[Tcyk]

I am a certified ACBL director but have not directed a game in over 25 years.

I remember some of the agony directing can cause and the difficulty in interpreting the rules at times. For example, the auction goes:
1D P 1S P
2S P P (after a long pause) and a final P
After the hand is played (making 2), the final passer calls for the director and wants an adjusted score. It seems the 1S bidder had a minimum hand and absolutely no reason to hesitate before passing. The 1S bidder was a novice and the caller was a very strong young female bridge player whose nickname was Little Dynamite. She claimed that she would have balanced if he had passed in tempo. I wanted to go home. I did not adjust the score. I have probably been hated ever since.

Yes, she was injured by the hesitation. After the hands were seen, balancing was a good proposition but very risky with so little information about the hands during the bidding. I didn't want to discourage the novice from continuing to play duplicate bridge. A director call can be unnerving to many people. He didn't even understand why she called. I explained that it was akin to fingering 2 or 3 cards before playing a singleton but not as obvious. The hesitation implied a stronger hand that was considering inviting game. I hope Dr Gene is still playing bridge today.

[Hanoi5]

Errrrrm, and the question is?

I'm not sure about letting mistakes slip on beginners. But I still think dynamite should have balanced if she had the hand for it, so I wouldn't have adjusted either. Sometimes some players use this kind of situation to their advantage (if I didn't need to balance, excellent but if I needed to balance then I'll call the Director).

[Blofeld]

In my experience, beginners think for quite a while about everything (and this is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do). Sounds like the pass was in tempo for a player of that level. Result should stand.

If the player calling the director didn't know the hesitator was a novice, then I'd sympathise and agree they'd been unlucky. If they did know, I don't think I'd have any sympathy.

[hotShot]

I think it is a clear case of 1) from these 2 possible scenarios:

1) A beginner does not know what to do and accidentally creates an UI.
Oppy are allowed to uses that UI on their own risk.
=> score stands. The player should be informed politely to keep a constant tempo, because uncalled hesitations of experienced players could be understood as intentional misleading opps.

2) A player intentionally hesitates to keep his LHO from balancing.
=> This is cheating, and the player should be punished.
(This is very hard to prove!)

[ArtK78]

You have to give beginners some leeway. Unless this player is known to try to intentionally mislead opponents by mannerisms (hardly likely at this level of player), the result must stand. I would talk to the player who hesitated and explain what the problem was so that it wouldn't happen again.

And I would also talk to Ms. Dynamite and explain to her that it was totally inappropriate for her to call the director to try to take advantage of a beginning player. It is precisely this type of behavior that drives beginning players away from the game. I am sure that Ms. Dynamite will receive far more good scores than bad scores from the beginning players if she does not drive them away.

[Blofeld]

ArtK78, on Nov 20 2007, 10:48 AM, said:

I would talk to the player who hesitated and explain what the problem was so that it wouldn't happen again.

I think this is misguided, because I don't think there's a problem. People who are just learning to play are trying to hold a lot in their minds at once. While it would be obvious to us that the hand should never do anything but pass, it's reasonable that a beginner might take some time to work this out. Perhaps their train of thought might go something like: "Oh no! It's my turn to bid again! OK, what have I shown? At least 4 spades and at least 6 points, I think. What does partner's 2♠ bid mean? Is it forcing? No ... I don't think it can be forcing. I've only got 4 spades, and 3 ... 5 ... 7 points, so that's about what I've shown, isn't it? So perhaps I can pass?"

So I will claim again: for a beginner, there doesn't seem to have been a break in tempo.

[inquiry]

hotShot, on Nov 20 2007, 09:07 AM, said:

I think it is a clear case of 1) from these 2 possible scenarios:

1) A beginner does not know what to do and accidentally creates an UI.
Oppy are allowed to uses that UI on their own risk.
=> score stands. The player should be informed politely to keep a constant tempo, because uncalled hesitations of experienced players could be understood as intentional misleading opps.

2) A player intentionally hesitates to keep his LHO from balancing.
=> This is cheating, and the player should be punished.
(This is very hard to prove!)

Agree with hotshot. First time occurance, score stands, move on.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on Nov 20 2007, 10:48 AM, said:

And I would also talk to Ms. Dynamite and explain to her that it was totally inappropriate for her to call the director to try to take advantage of a beginning player.

