[zasanya]

I have played many tournaments and I have officiated as TD in only 1 tournament and that too because regular TDs were participating in the event and I was the only acceptable person.
I noticed something strange which corroborates the views expressed by McBruce.
I always had excellent equations with all -repeat -all players participating, but that changed when I was officiating and even my best friends were hostile to begin with and became more so when I tried to put some discipline into the procedings.Some of them even went out of their way to irritate me in manners similar to what luis did.(No offense meant luis)
I was very disturbed and shared these thoughts with one of my friends who is one of our most respected TDs and he responded ,"Do you remeber last month's Indian Gymkhana Open? I gave a ruling on your table which you didnt like and you called me thrice afterwards for absolutely trivial reasons."
This leads me to think that
1)All players consider TDs as hostile.
2)They go out of their way to create mountains out of molehills for nothing just to spite the TD especially if she has made a decision which they disagree with.
I have resolved that henceforth I will go out of my way to help the TD whether I like his decisions or not.
I further suggest that all players should officiate as TD at least once.

[luke warm]

McBruce, on Sep 23 2005, 10:06 PM, said:

I think you need to reread this thread before criticizing my comments blind.  It's possible he made a lighthearted joke out of it, but it didn't read like one.  His comment violated L74A1, L74A2, L74B2, L74B5, L74C4, and probably (since he indicated he would open something other than 1♣ if that was disallowed) another half dozen Laws concerning unauthorized information.

first of all, i know it wasn't *you* who made the original ruling, but you did state what you'd do if you *had* made it and if luis then made the statement he made... that's a hypothetical, and i just continued it... it wasn't "blind" at all... 2nd of all, if you were that TD, continuing the hypothetical, and you made the statements luis reported ("i don't know where it is but i'm sure it's against the rules") you *should* be called to task

i realize that many TDs are volunteers, but volunteering to do something doesn't relieve the volunteer from doing it correctly... the TD should have said "play on, i'll find out and get back to you" instead of making the ridiculous ruling he made

Quote

The wrong way is to humiliate the TD into realizing the ruling was wrong.  I do not believe Luis was 'simply seeking to conform to a verbatim statement.'  His question was rhetorical--he was trying to show up the TD. 

maybe he was, i don't know... you'd agree that to think so would be subjective, i'm sure... as for humiliating the TD, bullshit... the TD humiliated *luis* by in effect leaving open the possibility that he and his partner were cheating... that's what pisses me off the most, and you worry about humiliating the poor TD...

Quote

"OK, we've heard what happened.  So what score adjustment are you seeking?"

"None."

"None?  Get out your wallet."

i admit i'm no expert on AC actions, but is an appeal considered to be without merit if there is no score adjustment due? if that's the only criteria, i agree it would be silly to appeal... but there should be some redress available

[mikestar]

luke warm, on Sep 24 2005, 03:17 PM, said:

McBruce, on Sep 23 2005, 10:06 PM, said:

I think you need to reread this thread before criticizing my comments blind.  It's possible he made a lighthearted joke out of it, but it didn't read like one.  His comment violated L74A1, L74A2, L74B2, L74B5, L74C4, and probably (since he indicated he would open something other than 1♣ if that was disallowed) another half dozen Laws concerning unauthorized information.

first of all, i know it wasn't *you* who made the original ruling, but you did state what you'd do if you *had* made it and if luis then made the statement he made... that's a hypothetical, and i just continued it... it wasn't "blind" at all... 2nd of all, if you were that TD, continuing the hypothetical, and you made the statements luis reported ("i don't know where it is but i'm sure it's against the rules") you *should* be called to task

i realize that many TDs are volunteers, but volunteering to do something doesn't relieve the volunteer from doing it correctly... the TD should have said "play on, i'll find out and get back to you" instead of making the ridiculous ruling he made

Quote

The wrong way is to humiliate the TD into realizing the ruling was wrong.  I do not believe Luis was 'simply seeking to conform to a verbatim statement.'  His question was rhetorical--he was trying to show up the TD. 

maybe he was, i don't know... you'd agree that to think so would be subjective, i'm sure... as for humiliating the TD, bullshit... the TD humiliated *luis* by in effect leaving open the possibility that he and his partner were cheating... that's what pisses me off the most, and you worry about humiliating the poor TD...

Quote

"OK, we've heard what happened.  So what score adjustment are you seeking?"

"None."

"None?  Get out your wallet."

i admit i'm no expert on AC actions, but is an appeal considered to be without merit if there is no score adjustment due? if that's the only criteria, i agree it would be silly to appeal... but there should be some redress available

An appeals commitee has no power to overrule a director on a point of law, however it may suggest that the director chnage his ruling.

Appealing a ruling on law that resulted in no score damage is frivolous; if damage occured because director missapplied the law, this is not frivolous--while the AC cannot overturn, its suggestion might induce the director to change his decision and a player can ask for this relief.

An AC is the wrong venue for an appeal on a pure point of law. The case should be submitted to the Sponsoring Organization's appropriate department.

