[barmar]

gnasher, on 2011-August-16, 01:46, said:

However, causing the opponents to lose was only one of my examples. Are you seriously tellng me that you have never seen someone be annoyed by a (courteous) request for a ruling?

That was just the one example I was picking on. My basic point is that certain actions are part of the game, and explicitly permitted (and sometimes required) by other laws. 74A2 cannot reasonably be interpreted to prohibit them.

You're required to call the director in many situations, so it can't be a violation of 74A2. And as long as you do it in a courteous manner, you're not in violation of 74A1. It's possible that what you intend as courteous, the opponent may interpret as haughty; he can complain to the director, who then has to sort it out.

There are fine lines in some cases. You mentioned asking for boards from the next table. Most players feel that once the round has been called, you're within your rights to interrupt their play with a courteous request for boards, to avoid unnecessary delay of the game. But if you finish early and your next opponents arrive, you're being annoying if you bother the players at the next table for boards; while you might like to get an early start so you can stay ahead of the clock, courtesy trumps that.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2011-August-17, 00:36, said:

My basic point is that certain actions are part of the game, and explicitly permitted (and sometimes required) by other laws. 74A2 cannot reasonably be interpreted to prohibit them.

You're required to call the director in many situations, so it can't be a violation of 74A2.

Couldn't I equally say "Not annoying people is part of the game. You're required not to do something that might annoy an opponent, so the laws can't reasonably be interepted to mean that you should call the director against a sensitive opponent"? Or are you saying that some laws take priority over other laws?

I note that earlier in this thread one experienced director described 74A2 as "the most important law in the book".

(OK, now I am being facetious, but frankly this law deserves it, as does the comment I've just quoted.)

Quote

There are fine lines in some cases. You mentioned asking for boards from the next table. Most players feel that once the round has been called, you're within your rights to interrupt their play with a courteous request for boards, to avoid unnecessary delay of the game. But if you finish early and your next opponents arrive, you're being annoying if you bother the players at the next table for boards; while you might like to get an early start so you can stay ahead of the clock, courtesy trumps that.

I wouldn't regard that as a fine line. If someone has failed to pass on a board after the round has been called, they deserve to have their concentration disturbed. And if someone interrupted me to ask for boards before the round had been called, he'd get a reply that didn't comply with Law 74A1.

[mgoetze]

barmar, on 2011-August-17, 00:36, said:

74A2 cannot reasonably be interpreted to prohibit them.

So now you can move on to gnasher's question: what is actually prohibited by a "reasonable interpretation" of 74A2?

[gwnn]

bluejak said:

If I smile at an opponent, and say in a very courteous manner "I think your partner has a stupid face" Law 74A2 applies but Law 74A1 does not.

Law 74A1 does apply. If you say "I think your partner has a stupid face", you are not maintaining a courteous attitude, regardless of your tone of voice or your body language. It is impossible to say "I think your partner has a stupid face" in a courteous manner, just like it is impossible to fall asleep at the table whilst maintaining sufficient attention to the game.

[hrothgar]

gnasher, on 2011-August-09, 10:44, said:

Law 74A2 is obviously unreasonable, as well as conflicting with some of the other laws. I often take actions that might cause annoyance or embarassment to another player, such as:
- Doubling an opponent in a freely bid game.
- Calling the director because I think an infraction has occurred.
- Refusing to let an opponent see a quitted trick.
- Asking to see the opponents' convention card.
- Asking an opponent not to talk whilst I'm thinking.
- Asking North at the next table for boards.

My favorite example is the following:

I know some players / partnerships that absolutely despise psyches.
They consider it cheating. They work themselves into a frenzy every time a psyche occurs.
They frequently call the director to "record" the pysche.
Sometimes when I sit down against them, they remind each other of that bid I made two years ago...

I actively look for opportunities to psyche against these idiots, especially at the start of team matches because I know that

1. The psyche is going to infuriate them
2. This is going to throw their game off

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2011-August-17, 06:03, said:

I actively look for opportunities to psyche against these idiots, especially at the start of team matches because I know that

Does your partner know this too? Does this constitute an undisclosed partnership agreement?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-August-17, 00:36, said:

There are fine lines in some cases. You mentioned asking for boards from the next table. Most players feel that once the round has been called, you're within your rights to interrupt their play with a courteous request for boards, to avoid unnecessary delay of the game. But if you finish early and your next opponents arrive, you're being annoying if you bother the players at the next table for boards; while you might like to get an early start so you can stay ahead of the clock, courtesy trumps that.

Being interrupted to supply boards to the next table before the round is called (sometimes even before the three minute "don't start a new board" warning) annoys the Hell outta me. However, I'm virtually certain that calling the TD about it would get me exactly nowhere. She might say something to the next table, they might even acknowledge it — but next round they'll do it again, discourteous or not. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2011-August-17, 07:54, said:

Does your partner know this too? Does this constitute an undisclosed partnership agreement?

I normally tell the opponents just what I am going to do

1. This handles the disclosure issue
2. This pisses them off even more (half the time, I don't even need to pysche)

[Zelandakh]

Hehe, I was being funny (well, trying) but it is true, the disclosure here is probably even more effective than the actual psyches! lol

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2011-August-17, 02:05, said:

Couldn't I equally say "Not annoying people is part of the game. You're required not to do something that might annoy an opponent, so the laws can't reasonably be interepted to mean that you should call the director against a sensitive opponent"? Or are you saying that some laws take priority over other laws?

Two answers:

1) More specific laws generally take priority over general or vague laws. The laws that say that you must call the director when X occurs are more specific than the general law against annoying opponents.

