[jmc]

Not even directors at the nationals make the right calls in simple auctions. I was in Chicago and opened a weak 1NT 10-13. My vul vs not LHO tanked for awhile and passed. It passed to his partner who bid a natural 2C which was passed out.

I called the director to protect my side. He looked at her hand and said, "I think she has her bid. Its fine."

Is that really the standard? She had a 10 count with 6 clubs. Did her partner's hesitation suggest bidding would be more successful red vs white then otherwise? Of course it did. Was pass a logical alternative? Of course it was. This director didn't explain the standard or get it right IMO.

If a director at an NABC can't get these things close to right, I have little hope for club directors. Of course I was under 30, so the presumption against my side was high.

jmc

[han]

Did this happen at a national event or a side game? If what you say is correct (and I have no reason to doubt that) then it seems the director made a big blunder. Even if he thought she had her bid he shouldn't say so, but I agree with you that pass was a logical alternative.

[jmc]

It was a 2 session swiss, but not a national (NABC+) event. The director was certainly tournament rated but this was no big special event or anything. I was just shocked at how wrong I thought his comment and attitude was.

[JoAnneM]

10 points and 6 clubs vs a 10 point nt? Of course everyone is going to bid that. It was a perfectly good ruling.

[peachy]

helene_t, on Dec 12 2008, 12:46 PM, said:

matmat, on Dec 12 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

doesn't it almost seem like the directors are poorly chosen, poorly educated on the matters and their "directing" is hardly ever scrutinized?

No. All the club TDs I have seen in action did a fine job.

Amazing. My experience about club TD's is completely the opposite. Where I live (Western US), common are wrong rulings even in cases where no TD judgment of the facts is needed, just ability to read it straight from the lawbook. Common are ave/ave or ave-/ave+ because the TD is unable or unwilling to make a decision on given facts. Common are acceptance of systemic or deliberate UI, loud long discussions, habitual lateness from same players, playing TD regardless of number of tables, and the list goes on. Common is not calling the TD - why bother when he is going to either not rule "play on" or make a wrong ruling. Owning or running a bridge club, or acting as TD is not a glamorous job or hobby, I just don't like basic incompetence so I rather play online or in tournaments once in a while.

[blackshoe]

JoAnneM, on Dec 13 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

10 points and 6 clubs vs a 10 point nt? Of course everyone is going to bid that. It was a perfectly good ruling.

No it was not.

It is improper for a director to comment on the content of a player's hand while the hand is still in play. Period.

A good ruling would have been "okay, play on. Call me after the play if you feel you may have been damaged by use of UI". A perfectly good ruling would have been to say that without looking at the player's hand.

[blackshoe]

Peachy: many ACBL TDs seem to regard "reading from the book" as an admission of lack of knowledge of the laws (dare I say incompetence?) Many players regard "reading from the book" as a waste of their precious playing time. The inevitable result is wrong (dare I say incompetent?) rulings.

Many club TDs stress "let the players enjoy their game" over the rules - to the extent that they ignore rules violations by some players because to rule against them would lessen their enjoyment - or something like that. The arguments presented for this attitude have never made sense to me.

Calling the TD when you know (or at least are pretty sure) that he's going to say "play on" is the right thing to do. The purpose is not to get a score adjustment or penalty against your opponents right then, but to make the TD aware of the problem early, so he does not treat your call after the play as looking for a double shot.

Owning or running a club game is a thankless job. As you say, not glamorous. Doesn't pay worth a damn either. Still, where would we be if nobody did it?

[han]

JoAnneM, on Dec 13 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

10 points and 6 clubs vs a 10 point nt? Of course everyone is going to bid that.  It was a perfectly good ruling.

What blackshoe said is of course correct (that the director should never say such a thing) but I also disagree with the bridge content of this post. Typically you would require a better hand to come in over a mini-notrump than over a strong notrump.

[bill1157]

han, on Dec 13 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Dec 13 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

10 points and 6 clubs vs a 10 point nt? Of course everyone is going to bid that.  It was a perfectly good ruling.

What blackshoe said is of course correct (that the director should never say such a thing) but I also agree with the bridge content of this post. Typically you would require a better hand to come in over a mini-notrump than over a strong notrump.

You would need a better hand to come over the mini-NT directly, but in balancing seat?
Also, "play on" and walk away would necessitate another trip to the table as soon as the play was done. I can sympathize with the director saying "she had her bid", it didn't cause any harm, even if it wasn't completely proper.

Bill

[shintaro]

Perhaps you should not complain about those who can be bothered to Direct at their local club; at least they are willing to do it;

If you don't agree then perhaps you should volunteer to do it instead.

[matmat]

bill1157, on Dec 13 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

han, on Dec 13 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Dec 13 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

10 points and 6 clubs vs a 10 point nt? Of course everyone is going to bid that.  It was a perfectly good ruling.