You seem pretty certain that's what she did. I'm not. Not at all. I think she called the director because she felt there had been an infraction of law and that her side had been damaged thereby. I think she was mistaken, but I do not think she was trying to take advantage of a beginner.

There is, unfortunately, a presumption amongst beginners (and even some more advanced players!) that a director call is an accusation. This erroneous presumption can be exacerbated by the attitude of the opponents and sometimes, regrettably, the attitude of the director.

Players think that "in tempo" means "in my usual tempo". It doesn't, of course. I agree that "in tempo" for beginners is generally speaking a longer period than for advanced players. Folks need to recognize that.

Table ruling: an opponent takes inferences from a player's tempo at his own risk, unless there is evidence of intent to deceive or the player could have known that a tempo break might deceive the opponent. Here there was no such evidence, so no infraction has occurred. Result stands, please play on.

If necessary I will read Laws 73D1, 73D2 and 73F2 to the table.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Nov 20 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

Table ruling: an opponent takes inferences from a player's tempo at his own risk, unless there is evidence of intent to deceive or the player could have known that a tempo break might deceive the opponent. Here there was no such evidence, so no infraction has occurred. Result stands, please play on.

If necessary I will read Laws 73D1, 73D2 and 73F2 to the table.

Agreed. First time, beginners, doesn't matter. As long as the person wasn't deliberately trying to fool the opponents, they can do anything they want to. If there's UI passed, nobody cares, because the next thing her partner's doing is spreading their hand.

I also really dislike people declaring that they would have done something different had their been no hesitation after they've seen what their partner had. A hesitation by the opponents does not give you the opportunity to bid double-dummy.

[jonottawa]

Hanoi is mistaken that dynamite should have balanced anyway. In a borderline case it is 100% normal to draw an inference here that the opp is showing extras and pass.

Blofeld is wrong when he repeatedly assumes that the call was in tempo without any evidence to support his assumption. The original post says that there was a LONG pause. He's also wrong when he says that there isn't a problem. This is a BIG problem and needs to be nipped in the bud.

Hotshot I mostly agree with.

Art's suggestion that little dynamite deserves a lecture is completely off the mark. Her behavior was totally appropriate. Now, if she had a hand that no reasonable person would consider balancing with and did that, that would be a different story. But the premise is that she had a borderline decision.

Other suggestions about disliking people, nobody caring, doing anything you want to and double-dummy bidding are misguided.

Tcyk, it sounds like you handled the situation reasonably well. Better I'd say, than most of the people offering suggestions would have. You've illustrated well why novices need to be taught about ethics. At a tournament, an adjusted score would definitely be in order. At a club game, for a first offense, hard to fault what you did. I'd have probably given little dynamite an average plus and let the novice's score stand.

[Trumpace]

jonottawa,

Didn't Ms Dynamite call the Director and demand an adjustment of score? How is that appropriate? Calling the director is fine, I agree. Once the director is there, state the facts and let him/her decide what needs to be done. Trying to force a decision onto the director (like demanding an adjustment of score) deserves the same lecture in ethics which beginners and novices deserve.

(But, I am a novice in such matters, so I might be totally off-base)

[ArtK78]

An adjusted score would certainly NOT be in order at a tournament.

A player is certainly allowed to think about a bid as long as he or she wishes to do so. The opponent is entitled to take into account the opponent's hesitation at his or her own risk. Unless the hesitation was intended to deceive the opponent, there is no grounds whatsoever for an adjusted score.

Experienced players should not use the "rules of the game" (or at least their interpretation of the rules of the game) to try to gain an advantage. As I understand the original post, Ms. Dynamite is an experienced player, or at least one who believes that she is an experienced player. Calling the director for an adjusted score under these circumstances is not appropriate.

Yes, any player who thinks that he or she is damaged is entitled to call for the director. But one must take into account all of the facts and circumstances. Calling the director because a novice does what a novice will do will be perceived negatively, and it should be avoided whenever possible.

[jonottawa]

Art's objection was to the director call itself, not to what she said when he got there. If she was abusive/rude to the director, that's a whole 'nother issue.

