubs have you seen this happening in? This is terrible.

[jeffford76]

jillybean, on 2012-October-15, 20:29, said:

The following letter was submitted to the Editor, ACBL Bulletin, unfortunately it was not accepted for publication.

Too bad, as this is far more interesting than much of what they publish.

[Siegmund]

Quote

How many clubs have you seen this happening in?

Every one I've ever played in. (All over the western US and Canada. I assume it is similarly universal in the rest of the continent.) People much prefer giving their own lectures to the newbies about what theyve done wrong than "being mean and calling the director" "like might happen to you if you had done that in a tournament."

Many of them are genuinely trying to be nice, and avoid the "embarrassment" and "trouble" of calling the director "on" someone. And doing the game a horrible disservice even if they are trying to be nice.

[semeai]

Maybe try paring down the word count and resubmitting it. It's pretty long for a letter to the editor. You could look at how long the (longest of the) letters to the editor usually are and shoot for that.

[Vampyr]

Siegmund, on 2012-October-15, 22:24, said:

Every one I've ever played in. (All over the western US and Canada. I assume it is similarly universal in the rest of the continent.) People much prefer giving their own lectures to the newbies about what theyve done wrong than "being mean and calling the director" "like might happen to you if you had done that in a tournament."

Many of them are genuinely trying to be nice, and avoid the "embarrassment" and "trouble" of calling the director "on" someone. And doing the game a horrible disservice even if they are trying to be nice.

This is really sad. I would go crazy playing in such an environment. I wish I could suggest a solution (apart from the one above, starting a new club).

[Bbradley62]

I haven't played a club game in almost 20 years, but this sounds like an accurate description of all the games I encountered in New York, New Jersey and Georgia. I really think the key to not driving yourself nuts is to accept that the opponent who mentioned the difference between clubs and tournaments is right; club games are primarily for people looking for a pleasant way to spend Wednesday evening and tournaments are for people who are taking the game seriously as a competition.

[blackshoe]

I don't consider myself a serious competitor, although I do play in some tournaments. I do play bridge for fun. Thing is, "bridge" with mutable rules, the way it's played in most clubs, isn't fun for me. I suppose I'm just going to have to give up the game.

[paua]

I have just written an email to a club I played at on Sunday covering similar issues.

My partner become dummy and her RHO dropped the ace of diamonds. Her LHO told her she could demand or forbid a diamond. I piped up that this is not the entire options, and he told me not to interfere, so I told him to call the director (who struggled to explain all the options and my partner still didn't understand what "can be picked up" meant. Bleurgh.

Our small club had a similar environment, and my solution has been to get qualified, bring in an experienced director to run a course, have a director's tip at the start of the evening, and to discuss all law situations with the players, directors and club committee, in a constructive way. It's getting better.

[f0rdy]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-15, 21:12, said:

It's a pity; from this and other posts it seems that you play in the worst clubs in the world. Are there like-minded people with whom you could start a club of your own? If you started a weekly members' club, you could promote a culture where the director is called to keep it a friendly game; and while you probably wouldn't be able to afford a paid non-playing director, you could direct the games at first, and eventually encourage people to attend the ACBL directors' course -- but if that is too expensive and/or time-consuming, maybe you could get an experienced director to run seminars. I have done this for local directors, who have found it very useful. We have quizzes, discussions and simulations, just like a real training course.

PS It's simpler not to call the director when there is a hesitation in the bidding -- just agree that there was a hesitation; often there will not be damage and the director won't have to get involved. But that's the only time that I or people I play with and against, don't call the director after an irregularity.

We would also not call the director in a few other situations, I feel; notably when both pairs at the table contain a director, everyone at the table is experienced, and the irregularity is a simple one to correct. Eg an immediately corrected revoke by a defender while declarer is running a suit, with declarer confident he doesn't want to do anything other than continue running the suit.
Obviously all these conditions have to be met, and care needs to be taken; as soon as declarer could have gained by putting revoker's partner on lead and restricting her lead, and didn't know about this, the ruling is at danger of being wrong.

But that's just a footnote; it's still a means of getting a ruling we can be confident is correct, just without having to bother the director over something trivial. I can't remember coming across anything as bad as described in the OP; the only thing close was playing in Bermuda:

I miscounted a suit and made an incorrect claim, and in spite of my protestations that we should call the (non-playing) director, the other 3 people at the table were utterly convinced that we should just play on. I was fairly sure the number of tricks I made was more than the number I would have received from a ruling, but I was the newcomer (causing great confusion by leaving by bidding cards on the table at the end of the auction, and being greatly confused by the alerting regulations) in the club, and couldn't find the willpower to continue arguing. Thankfully it made no difference to the matchpoints (it left me with a great impression of Flannery; playing 3NT is much easier when you know the distribution to within 1 card at trick 1!), but it was a strange experience for me, to have everyone so convinced of their incorrect impressions of the laws.

