[kenrexford]

Three times calling the TD. Never anything but "Result Stands."

Here's the third.

1NT to my right. I doubled, and LHO bid 2♥, meant as "to play." RHO announced "Transfer."

LHO huffed and sat back in her chair, arms folded, shaking her head. RHO then changed his mind and said that 2♥ was natural. I called.

The opponents agreed about these facts (!!!). So, what happened next?

RHO bid 2♠, because he was forced to believe that 2♥ was a transfer.

LHO, forced to believe that 2♠ was somehow in support of hearts, introduced her clubs (55 pattern).

RHO, with four spades in hand, bid 3NT. LHO, of course, passed.

The TD had left when RHO bid 2♠, claiming that all was fine now. This, of course, was absurd. So, I called for the TD once again.

The TD had some trouble understanding why Opener would not be allowed to bid 3NT, with almost no stoppers in the red suits, a 5-5 partner, an undeclared spade fit, and a fourth spade at that. So, she ran off to discuss the hand with the other brain-children who ruled on the other two I lost.

The ruling was that the result of 3NT down one stood because 5♣ made.

This, of course, seemed absurd. Had Opener bid 4♠, LHO, who is not limited, would be allowded to bid 5♣, they claimed, with 55 pattern. The mystery would be resolved, as 4♠ cannot be right, even if Opener super-accepted the natural call and accepted the 3♣ game try.

However, why would Opener pass 5♣? His partner transferred into his four-card suit, made a forcing 3♣ call, and made a slam try 5♣ call?

I wonder, after these three rulings, a few things once a-painful-gain.

1. Shouldn't TD's be required to learn how to play bridge. Maybe they should require successful completion of an "Easy Bridge" course.

2. Are TD's simply there for the purpose of hearing a complaint and offering condolences? If so, why not at least offer the damned condolences?

3. It annoys me that I get to have a cigarette after sex, but the damned time clock keeps me from my cigarette after the TD F's me.

4. Some folks have no clue about active ethics. Instead, what they learn is how some folks are just rude. Thank God that TD's are there to beat down those rude players, they think.

[matmat]

heh
well
you know
you got f@#@d
maybe not all 3 times (maybe yes, all three times)
but you got f@##@$d
no appeals committee i take it?

i don't know much about the laws of the game unfortunately, i just try not to cheat.

it does seem to me like there was something amiss here.

either the pair plays transfers after the X or they do not.
if they do, then i think RHO is forced to complete the transfer (2s or 3s) and pretend that their p has 5 spades for any further actions

if they do not, then I am not sure what's supposed to happen. i guess lho is supposed to ignore the rho false alert, take 2s as a cue for hearts and should bid 4h over 3nt

i dunno... just guessin. there are some rather well qualified posters around here that I am sure will make things clear.

[bid_em_up]

If you spent less time screwing around calling the director, you would have more time to smoke your cig after the opps finished fkng themselves with their poor bidding.

(I'm assuming this was a club game)

[paulg]

I'd appeal this ruling too.

[Mbodell]

Did you find out what were the right methods for the pair?

What was your dbl? I'm not sure that 5♣ should be a slam try after a strong dbl of 1NT. Of course if the 2♥ was a transfer and partner kept bidding spades it would be odd to correct 4♠ to 5♣ and have any sensible meaning to the bid. Maybe that would be a my partner had his clubs mixed into a "spades" and a "club" suit type bid? Maybe it is a slam try with a void assuming the dbl was based on a running suit in the void?

I think your LHO bid fine given the situation. I think the 3NT bid by RHO is clearly wrong. If they had bid 3♠ or 4♠ over the 3♣ I think LHO could have bid ♣ again b/c if ♥ are natural since you should have a minimum 8 card fit in one of ♣ and ♥. And then what RHO would take that as is anyone's guess as no meaning makes sense to me w/ the dbl being there. Did you have a likely double of 6♣? Because if 5♣ makes and 6♣ is only down 1 then 3NT down one might be reasonable if your side couldn't double 6♣.

Isn't the LHO behavior (not the bidding but the huff and the head shaking and the communication of "no partner, you have misunderstood my bid") definitely deserving of a PP, though?

[matmat]

Mbodell, on Sep 30 2007, 10:12 AM, said:

Isn't the LHO behavior (not the bidding but the huff and the head shaking and the communication of "no partner, you have misunderstood my bid") definitely deserving of a PP, though?

seems ZT penalties are only enforced against players that TDs don't like, or, ones that "should know better"

[skjaeran]

matmat, on Sep 30 2007, 05:18 PM, said:

Mbodell, on Sep 30 2007, 10:12 AM, said:

Isn't the LHO behavior (not the bidding but the huff and the head shaking and the communication of "no partner, you have misunderstood my bid") definitely deserving of a PP, though?

seems ZT penalties are only enforced against players that TDs don't like, or, ones that "should know better"

Well, in this case anyone should know better..... by far.

[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Sep 30 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

1. Shouldn't TD's be required to learn how to play bridge.  Maybe they should require successful completion of an "Easy Bridge" course.

