[jillybean]

I played for the 1st time at a duplicate (ACBL MP) game last night, nice venue, nice director, nice players, none who told their partners to ^&%^&%^ off before walking out.

On one hand my partner was playing 4♥ and claimed but did not make a clear statement of line of play.
There was a trump outstanding and that opp rightly wasn’t happy about the claim. He said he could have asked his partner to lead a certain card and would have ruffed. I said you should call the director, his reply; “oh no, we don’t do that in this game”
So we wrote up our game and left, no doubt leaving the opps feeling like they had been duped.

After hearing that its no wonder players wont call the TD. I think it would be good to see the ACBL run a “call your friendly director” campaign.

[TylerE]

Any resemblance between the average ACBL club and "bridge" is pure coincidence.

[McBruce]

Were there any other TD calls in the game, or is it just this pair that doesn't call the Director? Sounds to me like you should have insisted on the TD being summoned. If the opposing pair has a problem with the TD being called (maybe they find the calling-out part rude), you should simply get up quietly and fetch him.

I know where you were (I checked). It's a country club game that a few years ago changed from invitational to open and I imagine you were playing against one of the pairs who seldom plays anywhere else, and there was a forced atmosphere of civility. But at the same time, it sure sounds like it was possible that the claim might have been faulty, and you definitely need a TD to sort it out. Surely it's better to try to find some compromise rather than go away thinking that you have gotten an undeserved score.

On the other hand, another possibility is that the opponent was unable to ruff as he claimed, but was trying to make the point that on another day he might have been able to. Calling the TD over would probably be embarrassing to him, but next time he'll choose his words more carefully. I'm not a big fan of opponents who say stuff like "it doesn't affect this hand, but [insert supposed infraction here]".

As for the average ACBL club being "not bridge", I think it compares rather well with a random table on BBO, where I have been passed in Stayman and Blackwood on successive deals by expert partners who claim fair knowledge of SAYC.

[jillybean]

Hi Bruce,

McBruce, on Feb 25 2009, 12:47 AM, said:

Were there any other TD calls in the game, or is it just this pair that doesn't call the Director?  Sounds to me like you should have insisted on the TD being summoned.  If the opposing pair has a problem with the TD being called (maybe they find the calling-out part rude), you should simply get up quietly and fetch him.

That would be breaking etiquette rule#2 – you must never call the TD for your own or partners infraction.
(even though Law9B says I MUST call the director once attention is drawn to an irregularity)

McBruce said:

I know where you were (I checked).  It's a country club game that a few years ago changed from invitational to open and I imagine you were playing against one of the pairs who seldom plays anywhere else, and there was a forced atmosphere of civility.  But at the same time, it sure sounds like it was possible that the claim might have been faulty, and you definitely need a TD to sort it out.  Surely it's better to try to find some compromise rather than go away thinking that you have gotten an undeserved score.

Agree, however I was happy that my partner could not have lost a trick to the trump by any normal line of play. The opp was suggesting that he could ask his partner to lead a certain suit where he had a void and tell declarer how to play the hand. I knew this was incorrect however not calling the TD was wrong also. I should have called the TD and I’d like to think I would have if the outcome could have been –1.
Another reason not to call the TD is, Im new to the club and dont want to stand out as a trouble maker.

McBruce said:

On the other hand, another possibility is that the opponent was unable to ruff as he claimed, but was trying to make the point that on another day he might have been able to.  Calling the TD over would probably be embarrassing to him, but next time he'll choose his words more carefully.  I'm not a big fan of opponents who say stuff like "it doesn't affect this hand, but [insert supposed infraction here]".

Agree, and those that make up their own laws and rulings when an infraction occurs.
(Im guilty)
And those that say when this occured last time the TD ruled [insert non applicable or bad ruling].

McBruce said:

As for the average ACBL club being "not bridge", I think it compares rather well with a random table on BBO, where I have been passed in Stayman and Blackwood on successive deals by expert partners who claim fair knowledge of SAYC.

Beware of BBO experts!