[billw55]

Bbradley62, on 2012-October-15, 23:08, said:

club games are primarily for people looking for a pleasant way to spend Wednesday evening and tournaments are for people who are taking the game seriously as a competition.

Yes, this is my experience also.

Maybe you could suggest that one or two games per week be designated as competitive rather than social. My local club has one game that is not designated per se, but is known to be the most competitive game of the week, and there are far fewer such issues. It is a weekday evening game, which matters a lot I think, the demographic of the turnout is noticeably different.

[bluejak]

Bbradley62, on 2012-October-15, 23:08, said:

I haven't played a club game in almost 20 years, but this sounds like an accurate description of all the games I encountered in New York, New Jersey and Georgia. I really think the key to not driving yourself nuts is to accept that the opponent who mentioned the difference between clubs and tournaments is right; club games are primarily for people looking for a pleasant way to spend Wednesday evening and tournaments are for people who are taking the game seriously as a competition.

The trouble is that for people who like to play by the rules, this sort of attitude is not a pleasant way to spend a Wednesday evening, but decidedly unpleasant.

[c_corgi]

Regarding the thread title, my impression is that the situation is not deteriorating: just not improving fast enough.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-October-16, 08:10, said:

The trouble is that for people who like to play by the rules, this sort of attitude is not a pleasant way to spend a Wednesday evening, but decidedly unpleasant.

I like playing by the rules, and enjoy discussing the laws, but my enjoyment of the game is based on the intellectual challenge of bidding and card play, not the minutiae of legalities. I don't let minor transgressions ruin my night.

But I apparently play at a very enlightened club, since incidents like these are very rare. I've never seen a player get upset because the director was called.

[Bbradley62]

bluejak, on 2012-October-16, 08:10, said:

The trouble is that for people who like to play by the rules, this sort of attitude is not a pleasant way to spend a Wednesday evening, but decidedly unpleasant.

Agreed, which is why I haven't played a club game in almost 20 years. But there aren't enough people in this category for most club managers/owners/directors to risk losing their "regulars" by changing the club-game atmosphere.

[billw55]

Bbradley62, on 2012-October-17, 05:51, said:

Agreed, which is why I haven't played a club game in almost 20 years. But there aren't enough people in this category for most club managers/owners/directors to risk losing their "regulars" by changing the club-game atmosphere.

Exactly, which is why these players congregate at tournaments.

This is simple supply and demand, club operators provide what their customers want, tournament operators provide what those players want. It just turns out that the two sets of wants differ somewhat.

Although as I said, I wonder what response clubs would get if they offered an occasional game designated as competitive/serious. Even once a month would be a good start. What is there to lose, if it doesn't draw enough players you can just stop doing it.

[Bbradley62]

paua, on 2012-October-16, 03:48, said:

I piped up that this is not the entire options, and he told me not to interfere, so I told him to call the director ...

I suspect I would have earned a ZT penalty if an opponent told me "not to interfere" while he played director. Why would you tell the opponent to call the director instead of simply calling him yourself?

[bluejak]

Bbradley62, on 2012-October-17, 05:51, said:

Agreed, which is why I haven't played a club game in almost 20 years. But there aren't enough people in this category for most club managers/owners/directors to risk losing their "regulars" by changing the club-game atmosphere.

Are you sure? Plenty of games in England are played with a totally different approach to the rules.

I am unconvinced that American club owners really understand the advantages of playing to the rules, with pleasant TDs and a pleasant approach to rule-breaking.

[jillybean]

In response to comments above.

Do I play in the “worst clubs in the world?” I don't think so, the clubs are fine, well run and I have many of choices of games. If you are asking if clubs in North America are the worst in the world at following and enforcing the laws, perhaps the answer is yes, but my exposure is mostly confined to my extended local area.

At how many clubs have I seen this happening? To some extent this seems to happen everywhere, particularly at club games and BCD games at the tournaments. The same club players play at the tournaments so it is no different unless the director is called and then the laws are more likely to be applied. I have not had the same experience in A/X games at tournaments.

I don't understand the comments that suggest that players think this is a pleasant way to spend a weekday evening. A pleasant evening may include having an enjoyable game with your partner, chatting with the opponents between rounds, drinking, eating,and holding post game discussions  but I fail to see how modifying the rules at your table and therefore fundamentally changing the game is pleasant in any way. These players either deliberately violate the laws or haven't bothered or had the opportunity to learn them, and why should they when the rules are at times dictated by the players and, when they are consulted, not enforced by the directors.