What blackshoe said is of course correct (that the director should never say such a thing) but I also agree with the bridge content of this post. Typically you would require a better hand to come in over a mini-notrump than over a strong notrump.

You would need a better hand to come over the mini-NT directly, but in balancing seat?
Also, "play on" and walk away would necessitate another trip to the table as soon as the play was done. I can sympathize with the director saying "she had her bid", it didn't cause any harm, even if it wasn't completely proper.

Bill

there is no guarantee that the director in question has a reasonable judgment at bridge. The fact that they deem the call "reasonable" carries very little weight.

[bill1157]

matmat, on Dec 13 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

bill1157, on Dec 13 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

han, on Dec 13 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

JoAnneM, on Dec 13 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

10 points and 6 clubs vs a 10 point nt? Of course everyone is going to bid that.  It was a perfectly good ruling.

What blackshoe said is of course correct (that the director should never say such a thing) but I also agree with the bridge content of this post. Typically you would require a better hand to come in over a mini-notrump than over a strong notrump.

You would need a better hand to come over the mini-NT directly, but in balancing seat?
Also, "play on" and walk away would necessitate another trip to the table as soon as the play was done. I can sympathize with the director saying "she had her bid", it didn't cause any harm, even if it wasn't completely proper.

Bill

there is no guarantee that the director in question has a reasonable judgment at bridge. The fact that they deem the call "reasonable" carries very little weight.

Ok, but somebody has to make a decision or else you will swamp the comittees.

Bill

[blackshoe]

bill1157, on Dec 13 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

Also, "play on" and walk away would necessitate another trip to the table as soon as the play was done. I can sympathize with the director saying "she had her bid", it didn't cause any harm, even if it wasn't completely proper.

Bill

How do you know whether it caused any harm? It certainly gives information to the players at the table. Perhaps it gave useful information to the opponents of the bidder, perhaps it gave her partner a further UI problem. The TD cannot know the effect of making such comments, except that they convey to players information that he should not have given them.

As for necessitating another trip to the table, so what? That's the job. And it would only necessitate a trip if the NOS still thought there was a problem.

[babalu1997]

[quote name='matmat' date='Dec 12 2008, 12:11 PM'] [/QUOTE]
doesn't it almost seem like the directors are poorly chosen, poorly educated on the matters and their "directing" is hardly ever scrutinized? [/quote]
AMEN

[blackshoe]

bill1157, on Dec 13 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

Ok, but somebody has to make a decision or else you will swamp the comittees.

Pfui. First, the director will make a decision - at the proper time and in the proper manner, if he's competent. Second, if the TD makes no ruling (i.e., no decision) there is no basis for an appeal, and there will be no impact on any committee. There might be an impact on club management, if the basis of the "appeal" is that the TD is incompetent and should be fired. Of course, in clubs the TD often is the management, so good luck with that.

[jmc]

The real problem to me is not whether many people would bid with 10 points and 6 clubs in 3rd chair after a 10-13 NT. The question is after her partner hesitated and she is red vs white is pass a reasonable alternative. I think it clearly was for this level of player. Her partners break in tempo made the 2c call much more attractive and safe. Maybe Jan M or an expert could argue pass was unreasonable for them. I don't think this player could. Nor, do I believe could most players.

The normality of the 3rd seat bid isn't relevent.

[bill1157]

jmc, on Dec 14 2008, 02:29 AM, said:

The real problem to me is not whether many people would bid with 10 points and 6 clubs in 3rd chair after a 10-13 NT. The question is after her partner hesitated and she is red vs white is pass a reasonable alternative. I think it clearly was for this level of player. Her partners break in tempo made the 2c call much more attractive and safe. Maybe Jan M or an expert could argue pass was unreasonable for them. I don't think this player could. Nor, do I believe could most players.

The normality of the 3rd seat bid isn't relevent.

the standard is what some reasonable players might do, not "you look like an idiot so i won't let you make the obvious bid"...

[blackshoe]

No. The standard is what the peers of the player who had UI might do, absent the UI.

[JoAnneM]

[quote name='babalu1997' date='Dec 13 2008, 09:46 PM'] [quote name='matmat' date='Dec 12 2008, 12:11 PM'] [/QUOTE]
doesn't it almost seem like the directors are poorly chosen, poorly educated on the matters and their "directing" is hardly ever scrutinized? [/QUOTE]
AMEN [/QUOTE]
Are you kidding? My co-director and I have been pleading with our two clubs for 4 YEARS for someone else to step into director shoes. At almost every Unit Board meeting we plead for them to sponsor more directors, I have offerred to give director classes, no one signs up, we have even bought the books.

But you go right ahead and critcize us volunteers who get paid NOTHING to come out twice a week and put up with the children at the game. At least at our club the directors know the rules and we have trained the players to call us.

Oh, BTW, I am on the west coast, in Northern California

[han]

Completely agree with you there JoAnne, and I think complaining about the level of volunteer club directors is cheap and uncalled for.