[1eyedjack]

jillybean2, on Feb 25 2009, 08:29 PM, said:

That would be breaking etiquette rule#2 – you must never call the TD for your own or partners infraction.
(even though Law9B says I MUST call the director once attention is drawn to an irregularity)

Whence did you pick that up? I am not saying you are wrong, but I have never heard that before. Are you referring to an etiquette rule published by a zonal authority?

If I had to guess, without referring to guidance, I would say that calling attention to your own side's regularity (and then calling the TD) should logically be an act of the highest etiquette. In so doing you are protecting your opponents' interests at your own expense, without subjecting them to any reticence that they might have in calling the director.

I should be interested to know the justification of any lawmaker who suggests to the contrary.

The timing of the TD call may be constrained, I agree. If calling the TD, or calling attention to an infraction for that matter, might itself give rise to UI then you have a problem, but only an immediate problem. You can wait until such time as there is no possibility of UI and then do the calling.

[jillybean]

1eyedjack, on Feb 25 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 25 2009, 08:29 PM, said:

That would be breaking etiquette rule#2 – you must never call the TD for your own or partners infraction.
(even though Law9B says I MUST call the director once attention is drawn to an irregularity)

Whence did you pick that up? I am not saying you are wrong, but I have never heard that before. Are you referring to an etiquette rule published by a zonal authority?

If I had to guess, without referring to guidance, I would say that calling attention to your own side's regularity (and then calling the TD) should logically be an act of the highest etiquette. In so doing you are protecting your opponents' interests at your own expense, without subjecting them to any reticence that they might have in calling the director.

I should be interested to know the justification of any lawmaker who suggests to the contrary

No, not a published rule. This has been the reaction I have had from others when I have called the TD after the opps have pointed out an infraction but not called the TD. Partners have told me never to call the TD for our own infractions, its up to the opps to call the TD.

I haven’t played many club games but in my experience people are much more likely to make their own rulings than call the TD. There are the printed rules and then the rules that are played at the clubs and youre just a trouble maker if you want to play by the printed rules.

[JoAnneM]

TylerE, on Feb 24 2009, 11:34 PM, said:

Any resemblance between the average ACBL club and "bridge" is pure coincidence.

Boy am I sick of these kinds of comments.

Bridge is what it is by whomever is playing at the time. Most bridge clubs have a wide variety bridge levels present at any given game, like our game which ranges from a previous Barry Goren partner down to a retired teacher who is just starting out, and we all manage to have fun and get along pretty well. Fortunately what we don't have in our club is even one arrogant ego.

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Feb 25 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

No, not a published rule. This has been the reaction I have had from others when I have called the TD after the opps have pointed out an infraction but not called the TD. Partners have told me never to call the TD for our own infractions, its up to the opps to call the TD.

Your partners are wrong.

Quote

I haven’t played many club games but in my experience people are much more likely to make their own rulings than call the TD. There are the printed rules and then the rules that are played at the clubs and youre just a trouble maker if you want to play by the printed rules.

Then I'm proud to be a "trouble maker". Up to a point, I'll go along with the culture, but the rules are there for a reason, and I want to play bridge, not some game that resembles bridge but where people make up their own rules as they go along. Not to mention that as a director I find it really annoying when players screw it up and then want me to fix it.

And Law 9 no longer says the TD "must" be called, it now says he "should" be called. Regrettably, I must admit that's my fault, as I'm the one who pointed out "must" in the 1997 laws to blml several years ago, and that led to the change in the current laws.

[matmat]

JoAnneM, on Feb 25 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

TylerE, on Feb 24 2009, 11:34 PM, said:

Any resemblance between the average ACBL club and "bridge" is pure coincidence.

Boy am I sick of these kinds of comments.

Bridge is what it is by whomever is playing at the time. Most bridge clubs have a wide variety bridge levels present at any given game, like our game which ranges from a previous Barry Goren partner down to a retired teacher who is just starting out, and we all manage to have fun and get along pretty well. Fortunately what we don't have in our club is even one arrogant ego.

are you sure?

[peachy]

JoAnneM, on Feb 25 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

Fortunately what we don't have in our club is even one arrogant ego.

Now that is an exceptional club indeed. You sure it is a BRIDGE club? Kidding....