[McBruce]

mikestar: first of all, i know it wasn't *you* who made the original ruling, but you did state what you'd do if you *had* made it and if luis then made the statement he made... that's a hypothetical, and i just continued it... it wasn't "blind" at all... 2nd of all, if you were that TD, continuing the hypothetical, and you made the statements luis reported ("i don't know where it is but i'm sure it's against the rules") you *should* be called to task


TDs--some more than others--make faulty rulings. Virtually all of them are correctable and there are proper ways to go about doing so which do not include facetious and sarcastic public statements. The point I am trying to make is that the faulty ruling does not condone the sarcasm--one does not excuse the other, ever. It's the same principle as the one I make at the start of every online individual I run: a poor bid or play by your partner resulting in a bad score does not give you the 'right' to get even with hurtful comments. A lot of bridge players would be better off learning and following this principle than learning a new convention.

maybe he [Luis] was [trying to show up the TD], i don't know... you'd agree that to think so would be subjective, i'm sure... as for humiliating the TD, bullshit... the TD humiliated *luis* by in effect leaving open the possibility that he and his partner were cheating... that's what pisses me off the most, and you worry about humiliating the poor TD...

Of course the TD didn't handle this very well. Neither did Luis. He had many other options available--discussion later, a polite request to find the Law before continuing, a request for the TD to review his ruling as play continued, anything civil like that probably would have gotten the result wanted.

I don't believe that he took the statement 'play bidding cards as the other players do' and seriously interpreted that as a bizarre prohibition from opening 1♣. You are excusing his actions to an extreme extent if you believe his comments could be interpreted 'subjectively' as innocent. Once again, you need to reread. Go back to the first post and you will find that there was no mention of possible cheating made. The opponent who called simply said that he thought playing the cards that way was against the rules. Nobody accused anyone of cheating; nobody implied it. If Luis thought there was an implication of cheating, he should have said so at the time.

As for the Law that nobody can find, it is not exactly hidden:

LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE

A. Proper Attitude

[...]

3. Conformity to Correct Procedure

Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.


It's a bit of a stretch--but not totally contrary to Law--to decide that the word 'uniform' means no deviation from the normal manner of making bid-box calls; thus, no plucking. Maybe the Laws or the SO regs need some clarification here to allow players to use one method for screens and another for non-screens.

[guggie]

Oops I must confess that when I see someone taking one card out of the bidding box I assume it is a beginner

I greatly would miss the almost erotic (oops, am I allowed, Ben?) feeling of taking the whole pack. Hmmm.
Taking just the 7NT card would by far not give me the same thrill.

By the way, i like a neat row of bidding cards, so during the thinking process, I continually rearange the cards to make them on a row, and equidistant and so on and so on. Could easily be cheating, because I do it only when I really am concentrating.

[inquiry]

McBruce, on Sep 24 2005, 08:26 PM, said:

LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE

A. Proper Attitude

[...]

3. Conformity to Correct Procedure

Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.

I will agree that luis's 1♣ comment was made to make a point that didn't need making (no doubt he meant this to show the sillyness of the directors incorrect ruling, but it hardly could have helped him in the long run).

But the law you quote does not make the plaly wrong. Let's deal with it by parsing it...

"Every player should follow uniform .... procedure in calling "

There was never any question that Luis's partner was not following a uniform method by "plucking" a card from the box. Apparently he always does this with boxes, which makes it VERY UNIFORM. I think your defination of uniform is what everyone else does, but that does not conform to my readng of this sentence,

Then...

"Every player should follow ,,,, correct procedure in calling"

Here perhpas "correct" in your mind is pulling the stack of cards out. This is how I do it, I pull the stack out. I have seen many players "pluck cards". I prefer not to pluck as it is easier to return the stack to the box rather than one, but I have never objected about the pluckers. And as I quoted earlier, the word "the card" or "a wrong card". In fact, nowhere have I been able to find a law that expressedly states you have to take a bunch of cards out of the box. And in reality a lot of players, even at the top level of the game, remove just one for each bid. This is a non-issue, the director was wrong on the law ("somewhere the rules say so").. if the director is going to make such a ruling he should quote chapter and verse. He disadvantaged luis and his partner by distracting them, and forcing them to think about the silly ruling rather than concentrate on the game. How much energy did luis spend thinking up his 1♣ retort for instance? How long did this affect their game?

[barmar]

guggie, on Sep 26 2005, 05:33 AM, said:

Oops I must confess that when I see someone taking one card out of the bidding box I assume it is a beginner

You should notice how deftly they do it. The experienced players who use this technique pluck them easily, rather than fumbling through the deck. And even more telling is how they put them back -- experts at the one-card technique are able to slip them all back into place quickly.

I admit that I find the practice a little unnerving, but I'm generally impressed with the players who are able to do it so easily. The way they do it, it almost seems like bidding boxes were designed to be used this way.

But I don't know how they live without the impressive *thump* when they jump straight to a slam by pulling out almost the entire pack and drop it on the table