[shintaro]

lamford, on Mar 8 2010, 05:32 PM, said:

jallerton, on Mar 8 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

I think it rather depends on the tone used.  Some players might say something like this to a TD they know well in a manner such that they are clearly joking.  In sounds as though the tone of the remark was rather different in the case Shintaro cites.

No it doesn't. Shintaro began "Lol as an aside a colleague of ours at Brighton a few years back said to me". I understand that you may not be familiar with "newspeak" but I believe Lol means "laughing out loud". And the clause "Lol as an aside" is used to describe how the colleague stated it. In addition, as he was described as a colleague, rather than just another competitor; that suggests he was well-known to the TD, whose 1VP fine does seem rather draconian. Also, if the TD had made any suggestion that he would be thrown off the balcony, he should immediately complain to the chief TD, unless, of course, the threat was made in an obviously joking manner, but even then such a comment has no place whatsoever in a bridge tournament.

lol nearly right Paul

As to the 1VP fine the CTD later thought I had been lenient in only giving him a 1VP PP

However my aside is immediately following Barries (pig trader) comment re Harrogate

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on Mar 9 2010, 04:52 AM, said:

I don't understand any of this. If a director comes to the table and gives a ruling, and a player says he is appealing, the director has to go get him an appeal form. Isn't a player who says in advance that he will appeal just saving the director a trip?

It's saying "I'm not going to listen to your carefully considered and reasoned ruling, made after due consultation. I consider that you will be wrong whatever you may say, if you don't rule in my favour"

In my experience, when players say this they are trying to influence the ruling. I have had one player become abusive when I ruled against him after he had made such a comment, and when I suspended him from the session he threatened to "take [me] outside".

I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which a player making such a comment, about intending to appeal any ruling made, is simply trying to save the director extra work.

[pran]

bluejak, on Mar 9 2010, 02:48 AM, said:

pran, on Mar 9 2010, 01:37 AM, said:

A Director who lets his ruling become influenced by extraneous remarks (or even real threats) that has no relevance in the case is not worth his salt.

No-one apart from you has suggested that a TD would let himself be influenced by such a threat, so I do not why you are repeating this which has nothing to do with anything in the thread.

There is a question as to whether this constitutes a threat, and how it should be dealt with. There is no question whatever as to whether a TD should be influenced by such a threat.

Then I don't see any problem at all.

To you any statement to the effect that I am going to do something is apparently a threat, I accept that.

"I shall kill you" and "if you do so I shall kill you" are obvious threats.

But I cannot accept that a statement to the effect that a player will (or may) take an undisputably legal action shall be considered punishable.

Call it a "threat" if you like, but what law justifies the Director in imposing a penalty on a player for stating that he (the player) will appeal if he receives an adverse ruling?

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Mar 9 2010, 12:15 AM, said:

It is a clear threat that if you rule against him he will appeal, and as such is unacceptable.  How bad is a different matter.  But it shows a complete lack of respect for the process.

When you say it's a threat, do you mean that in this sense:

OED said:

Threat
noun 1 a stated intention to inflict injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone

I'd like to think that a director would regard an appeal as simply part of the process of law, rather than as a hostile or injurious act.

[gnasher]

I'm sure Gordon is right about what people intend when they say something like this. If you really meant it purely as a statement of intent, why would you say it? If the director is good at his job, he'll rule how he would have done anyway; if he isn't, he may, consciously or otherwise, be more inclined to rule against you because of the perceived affront.

[shintaro]

gnasher, on Mar 9 2010, 05:05 AM, said:

I'm sure Gordon is right about what people intend when they say something like this. If you really meant it purely as a statement of intent, why would you say it? If the director is good at his job, he'll rule how he would have done anyway; if he isn't, he may, consciously or otherwise, be more inclined to rule against you because of the perceived affront.

I did actually rule in his favour anyway but this was NOT influenced in anyway by his Stupidity

He got the PP for making a Stupid statement



Those who know me know full well that I do not stand for any nonsense

[pran]

shintaro, on Mar 9 2010, 02:36 PM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 9 2010, 05:05 AM, said:

I'm sure Gordon is right about what people intend when they say something like this.  If you really meant it purely as a statement of intent, why would you say it?  If the director is good at his job, he'll rule how he would have done anyway; if he isn't, he may, consciously or otherwise, be more inclined to rule against you because of the perceived affront.

I did actually rule in his favour anyway but this was NOT influenced in anyway by his Stupidity

He got the PP for making a Stupid statement



Those who know me know full well that I do not stand for any nonsense

When did stupidity become legal reason for a procedure penalty?

As far as I know it is still legal to be stupid so long as it does not unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table (Law 90A)

Assuming that the OP was objective and correct (and I see absolutely no reason to doubt it) I don't consider the statement quoted as such to qualify for any of the above conditions.

[blackshoe]

Is it "correct procedure" to attempt to influence a director's ruling by threatening mentioning one's right to appeal?

I suppose it's a matter of judgement — and I suppose you would have had to have been there. The player's manner is at least as important as his words in such a case, and we weren't given that in the OP.

[lamford]

shintaro, on Mar 9 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

He got the PP for making a Stupid statement

Under which Law? It would seem that what you imposed was a DP, as I cannot see how the person breached 90A or B. Although that does not limit the offences, there is a clear implication that an offence needs to have been committed.

And I agree with gordontd that the remark, if not in jest, was inappropriate and could be perceived as an attempt to get a favourable ruling. However, it is not clear to me that it breached any Law. Plenty of people including me make stupid statements on every hand!

[shintaro]

lamford, on Mar 9 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

shintaro, on Mar 9 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

He got the PP for making a Stupid statement

Under which Law? It would seem that what you imposed was a DP, as I cannot see how the person breached 90A or B. Although that does not limit the offences, there is a clear implication that an offence needs to have been committed.

And I agree with gordontd that the remark, if not in jest, was inappropriate and could be perceived as an attempt to get a favourable ruling. However, it is not clear to me that it breached any Law. Plenty of people including me make stupid statements on every hand!

You are correct Paul It was a DP (my hurried typing putting PP)

[pran]

blackshoe, on Mar 9 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

Is it "correct procedure" to attempt to influence a director's ruling by threatening mentioning one's right to appeal?

I suppose it's a matter of judgement — and I suppose you would have had to have been there. The player's manner is at least as important as his words in such a case, and we weren't given that in the OP.

That is precisely why I have included this reservation in my comments. but the OP did not indicate any inappropriate manner.

[lamford]

shintaro, on Mar 9 2010, 03:41 PM, said:

lamford, on Mar 9 2010, 11:11 AM, said:

shintaro, on Mar 9 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

He got the PP for making a Stupid statement

Under which Law? It would seem that what you imposed was a DP, as I cannot see how the person breached 90A or B. Although that does not limit the offences, there is a clear implication that an offence needs to have been committed.

And I agree with gordontd that the remark, if not in jest, was inappropriate and could be perceived as an attempt to get a favourable ruling. However, it is not clear to me that it breached any Law. Plenty of people including me make stupid statements on every hand!

You are correct Paul It was a DP (my hurried typing putting PP)

Sorry to press the point, but what was the reason for the DP?