[mtvesuvius]

JoAnneM, on Feb 25 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

Fortunately what we don't have in our club is even one arrogant ego.

Umm... That's not bridge then! By definition, you must have at least one arrogant, annoying, a*****e in your club, otherwise ACBL refuses to Sanction it!

[barmar]

mtvesuvius, on Feb 25 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

By definition, you must have at least one arrogant, annoying, a*****e in your club, otherwise ACBL refuses to Sanction it!

And if you don't think there is one in your club, that probably means it's you.

Luckily for you, the rule means they can't kick you out.

[Gerben42]

Quote

On one hand my partner was playing 4♥ and claimed but did not make a clear statement of line of play.
There was a trump outstanding and that opp rightly wasn’t happy about the claim. He said he could have asked his partner to lead a certain card and would have ruffed. I said you should call the director, his reply; “oh no, we don’t do that in this game”
So we wrote up our game and left, no doubt leaving the opps feeling like they had been duped.

These are the things that happen in so-called friendly games where a TD is never called. They are the worst, and a breeding ground for bad feelings. For your own good, try to stay clear of these...

[helene_t]

I don't recognize this reluctance to call the TD because of a local etiquette.

Players sometimes sort things out among themselves when everyone agrees on what needs to be done, but that's fine when the TDs have limited time.

Or they condone things like bids out of turn or waive penalty cards. That is somewhat more troublesome since it sometimes make me feel uneasy about whether to do something about an infraction myself - someone does me a favor by allowing me to take back a bid out of turn, am I now supposed to return the favor by, say, waiving a revoke penalty? I think revoke penalties are among those things that are not waived but I would prefer written to unwritten laws.

But people failing to call the TD and sorting it out themselves because calling the TD would be considered "not done" is not something that I recognize.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on Feb 26 2009, 06:27 AM, said:

Players sometimes sort things out among themselves when everyone agrees on what needs to be done, but that's fine when the TDs have limited time.

Wouldnt this compound the problem? Players make their own rulings and go away believing it is "right" For eg; a player told me (I was declarer) that I had to play a card because I had taken it from my hand and she had seen it and thats how the TD had ruled last time.

Am I just being a trouble maker or do I have bad luck and these things really dont happen all that often at clubs, or everyone just ignores it

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Feb 25 2009, 06:35 PM, said:

And Law 9 no longer says the TD "must" be called, it now says he "should" be called. Regrettably, I must admit that's my fault, as I'm the one who pointed out "must" in the 1997 laws to blml several years ago, and that led to the change in the current laws.

Please post the link to this

[JoAnneM]

barmar, on Feb 26 2009, 05:34 AM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Feb 25 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

By definition, you must have at least one arrogant, annoying, a*****e in your club, otherwise ACBL refuses to Sanction it!

And if you don't think there is one in your club, that probably means it's you.

Luckily for you, the rule means they can't kick you out.

LOL, I knew I would get that response.

[mtvesuvius]

JoAnneM, on Feb 26 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

LOL

*Gasp* The forbidden words! *Gasp*

You have been reported to the imaginary grammar police

[Gerardo]

jillybean2, on Feb 26 2009, 12:56 PM, said:

Wouldnt this compound the problem? Players make their own rulings and go away believing it is "right"  For eg; a player told me (I was declarer) that I had to play a card because I had taken it from my hand and she had seen it and thats how the TD had ruled last time.

Am I just being a trouble maker or do I have bad luck and these things really dont happen all that often at clubs, or everyone just ignores it 

Perhaps it was defender's card exposed then?

[jillybean]

Gerardo, on Feb 27 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Feb 26 2009, 12:56 PM, said:

Wouldnt this compound the problem? Players make their own rulings and go away believing it is "right"  For eg; a player told me (I was declarer) that I had to play a card because I had taken it from my hand and she had seen it and thats how the TD had ruled last time.

Am I just being a trouble maker or do I have bad luck and these things really dont happen all that often at clubs, or everyone just ignores it 

Perhaps it was defender's card exposed then?

Perhaps and this is why it is not a good idea to make your own rulings. (not to mention illegal - I'll add that before Ed does)