2) When all else fails, use common sense. You admitted that it's absurd that 74A2 prohibits the actions you listed, and I think most would agree with you. So common sense would indicate that this was not intended, and the other laws should take precedence.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2011-August-17, 10:23, said:

Two answers:

1) More specific laws generally take priority over general or vague laws. The laws that say that you must call the director when X occurs are more specific than the general law against annoying opponents.

2) When all else fails, use common sense. You admitted that it's absurd that 74A2 prohibits the actions you listed, and I think most would agree with you. So common sense would indicate that this was not intended, and the other laws should take precedence.

But common sense is exactly Gnasher's point: Common sense dictates that there must be a reason why Law 74A2 is in the Law book. If it wasn't to prohibit the actions that Gnasher listed (which indeed would be absurd) then why was Law 74A2 written?

Gnasher is just proving that Law 74A2 is a very poor Law that we could do without.

Rik

[bluejak]

A number of comments.

First, we don't agree over what is covered by 74A2 and not 74A1. Second, it doesn't matter a sparrow's fart whether it is or not. Third, Law 74A1 and 74A2 are to be applied with commonsense. Fourth, views about whether 74A2 is necessary are off-topic for this forum.

[shyams]

The phrase "sparrow's fart" leads to a natural conclusion.

Wouldn't letting one rip at the table be a better example of 74A2 violation not covered by 74A1? If it is ill-timed (by an opponent when one is thinking hard about a difficult problem), one may even be able to seek redressal for a subsequent misplay.

[McBruce]

gnasher, on 2011-August-14, 02:28, said:

McBruce, we have a law that requires players to be courteous, but it's Law 74A1. So far as I can see, your argument could be summarised as "Law 74A1 should be obeyed by the players and enforced by the directors". If so, I agree.

If you're saying that 74A2 should be "interepeted" by disregarding it entirely, I agree with that too.

I realise, of course, that you probably weren't intending to so say that. Can you give an example of a breach of Law 74A2 which is not a breach of any other part of Law 74, but which does merit penalty?

Certainly. N-S misguess a queen and South goes down a trick in 3♠. With perfect courtesy, South tells East that her hesitation before raising to 3♥ caused him to misguess and go down. South continues by telling East that he could call the Director but he won't.

If I hear about that or any similar insinuation tactic in one of my games, South will get a private talking to at the very least, and probably a penalty.

[McBruce]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-14, 05:42, said:

The problem with the ACBL's ZT policy, at least as it is written, is that it gives the TD no leeway. If a ZT violation occurs, says the regulation, the TD shall award a 1/4 board penalty to all offenders. If TDs are ignoring the regulation, and not giving penalties, then that just makes it worse — it engenders lack of respect for the rules. Why have a ZT policy if those appointed to enforce it will not?

It's true that the original policy is too rigid. Not sure how true it is that TDs are ignoring the regulation; probably it is more that players are ignoring it by not calling the TD when incidents occur. Our policy in our local Unit allows the TD to give a warning only if there is a minor violation that the offender regrets. Say what you will about bridge players and their behavior, but most of us do genuinely regret it if something we did was misinterpreted and causes someone else to be upset. The ones that are the real problem are those who feel they don't need to be concerned when this happens, that they have a right to be boorish. They don't get a warning.

[McBruce]

hrothgar, on 2011-August-17, 06:03, said:

My favorite example is the following:

I know some players / partnerships that absolutely despise psyches.
They consider it cheating. They work themselves into a frenzy every time a psyche occurs.
They frequently call the director to "record" the pysche.
Sometimes when I sit down against them, they remind each other of that bid I made two years ago...

I actively look for opportunities to psyche against these idiots, especially at the start of team matches because I know that

1. The psyche is going to infuriate them
2. This is going to throw their game off

I recall an E-W pair arriving rather late at our table shaking their heads after repeated TD calls at the previous table. When I spoke with the North player about it later, he said that South had psyched on the first and the result was precisely the same as it would have been without the psych, a room-wide average. The first call was E-W trying to get a penalty for the psyche, unsuccessfully. The second call followed the second board. This time North had psyched a cue-bid and a slam had rolled home. "Of course I psyched," said North to the TD on the revisit. "How many opponents do you get who are gonna tell you what tactics work against them?"

[blackshoe]

Just out of curiosity, is your Unit policy published as an exception to the ACBL regulation? Actually, I'm not even sure that (technically, anyway) a Unit is allowed to make such a change. Not that it matters to me — or to your Unit, I expect. And I agree that boorish people shouldn't get a warning.

In fact, I've always been of the opinion that the ZT regulation is redundant — the proprieties and Law 90 certainly give the TD the tools he needs to deal with this kind of thing without additional regs. I can only conclude that the reg was put in place because TDs weren't dealing with these situations — either out of reluctance or, as you say, because they weren't called. However, additional regulations won't induce players who are reluctant to call the TD to change their minds.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2011-August-17, 13:31, said:

But common sense is exactly Gnasher's point: Common sense dictates that there must be a reason why Law 74A2 is in the Law book. If it wasn't to prohibit the actions that Gnasher listed (which indeed would be absurd) then why was Law 74A2 written?

To prohibit rudeness, surely. Or do you think that just makes it redundant with 74A1, so common sense dictates that this law must refer to something else?

[gwnn]

barmar, what is the difference between "don't be rude" and "maintain a courteous attitude at all times" ?

[McBruce]

gwnn, on 2011-August-19, 02:53, said:

barmar, what is the difference between "don't be rude" and "maintain a courteous attitude at all times" ?

I have heard snide comments, insinuations of deliberate cheating, and vicious sarcasm delivered with perfect courtesy. Without 74A2 all these would be perfectly fine. And in many cases they are fine, among opponents who know one another well and will not take offense. But everyone is new to any group at some point, and a new player shouldn't need to be in doubt or fear as to what the underlying meaning of something said with perfect courtesy really is.