Asking for an adjusted score isn't necessarily inappropriate. It depends how it's done. "I was going to balance. He tanked for 45 seconds and passed with a 6 count. I'd like an adjusted score. Thank-you." in a calm and friendly voice would be fine.

Anyway, I've weighed in. Y'all can agree or disagree (I anticipate more of the latter than of the former somehow.)

[blackshoe]

jonottawa, on Nov 20 2007, 07:48 PM, said:

I'd have probably given little dynamite an average plus and let the novice's score stand.

Not if you wish to rule in accordance with the laws of the game.

[blackshoe]

Trumpace, on Nov 20 2007, 08:06 PM, said:

Didn't Ms Dynamite call the Director and demand an adjustment of score?

Original Poster said:

the final passer calls for the director and wants an adjusted score.

Doesn't sound like a demand to me. Players express their opinions as to what a ruling should be all the time. After all, they're bridge players, and bridge players are mostly type A personalities. Unless they get insistent or discourteous I find it's best to handle this by saying something let "let me make the ruling, please" and otherwise ignoring it.

If they do get insistent or discourteous then yes, they deserve to hear about it. If I'm the director, they will.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on Nov 20 2007, 08:09 PM, said:

An adjusted score would certainly NOT be in order at a tournament.

A player is certainly allowed to think about a bid as long as he or she wishes to do so.  The opponent is entitled to take into account the opponent's hesitation at his or her own risk.  Unless the hesitation was intended to deceive the opponent, there is no grounds whatsoever for an adjusted score.

Experienced players should not use the "rules of the game" (or at least their interpretation of the rules of the game) to try to gain an advantage.  As I understand the original post, Ms. Dynamite is an experienced player, or at least one who believes that she is an experienced player.  Calling the director for an adjusted score under these circumstances is not appropriate.

Yes, any player who thinks that he or she is damaged is entitled to call for the director.  But one must take into account all of the facts and circumstances.  Calling the director because a novice does what a novice will do will be perceived negatively, and it should be avoided whenever possible.

Well, there are limits. People would like to play the next round reasonably soon.

The fact that a more experienced player calls the director when a less experienced player commits an irregularity is not evidence that the former is trying to gain an advantage through the laws over the latter. Calling the director in such a case is not inappropriate.

We don't teach beginners the rules - at least not more than "4 hands of 13 cards, dealer opens the bidding, after everybody passes, 13 tricks, you have to follow suit". How the Hell else are they going to learn them?

I suppose one can go through life not doing what one is permitted to do because one fears what the neighbors will think, but it seems a poor way to proceed, to me.

[MFA]

ArtK78, on Nov 20 2007, 08:09 PM, said:

A player is certainly allowed to think about a bid as long as he or she wishes to do so.  The opponent is entitled to take into account the opponent's hesitation at his or her own risk.  Unless the hesitation was intended to deceive the opponent, there is no grounds whatsoever for an adjusted score.

I don't quite agree with this.

The score should also be adjusted, when you have no "bridge reason" to think, and you ought to have known that a pause from you at this point could harm the opponent(s).

There are no requirements of intent to deceive.
Thus, when TD makes such an adjustments, it's not at all (necessarily) an accusation of cheating. Just a statement that you weren't as careful with your tempo as you should have been here in order to protect your opponents.

In other words, there's an addition to hotshot's list.
3. He was not careful enough with his tempo in a no-problem situation and ought to have known about a possible damage, but no cheating was intended, it was just sloppiness.
=> score's adjusted peacefully by the TD.

[kenrexford]

I don't know who the players are, so I cannot judge the case adequately, but I did want to add something to the discussion.

My wife would likely tank at this point. She would have realized that I was again declaring the hand. Of course, she would be wrong, but she'd still think I was declarer until I told her. Having decided that she was going to be dummy, she would be thinking about some sale at Kohl's starting at 9:00 AM tomorrow, waiting for the lead. Then, when the lead did not come, she would realize that she had not passed yet and that, therefore, maybe she should pass.

So, when in doubt, consider that the newer player is playing checkers, not chess like many of us, and that their attention span is different.

[MomoTheDog]

It is players like this who discourage newcomers from the game. The result should definitely 100% stand.