All TD's know at least the rudimentary of playing bridge. Very few play on a high level. If they did, they'd much prefer playing over TDing. I can tell you this for sure, being both a skilled TD and a reasonably strong player.

Quote

2. Are TD's simply there for the purpose of hearing a complaint and offering condolences?  If so, why not at least offer the damned condolences?

The TD's most important job is to keep the tournament going. That means making sure the boards are in place, keeping time, announcing new rounds and so forth. Secondary (s)he makes rulings. Most of these are purely technical (leads out of turn, revokes, insufficient bids etc.). These are very easy. Then there's the more difficult part, ruling in cases where yoy have to apply bridge judgement. There you should, if needed, ask players of the actual strenght for advice. And after that you've got the appeals committee.

Quote

3. It annoys me that I get to have a cigarette after sex, but the damned time clock keeps me from my cigarette after the TD F's me.

I'd advice you to stop smoking if that's a major problem.

Quote

4. Some folks have no clue about active ethics.  Instead, what they learn is how some folks are just rude.  Thank God that TD's are there to beat down those rude players, they think.

Yeah, that might be a problem. At least if you're playing at a low level or in a wide range field. Some/many of the more inexperienced players don't know zilch in this area.

[kenrexford]

bid_em_up, on Sep 30 2007, 09:01 AM, said:

If you spent less time screwing around calling the director, you would have more time to smoke your cig after the opps finished fkng themselves with their poor bidding.

(I'm assuming this was a club game)

No. Open Stratified at a Regional.

[awm]

This is the only one of the three rulings that seems actually incorrect. I suspect that the director's decision was meant to be of the form "you are already getting a top (or close to top) by defending 3NT, so I don't see any reason to adjust further." While this is not a correct ruling according to the laws, a lot of directors like to save themselves work by refusing to rule on boards where the table result is already very favorable to the non-offending side. After all, figuring out exactly where the opponents are likely to land if bidding ethically (and the measure of "likely" is different for the two sides) is potentially difficult for the director. Generally appealing such a ruling will get it adjusted, but usually directors do this because the non-offending side has little incentive to appeal when they've already got a top result.

[han]

Agree with the appeal.

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Sep 30 2007, 01:33 PM, said:

This is the only one of the three rulings that seems actually incorrect. I suspect that the director's decision was meant to be of the form "you are already getting a top (or close to top) by defending 3NT, so I don't see any reason to adjust further."

(...)

Generally appealing such a ruling will get it adjusted, but usually directors do this because the non-offending side has little incentive to appeal when they've already got a top result.

And what's wrong with that, exactly?

I'm not going to poll a dozen people in the middle of a strat game and hold everybody up for what appears to be a top board. I don't know if 5♣ is reasonable or not, but it might be. You're really not going to lose any time with me saying "Tell you what, no adjustment for now, but if you don't like your result we'll get an AC together and try to straighten this out", and hey, you'll get your cigarette. I know, I can't say this, and I never actually have, but hands like these I wish I could. Even if I was a great bridge player, I have to look through all the possible auctions, and then all the possible likely ways to play the hand if I was as bad a player as the four jokers who actually played it, and...that's really time consuming for a board that's already a top.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Oct 1 2007, 01:44 AM, said:

awm, on Sep 30 2007, 01:33 PM, said:

Generally appealing such a ruling will get it adjusted, but usually directors do this because the non-offending side has little incentive to appeal when they've already got a top result.

And what's wrong with that, exactly?

I'm not going to poll a dozen people in the middle of a strat game and hold everybody up for what appears to be a top board. I don't know if 5♣ is reasonable or not, but it might be. You're really not going to lose any time with me saying "Tell you what, no adjustment for now, but if you don't like your result we'll get an AC together and try to straighten this out", and hey, you'll get your cigarette. I know, I can't say this, and I never actually have, but hands like these I wish I could. Even if I was a great bridge player, I have to look through all the possible auctions, and then all the possible likely ways to play the hand if I was as bad a player as the four jokers who actually played it, and...that's really time consuming for a board that's already a top.

WBF Code of Practice said:

Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction.

Law 40C said:

If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score.

Law 21 has similar "declarer may" statements when the NOS are damaged.

"May" has two meaniings that might be applicable here. One is "may or may not, it's up to the TD". The other is "is permitted (by this law) to". The parenthesis is mine.

Law 12A said:

The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do so, or...

I think it's clear that "may" here means "is permitted to" - and by implication from "when these Laws empower him to do so" that's the meaning of "may" in other relevant laws, too. The antithesis of "may" here is then "may not" or "is not permitted to".

Scope of the Laws said:

The Laws are primarily designed ... as redress for damage.

Law 81B2 said:

The Director is bound by these Laws ...

The CoP addresses the table result - not the matchpoint score for that result. So it seems the laws and the CoP obligate the TD to address the question whether the NOS might have achieved a better table result, not withstanding that (a) it's a pain in the ass for the TD and ( they get a top either way.

One could argue, I suppose, that even "is permitted to" does not require the TD to adjust the score - but does it remove the obligation to fully examine whether a score adjustment should be done?

One could argue that they're getting a top anyway, so going through the "should I adjust the score" procedure is just wasted motion - and if the CoP said "final score" instead of "table result", I'd agree. But it doesn't say that.

