[Phil]

Elianna, on Oct 24 2009, 01:37 AM, said:

He could learn to knit!

Sure, like Becky Clough...

[Echognome]

gordontd, on Oct 24 2009, 01:35 AM, said:

John Maddog Probst used to knit while directing, until he had his stroke. He's now a lot better and getting out and about - he even played in a novice duplicate a couple of weeks ago, but I think it'll be some time before his sight is good enough to knit again.

Am sorry to hear he had a stroke, but happy to hear he is recovering. John is one of the funnest TD's around. When I was living in England, I would play the first Sunday teams with John every Brighton and we had an awesome record. The first time I met him at Brighton, he wasn't sure he wanted to play with me. He looked at my convention card at the time and said "anyone that plays a mini NT at all vulnerabilities is mad enough to play with me."

[aguahombre]

Ok, we are talking about Club game here. It is easy to say the Director shouldn't kibitz. Consider some thoughts about this, which might go against strict protocol.

The Director at a club game is often a teacher as well. It might be in the best overall interests of the membership for him to watch live play and use real hands as teaching tools--especially if he can do this and still keep up with other duties.

Maybe before sitting down as a kibitzer, the Director should mention he is a kibitzer, and that the players still need to call for him if they need him.

P.S., I think Becky also knits while driving, sleeping, and eating.

[blackshoe]

Good to hear Mad Dog is doing well.

Your job is to direct. If you decide to kibitz, and also that you will not "direct" in any case where you are kibitzing unless the players explicitly ask you to do so, then you are not doing your job. I suppose if you tell the players "if something happens, and you want me to rule on it, you must assume I did not see it and explicitly ask for a ruling" that would mitigate the failure, but it seems to me a poor way to do your job.

Around here, if a teacher wants "real hands" to use as teaching aids, all he needs to do is to grab a hand record.

[jmcw]

Are you seriously suggesting you are going to scrutinize 1 table and subject them to your interpretation of UI. What about the other tables?. This seems wacko to me.

[Phil]

jmcw, on Oct 24 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

Are you seriously suggesting you are going to scrutinize 1 table and subject them to your interpretation of UI. What about the other tables?. This seems wacko to me.

Whose 'interpretation' of UI should I consider? My dog's?

The reason I brought this thread up was this little doozy:

Scoring: MP

---

East opened 1♦ and South opened 3♠. A very pregnant pass from West was shortly followed by FIVE remarkable diamonds by East.

I guess NS was a bit in shock, because here's how they defended it:

1. ♥J lead (so far so good)
2. ♦K - held in hand (oops)
3. ♦ to board
4. ♣J covered (!)
5. ♥A
6. ♥ to North
7. ♦ return won in hand.
8. Last trump drawn.
9. ♣ lost to South who now tries to cash the
10. ♠A ruffed +600.

After the hand I posted this. I also told NS that I didn't think I could unilaterally take an action as the director here.

What's kind of unfair is that the NS that bid the 3N later were the victims here.

Everyone learned something yesterday.

[blackshoe]

jmcw, on Oct 24 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

Are you seriously suggesting you are going to scrutinize 1 table and subject them to your interpretation of UI. What about the other tables?. This seems wacko to me.

If that's addressed to me, my answer is a resounding no! What I am going to do is to refrain from kibitzing when I'm supposed to be directing. As for "my interpretation of UI", the current laws are quite a bit clearer than previous ones on what is and is not unauthorized information. If a case involves UI, and if ruling according to my understanding of what the law now says regarding what is and is not UI constitutes "subjecting them to my interpretation" then so be it. At each and every table at which I am called to rule on the question.

[barmar]

jdonn, on Oct 24 2009, 02:22 AM, said:

I argue you are never 'functioning as a director' unless they call you, or you are performing some official duty like entering scores.

If that's true, how could the situation in 81C3 even come up? It presupposes that the TD can become aware of an irregularity in some way other than by being summoned by the players, and that they must act in their official capacity during such times.

[jmcw]

Phil, on Oct 24 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

jmcw, on Oct 24 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

Are you seriously suggesting you are going to scrutinize 1 table and subject them to your interpretation of UI. What about the other tables?. This seems wacko to me.

Whose 'interpretation' of UI should I consider? My dog's?

The reason I brought this thread up was this little doozy:

Scoring: MP

---

East opened 1♦ and South opened 3♠. A very pregnant pass from West was shortly followed by FIVE remarkable diamonds by East.

I guess NS was a bit in shock, because here's how they defended it:

1. ♥J lead (so far so good)
2. ♦K - held in hand (oops)
3. ♦ to board
4. ♣J covered (!)
5. ♥A
6. ♥ to North
7. ♦ return won in hand.
8. Last trump drawn.
9. ♣ lost to South who now tries to cash the
10. ♠A ruffed +600.

