[mr1303]

The followed occurred this evening.

I was playing in a 2H contract. My left hand opponent revoked early on in the play, but I was not aware of this until the last couple of tricks were played. At the end of the hand, I requested that the cards were not touched until whether or not a revoke had occurred had been investigated. (For factual purposes, my line was "please may I see what card was played to trick 6").

At this point, I requested a tournament director to attend the table. My right hand opponent stated that there was no need to call a director and that it could be sorted out between the players at the table (my feeling was that this was not said in a friendly manner, but this may be difficult to prove). I replied that the rules clearly state that when attention is brought to an irregularity, the director MUST be called.

The director investigated, ruled 2 tricks in my direction, and wondered off (playing TD).

Right hand opponent then proceeded to say how the situation was ridiculous, that I always call the director for no reason, and refused to play the next two boards.

I called the director over again, who ruled Ave+/Ave- for the next two boards, and the round ended.

Any thoughts on the above?

[rogerclee]

So you got a top and two avg+ boards. Nice set!

[han]

I wouldn't be upset about this.

[keylime]

Nothing wrong here. RHO was an idiot.

[JoAnneM]

The TD should have demanded that the player play the next two hands and when he refused then he should have been ejected from the game. This would not only ruin his partner's game, but would cause embarrassment as the movement is now 1/2 table short. The TD would have stood firm and would have been in charge, instead of the opponent.

The threat of this might have allowed the next two hands to be played.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Justin and Joann. "I do not permit you to refuse to play these boards. You will either play them - with a 1/4 board disciplinary penalty - or you will be suspended from play in this club for 90 days, and this will be reported to the ACBL".

[jdonn]

I agree in principle, but if you are a club owner barely making any money then you are not just going to start suspending and banning your paying customers, even if they are stupid. Quite honestly, I would probably give the pair 0% on each board they refused to play instead of Ave-. Not sure that's legal but it's what I want to do.

Obviously if this became a habit (meaning it ever happened again) there would be no choice but to suspend/ban them.

[blackshoe]

It's not legal.

I don't know why a club owner would want that kind of player in his club in the first place. And frankly, I wonder why in cases like this no one ever considers the other side of the coin - what about how this clown's opponents feel? How will the other customers of this club react? There's more than one way to lose customers in a situation like this.

Stupid? More than stupid - unless this guy is an absolute beginner he knows damn well his refusal is unacceptable.

At the point where the player initially refused to play the boards, he's just being a jerk. At the point where he refuses to follow the instructions of the director, he's toast.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Aug 5 2008, 07:01 PM, said:

I don't know why a club owner would want that kind of player in his club in the first place.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[jillybean]

jdonn, on Aug 5 2008, 05:06 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 5 2008, 07:01 PM, said:

I don't know why a club owner would want that kind of player in his club in the first place.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

How many other $customers won't come back or won't come back as often if this kind of idiot behavior is condoned.

[blackshoe]

Precisely.

[crazy4hoop]

All excellent points but I feel that if the director were to follow correct policy by suspending this player and informing ACBL, it should be done so highly publicly, so that the majority of the club's patrons would feel like they are playing not only where the rules are enforced, but also where the behavior of the revoker's partner will not be tolerated. From a monetary standpoint then, I get the feeling that the majority of the players would want to play in such an atmosphere, thus giving the club owner repeat business from most of the club's patrons (a good thing I think).

[blackshoe]

Well, once this pair are no longer in the movement, the TD will have to announce to the room that those NS pairs who have not yet played this pair will be getting a sitout. I would explain why the EW pair are leaving, i.e., that one of them has been suspended.

I'm not sure what the total effect on the scoring should be. Possibilities are, I think:

1. Don't change any movement parameters. Give the NS pairs who didn't get to play avg+ on each board.
2. Don't change any movement parameters. Give the NS pairs who didn't get to play "not played" on each board, so they get their average for the session on each such board.
3. Change to a 1/2 table movement, with a sitout. Cancel the results on the boards played by the ejected pair, for both sides.

I don't think #2 is legal. My gut feeling is that #3 is the most fair, but that at least some of the remaining players won't like it. #1 strikes me as too much a giveaway to the pairs getting Avg+.

[jdonn]

These comments about all the other poor players who will stop coming because the jerk wasn't banned for acting like an idiot one time are hard to take seriously. Every club I've ever been to had at least a jerk or two if not more, it's just part of life people deal with, they will still come play. It's not like, oh no this guy acted like an idiot and was given terrible scores and a procedural penalty, I'm never coming back to this place that treats him so kindly!

A bridge club is a business. Just imagine a restaurant who doesn't throw someone out even though he acts like an idiot, and for no reason except that he is a paying customer. Punish him through his bridge scores for a first offense. If you ban someone, you have definitely lost his entry fee. If you punish him otherwise, you MIGHT lose no one's entry fees. That seems obvious.

I still want to give him zero matchpoints for any boards he refuses to play. Not playing is the same as forfeiting all your matchpoints.

[blackshoe]

Average minus is defined in Law 12C1 as "at most 40% of the available matchpoints", so I suppose it would be legal to give them zero on those boards. Seems I was mistaken about the legality.

I dunno about anybody else, but I didn't propose to ban this player (or any player) for "acting like a jerk one time". What I said was that I would not let him get away with "acting like a jerk", I would require him to play the boards he was scheduled to play. Only if he then refused to comply with TD instructions would I ban him.

[TimG]

I'd file a recorder form with the Unit recorder.

[jillybean]

I’m not sure anyone means ban on first offence but I think you’ll find these jerks are often jerks.

[matmat]

get a dunce hat and stick 'em in the corner.