What if "appears to be a top" later turns out not to be the case?

One could argue that the TD must be practical - and it's not practical to "waste" time on these rulings. Personally, I don't think much of that argument. I'd much rather act professionally, and make correct and complete rulings whenever possible.

[jmc]

I often feel there is a bias against younger players (anyone under 50?) by tournament directors. I feel like many have lots of attitude and act like its my fault they were called. Maybe we should rename the directors and call them referees. Maybe that would change the attitude a bit.

At a recent regional I overcalled in the following auction:

1D <pass> 1S <2S by me> opponent pulled out the stop card and bid...3D. Her partner bid 3NT on a 7 count. I called the director at the conclusion of the auction and, before I lead, mentioned the non-jump stop. The player stated that she missed my bid and intended to jump in D. The 3NT made and I called the Dir back as I had a problem with the result. I think pass was reasonable by my RHO.

Director comes back and admonishes me that my 2S MUST be aletered if its natural. This is stated while the finger is wagging at me and a very stern voice is used. I explained that I did not believe that it was alertable and quite standard in my seat. She returned for the last board of the match and said," You were right about the 2S but the result stands."

Tell me again about the "professional" directors the ACBL hires and compensates.

jmc

[kenrexford]

In a manner of speaking, I have had that same result from TD's more often than not.

They get leads out of turn well, and revokes. Bids out of turn occasionally. But hesitations, UI, and the like are hopeless causes without AARP membership.

[blackshoe]

If you're saying that the ACBL's employed directors are biased against younger players, well, all I can say is I've seen no evidence of it. OTOH, I haven't see a very big percentage of that group of people, either.

I can believe they get judgement rulings wrong from time to time. I would not, however, attribute that to malice. It's more likely to be incompetence or inexperience. Or poor bridge judgement.

[jtfanclub]

jmc, on Oct 1 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

I often feel there is a bias against younger players (anyone under 50?) by tournament directors.

I haven't seen that bias. I do see a clear bias against people playing non-"standard" systems, regardless of age. When I was considering an appeal in a National event, the person asked to review the appeal said flat out that she would have been more likely to recommend a reversal had I been playing SAYC, but since I was playing Precision, we should have been "good enough" to handle the improper explanation better.

Quote

But hesitations, UI, and the like are hopeless causes without AARP membership.

Pfeh. Hesitations, UI, and the like are hopeless period. Sure, there are some obvious ones, and those the Directors tend to get right, from what I've seen (your issue with the stop card being an exception). But for the most part, if the UI doesn't clearly point to a certain bid and the result isn't unusual (or it's unusual but good for the non-offenders), the director's probably going to rule no adjustment. There's so much ***** coffeehousing that goes on at the average side game that it'd turn into adjustment wars if the director were to adjust for every UI. And apparently, that's how the general Bridge population likes it. Or the ACBL has successfully driven away most of the people who didn't like it. I dunno.

I'd like to say that you can always Appeal, but tell that to these guys:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=21180

So I'd say the unofficial rule is, if you got a good result, shut up and take it. I can see some reasoning for the Director feeling that way in an MP game, since we can wait and see if it's a top before making a ruling. Restoring equity and all that. But I can see no excuse for the Appeals Committee.

[pclayton]

jtfanclub, on Oct 2 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

jmc, on Oct 1 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

I often feel there is a bias against younger players (anyone under 50?) by tournament directors.

I haven't seen that bias. I do see a clear bias against people playing non-"standard" systems, regardless of age. When I was considering an appeal in a National event, the person asked to review the appeal said flat out that she would have been more likely to recommend a reversal had I been playing SAYC, but since I was playing Precision, we should have been "good enough" to handle the improper explanation better.

[

I tend to agree with this, although as I've become older, I've found that I have become much more personable at the table and more patience with the opponents when we are explaining our agreements. I don't have a trigger finger when it comes to calling the cops - something my peers don't quite understand.

10 years ago, when I just another young player with a cc with a pound of ink, I didn't care who I played against or who they were. As a result, I'm sure I didn't get the benefit of the doubt in certain situations.

[irdoz]

Quote

1. Shouldn't TD's be required to learn how to play bridge. Maybe they should require successful completion of an "Easy Bridge" course.

2. Are TD's simply there for the purpose of hearing a complaint and offering condolences? If so, why not at least offer the damned condolences?

1. Where I come from becoming a TD requires more playing competence than an "easy bridge" course provides.

2. Condolences are hereby offered. 'I'm so sorry for you' . In reality having directed online with a huge number of tables in timed events that arent that important, its not really directing you are doing, but facilitation - the goal unfortunatley becomes not the fairest ruling but getting people to play on as soon as possible.

Some bridge players are as useful as the worst sports parents and the best er.. umm.. defense attorneys at offering unbiased opinions on director quality. There is a problem in many sports (including bridge in some locations) with the availability and quality of referees/umpires/directors. This only increases the whining volume. But the reason why the problem exisits in the first place is often precisely because of the whining - who'd want to referree when you are subject to biased attacks and vexatious complaints without recourse to reply and the best and recommended course of action is to shrug and get people to move on?