After the hand I posted this. I also told NS that I didn't think I could unilaterally take an action as the director here.

What's kind of unfair is that the NS that bid the 3N later were the victims here.

Everyone learned something yesterday.

Phil. Your missing my point.
No 1 table should be held to a "higher" level of conduct than any other. You are imposing that standard on the table your kibitzing but no others.
Find something else to do when your game is running! Big Brother has no place at the table.

[bluejak]

Law 81C3 requires you to act on anything you see. So, by kibitzing, you are unbalancing the game unfairly. You cannot say you are not a TD while you are kibitzing because you are a TD throughout the session.

As for an authority, my authority for this is Kojak, former World Bridge Federation Chief TD, who drilled into myself and one other the importance of that Law [formerly 81C6] and its absolute occurrence.

Now, it is true, that good TDs tend to walk about with their senses dulled! A TD moving around the room will generally avoid seeing anything. But if at a table in the perrformance of his duties he will certainly act.

As for a non-playing TD, if you are a volunteer, I have some sympathy for watching if you are bored. But it is certainly not best practice. And if you are paid, you are paid to do a job, and the job includes not kibitzing.

[bluejak]

barmar, on Oct 25 2009, 07:20 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 24 2009, 02:22 AM, said:

I argue you are never 'functioning as a director' unless they call you, or you are performing some official duty like entering scores.

If that's true, how could the situation in 81C3 even come up? It presupposes that the TD can become aware of an irregularity in some way other than by being summoned by the players, and that they must act in their official capacity during such times.

Kojak gave an example of being in a lift when two players entered and started talking about a revoke. He said you had to deal with it.

When dummy loses his rights he is not allowed to summon the TD. But if he does, he is penalised, but the TD has to deal with it.

We had a thread here about a kibitzer who went to the TD to report something that helped his friends. We felt it right to penalise the kibitzer, but we still dealt witt the infraction.

You can be at a table in the performance of your duties, eg giving a ruling for an earlier occurrence. Now you act on anything you notice.

That is four examples; I am sure I can think of many, many more.

[Phil]

Bluejak, ironically, the appeal our (me + gnome + you + other David) team made in San Francisco took place because a director was kibitzing from about 5' away.

There was an claim made by my RHO which you might remember. We were looking over the hand and I asked a question of declarer. The director rushed over without being called (he was perhaps three seconds early), and said play stops.

You might recall that this declarer didn't make a statement at the table, but came up with this preposterous line of play in the aftermath. The head director (they dont form committees in regional events) bought it LOL.

[bluejak]

Well, we could always find them in San Diego and shoot them.

[nige1]

The law says that a director should attempt to remedy an irregularity no matter how he becomes aware of it. It is understandable that a director may prefer a relaxed and peaceful life; but, as a player, I would rather that the director, when free of other duties, proactively patrols the tables seeking out and rectifying infractions.

Some directors ingeniously argue that it is unfair to the law-breaker at this table because undetected law-breakers at other tables escape Scott-free; or, symmetrically, that it is unfair to victims at other tables because the victim at this table is protected. To be consistent, presumably, they deplore police patrols in city streets and insist, instead, that no crime be investigated until reported by a member of the public.

IMO there would be fewer cheating scandals and far fewer unauthorised information and misinformation cases, if directors sometimes watched random tables during their spare moments. My controversial view is that when more habitual law-breakers are detected, the game will become fairer.

[Cascade]

I agree with Nigel.

The game would benefit from more monitoring not less.

It would be a much better use of a director's idle time to watch what is happening at a table or tables than to stand around chatting or doing a suduko or whatever.

[bluejak]

... or checking boards or consulting about rulings or checking Bridge Mates or writing appeal forms or discussing and arranging future movements or teaching lesser brethren or anything else a TD does between taking rulings.

[Cascade]

Obviously there is no problem if the director is engaging in official duties.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 10:50 AM, said:

When dummy loses his rights he is not allowed to summon the TD. But if he does, he is penalised, but the TD has to deal with it.

This bothers me some.

Dummy is never permitted to call the TD for an irregularity, unless someone else calls attention to it first (Law 42A1{a}).
Dummy may never be the first to call attention to an irregularity during the play (Law 42A1{b}).
Dummy is liable to penalty for violation of either of these restrictions (Law 42B1).

If dummy violates either of these provisions, the TD will still (if he's competent) deal with the irregularity. But it has nothing to do with loss of rights due to violations of Law 42A2 (which are the only violations that can cause loss of rights).