[jillybean]

The EBU have their Best Behaviour at Bridge policy,
the ACBL have their Zero Tolerance policy and I'm sure other BO's have their own versions.

How diligently are these being implemented and is there any evidence to suggest enforcing it is beneficial to the club?

In my experience, we still have the same old, rude, obnoxious players at the table, but everyone knows this is "just Jill" and puts up with the behavior. That is everyone except the new players or players who are tired of playing in such an environment and either request to sit the same direction, or quit playing at this game.

[mycroft]

Zero Tolerance, just like any other implementation of ZT, Does Not Work, and for exactly the same reasons. Up to, and *especially* including, doing everything "up to" hoping for retaliation they can use the Director to punish. As I have said for years, "Very Low Tolerance" does work, as long as the director isn't actually playing favourites.

Things are *miles* better than they were pre-Barbara Seagram; and yet.

What you do about the pairs of players (not a partnership, you know what I mean) who should never be at the same table together is you manage to avoid it as best you can. What you do about the "Just Jill"s is have a quiet talk with them, away from the table, preferably after or before the game, and explain that you have heard things and they need to be careful about them. Which (among other things) prepares them for "that's a PP" if they don't, without giving the "Just Jack"s the knowledge that they can trigger "that's a PP" if they play Jill carefully. And when they complain that they got a PP and <other person> didn't, you can explain that they will get their warning - like you did, remember? - but they're not (yet) known for it the way you were - that is "were", not "are", right?

If it turns out that allowing a player into the game causes more than one player to leave (for non-bridge reasons), the club can say "we would rather you come back in a couple of months, and think about how you can play in such a way that you can win without driving our other customers away". If that got thrown at anyone without warning, it would cause a real problem - and it can still, so you need to have your evidence in a row - but after sufficient warning, that might be what has to happen.

But a good director can almost always head all of this off, by not "accepting" bad behaviour earlier.

[pescetom]

The FIGB doesn't current have a policy of ACBL like ZT, for better (I believe) or for worse. It did unexpectedly demand ZT for online play during the covid pandemic, but only really backed it up for cheating: in some cases at least, insulting behaviour online actually led to less severe consequences than the same behaviour f2f would have incurred.

The EBU 'Best Behaviour' is fine, but I don't see it as really necessary, the Laws and common sense already say it all. Although I do like the reference to system card and explanations in the same context.

Having said that, the disciplinary situation here in Italy is very different to UK. When things go beyond a simple PP then the TD refers the case to federal discipline, which may lead to a trial and a sentence of suspension against the player(s) involved. The club has no formal role in any of this, the TD reports directly to the federation. The club can only discipline members who break the club statute in some way (not paying, trying to rig a vote, or whatever): which has never occurred, to my knowledge.

[mycroft]

Adding (as I was in a rush to catch the bus) : this is why "directing is a public relations job first, a technical one a distant second".

Of course, it's also why PPs are (except in KOs) against one side, not accruing to the other.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2025-October-29, 12:33, said:

Adding (as I was in a rush to catch the bus) : this is why "directing is a public relations job first, a technical one a distant second".

I don't wholly agree, but then PR is not my best skill or a priority of mine.
As I see it I am there to make the tournament run smoothly and to ensure it follows the Laws/Regulations, both of which are inherently technical.
Sure if it means turning up the heating or bringing a coffee or turning a blind eye to a beginner's mishap or the occasional late finish, but no more than that.

 mycroft, on 2025-October-29, 12:33, said:

Of course, it's also why PPs are (except in KOs) against one side, not accruing to the other.

The only problems I encounter with PPs are at the bottom and the top of the scale.
Many people coming from other clubs or TDs seem to think they are immune from a low level PP, whatever they did and however well they knew it was wrong.
At the top end I have to examine my conscience and decide whether I can really liquidate this with a PP or it is something I should escalate: fortunately this is rare.

[jillybean]

PP's are not used here. Most players put up with the bad behaviour, and each time a cell phone rings, the Director may say "turn off your cell phone please" or simply roll their eyes.

