[mycroft]

...Which, of course, makes it worse when someone does "call the cops" on the novices. Because they never learn that nobody's impugning anything, it's just that a referee is needed to review what's going on.

And, of course, some "experts" say "I could call the TD on that, but I won't" and think they're being gracious, when in fact it's both intimidating (again, implying "calling the TD is saying 'you're bad'") and frequently inaccurate (yeah, he could call the TD, but the TD is going to say "well, actually, that isn't the Law" or "yep, you shouldn't do that, and this is why, but there was no damage, so score stands"). Some "experts" say "I could call the TD on that, but I won't" as an intimidation tool (yes, I know some "experts" also call the TD as an intimidation tool. I don't approve of that, either. There's a right way and a wrong way to call the TD, and if we could stamp out the "call the cops" image from everybody, including the "experts", things would work better).

I like it in the "yeah, we all know the rules, nobody's going to raise a fuss about this, let's just keep going" mode - but I *definitely* wouldn't do it with novices - only with players with sufficient knowledge of both Bridge and the Laws.

I try to teach my newer players that TD calls are part of the game, and should be treated as such. And the proper response to "I could call the TD for that" is "Director, please!" One of four things should happen:

- There actually is a problem, and they learn something about how the game is supposed to be played. They learn it from, and can ask for more information later, someone with no irons in the fire, and who is least likely to raise hackles.
- There actually is a problem, but the opponent really doesn't want the penalty to be applied. TDs are usually pretty good about realizing "I want to waive the penalty" even when they don't know they have that option, and offering it to them.
- The opponent doesn't actually know the laws as well as they think they do, or they're remembering an old wives' tale that either never was true (if partner hesitates, you have to pass), is only true in rubber bridge (you can play on after a claim), or was true thirty years ago, but was removed or changed in the current Laws or Alert regulation (you do know that in the ACBL, negative doubles of interference to 1NT is no longer Alertable since 2002, right? Lots of people don't...) In this case, calling the TD stops said old wives' tales getting passed on, and potentially blowing up in the novices' faces later.
- The opponents are either playing intimidation tactics, or don't realize it is intimidating; making it clear that it's not going to play *right away* tends to shut it down.

Michael (who really needs to get some time out of his real life to read through the new Laws).

[blackshoe]

The change from "must" to "should" in Law 9B1 is at least partly my fault. Several years ago, I brought attention to "must" in the current laws, and pointed out that this meant a PP should be issued "more often than not". Grattan Endicott brought this formally to the attention of the WBFLC (it's in the minutes of one of their meetings) where the comment was made that this may not have been intended. The question was turned over to the Drafting Subcommittee, and the rest is history.

"Be nice to novices" is all very well, but a player telling a novice to pick up his misplayed card and continue, or making any other ruling at the table is still in violation of the laws.