I'm having to deal with some BB at a club but this is not the actually responsibility of the Director, unless the Director is also the Club Owner.
I'll do my best to enforce any rule(s) the Club Owner wishes to implement and I may be able to provide some helpful information, that is where I think my responsibility ends.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2025-October-29, 19:51, said:

PP's are not used here. Most players put up with the bad behaviour, and each time a cell phone rings, the Director may say

Most bad behaviour is too trivial/widespread to merit a PP anyway, and a phone ringing is not the end of the world. For really serious misbehaviour you can always suspend or disqualify (or does that never happen either?).
But what do you do if not issue a PP when they foul a board, or arrive 15 minutes late without warning, or let the whole room know that there was 7NT on board 3?

[mycroft]

And what if the Club Owner says "we're not putting up with Just Jill's BS any more. I've let her know that; if you see it, or if you get called about it, do something"?

Laws 90A and 91A are there for a reason.

And what if Just Jill's next foray into poor behaviour is making a very strong implication that your directing is on par with your playing, to which "if directors could play, they would" definitely applies? Or maybe a comment about "isn't it strange that the [elided]s stick together?" in response to your ruling against them (*)? If it's a problem when it's *you* that they're beaking off about, but a report to the club owner when it's one of the (paying) players, that says something to the players. If it's *not* a problem when it's you they're beaking to, might that not encourage les autres, or them for that matter, to keep pushing? Are you good with your game being known for that? Are you good with continuing to direct a game like that?

Now, I'm not saying that in a world where the director is not the club owner, that the owner shouldn't be involved. Definitely raise your concerns about players (especially players who you believe are driving others out of the game) to the owner(s) and ask their advice on what to do. Definitely report if there was a situation where you chose to apply a PP or a DP for behaviour - if for no other reason than so they're not surprised by the complaint that comes in (and, of course, to get your side of the story in first!) But it's *your game*, you're the director, you're ultimately responsible for how the game is known - and if the club owner requires you to run a game that you are not comfortable being known for, you're ultimately responsible to yourself for whether you choose to continue working for that owner.

I'm also not suggesting that you be a martinet and crack down immediately and "to the full extent of the Law" to anything, especially anything that even mildly impinges on your sacred honour. The many many discussions between me and blackshoe (whose time in the Navy colours his outlook) should be proof of that. But my comment to hrothgar also applies: "You don't have to respect me; 'who's the bastard in the black' and all that. But [the Laws] say that you will *treat me* with respect at the table, or you will pay for it."

And all of those situations - and all of the decisions you make when these situations happen - are "public relations". As is how you act when you come to the table. How you act when you sell the game. How you report the results of the game. How you ask people if they could please sit E-W today to balance the field (or move to this other table for whatever reason, or take the first round sitout for whatever reason). How you handle calls with your partner, or the person you're going home with for that matter. If you have to play, how you handle calls while you're declaring. If you have to play as "last spare", how you partner up the other players, and how you treat the person that's left. How, and how much, you explain your L16 ruling to the players (different players differently, right?) Even (as I used to say at the Martinique) "it doesn't matter how smoothly and correctly the game runs, how correct and complete and understandable my rulings are, or anything else. If the coffee isn't ready by the time the first player shows up, I'm a bad director."

(*) That one might not apply here, I know. How about if a "Just Jack" made an ObXKCD reference to a ruling, or a comment similar to why Helene is no longer a yellow (not linked. If you don't remember, a quick search in these forums will find it)?

[mycroft]

On a related note, I am surprised at how many bridge players like me, and are happy to talk to me either outside the game, or during the break when I have my badge on, or whatever. And how many people, every tournament, come up and thank me for doing this "thankless job". There are the others, I know that; but they're few.

And I am not joking, or looking at the past without my rose-coloured glasses, when I say "it was much worse pre 'ZT'." And it was much worse in Goren's heyday than when I started in 198mumble (if you can find Machlin's book, you'll see the "funny stories" that were commonplace at the time(*) - and why the book isn't currently in print.) It can (and should) get better. We can (and should) take pride in the progress that has been made.

(*) and by and large, they are funny stories. If you don't mind them being incredibly sexist. Or racist. Or just demeaning to clients. Or... And some, like the "don't tell Freeman it's a machpointing race" or "whole-week KO entry for three days table fees" or "Charlie [Goren], put table 1 wherever you want. If it wasn't for you, I'd have to *work* for a living" ones, are just funny.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-October-30, 10:10, said:

Now, I'm not saying that in a world where the director is not the club owner, that the owner shouldn't be involved. Definitely raise your concerns about players (especially players who you believe are driving others out of the game) to the owner(s) and ask their advice on what to do. Definitely report if there was a situation where you chose to apply a PP or a DP for behaviour - if for no other reason than so they're not surprised by the complaint that comes in (and, of course, to get your side of the story in first!) But it's *your game*, you're the director, you're ultimately responsible for how the game is known - and if the club owner requires you to run a game that you are not comfortable being known for, you're ultimately responsible to yourself for whether you choose to continue working for that owner.

I'm also not suggesting that you be a martinet and crack down immediately and "to the full extent of the Law" to anything, especially anything that even mildly impinges on your sacred honour. The many many discussions between me and blackshoe (whose time in the Navy colours his outlook) should be proof of that. But my comment to hrothgar also applies: "You don't have to respect me; 'who's the bastard in the black' and all that. But [the Laws] say that you will *treat me* with respect at the table, or you will pay for it."

I love your comment to hrothgar
And agree with your position about obedience to the club, although in my case it has less power and the members (even me) not the President are the owner.

mycroft, on 2025-October-30, 10:10, said:

And all of those situations - and all of the decisions you make when these situations happen - are "public relations". As is how you act when you come to the table. How you act when you sell the game. How you report the results of the game. How you ask people if they could please sit E-W today to balance the field (or move to this other table for whatever reason, or take the first round sitout for whatever reason). How you handle calls with your partner, or the person you're going home with for that matter. If you have to play, how you handle calls while you're declaring. If you have to play as "last spare", how you partner up the other players, and how you treat the person that's left. How, and how much, you explain your L16 ruling to the players (different players differently, right?) Even (as I used to say at the Martinique) "it doesn't matter how smoothly and correctly the game runs, how correct and complete and understandable my rulings are, or anything else. If the coffee isn't ready by the time the first player shows up, I'm a bad director."

If you set the bar for "public relations" that low, then I agree of course.
I thought you were saying something else.

[mycroft]

The ruling you give is technical.

How you give the ruling (should) depends on the players; the same way a manager has to carefully explain that their cashier did nothing wrong, did what they were trained to do, and will not be punished for it, in a way that *sounds like* the customer's views have been heard.

Have you never been somewhere where your first reaction is "they don't care about me?" or even "I'm just a bother, why did I come here?" because of your initial interaction with the staff? Yeah, here, you're the staff, and it can happen here just as fast. And it lasts just as long.

Even knowing about the "Just Jill"s, and which Jacks are going to be a problem, which just don't want to deal with her, and which you can connive to be their first round opponents "and get it over with" is public relations. It gets even harder when there are multiple cross-linked animosities, of course.

Yes, it's "all" small stuff. But it all adds up, and as any retail training will tell you, "one bad instance will be remembered over 10 good ones". Maybe it's easier for me to see this as "public relations" than most because, as I said earlier, I had to learn all of this, it wasn't just acquired by immersion in society.

And yes, there are public relations patterns I am horrible at - recruiting, calling people outside the game to "glad to have seen you Tuesday, we've missed you. Coming next week?", and the like. Which is why I'd rather be a director that works for a club rather than a club owner - they bring the players in, and my job is to keep them there. By running a good, fair game, sure - but also all the other stuff.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the comments, your experience and wisdom is appreciated.
I'll report back if anything changes.