[mycroft]

I will note that I was discussing Natural 2NT openers. I am one of those who (have) open(ed) 2NT weak with both minors; that's always, everywhere (I'm sure), Alerted.

Even with your 18-19 pair (and I definitely could see that here - we have a bunch of Mexican 2♦ pairs - in Calgary, not in México, oddly enough - and one of them could conceivably invert their 2♦ and 2NT openings), I don't see many cases where it would make a difference *in the auction*. In the play, certainly. In the clarification period, where you're working out what you expect from all hands based on the auction, sure. And if there's no other time to point this out to the opponents than at the bid, then again, sure.

I like the idea of openings being announced (although trying to get that through the players who 20 years on still fight against 1NT "15-17" would be a challenge); I agree that "exceptions" are a problem. I'm not saying that the rule to Announce 2NT openings is bad; just that damage caused from failure to do so would be minimal and rare. And the problem with that is (see above re: 1NT Announcements) the rule will be ignored more and more often, and griped about when insisted on. And we all know about "issuing orders you know will not be obeyed". Which is why I pointed out that the <other country> defence isn't likely a thing against 2NT - as I tell people who complain about "15-17", "the rule is there for a reason, and that reason is to protect *you*. It is in *your* best interests to Announce, always." That argument doesn't fly here.

But (to drag this back finally to the actual table auction), I am *very happy* to rule "you know that 2NT openings always either have to be Announced or Alerted. They didn't, and you chose to continue without clarifying. That's on *you*, not on them." (whether or not I rule against the pair that didn't Announce, say because 1NT was 10-12). But I, too, am a bridge player (and therefore a petty, or at least passive-aggressive, little ---), so that's to be expected.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2022-November-12, 23:56, said:

No, we shouldn't ignore the rules. We should follow them. If we ignore them, we're no better than the deliberate cheats.

At the end of the day, you have to decide what kind of person you want to be — one who endeavors to do the right thing, or one who doesn't. And if doing the right thing in bridge means you can't enjoy the game, well, that's one reason I don't play any more.

Good advice, thanks.

I see responses from Directors here that say they would apply this law, give this warning or procedural penalty and so on. In my experience, rectification is only applied for the mechanical errors, leads & bids out of turn, insufficient bids etc. The more fuzzy stuff BITs, UI, missing or incomplete disclosure is rarely addressed other than perhaps "was there damage? I will look at the other boards and get back to you".

Could Directors please include what level they are Directing at, and would apply the laws in their replies or "In an ideal (Kathryn's) world I would do this"
I am sure the laws are applied uniformly at some level of this game.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2022-November-13, 10:37, said:

Good advice, thanks.

I see responses from Directors here that say they would apply this law, give this warning or procedural penalty and so on. In my experience, rectification is only applied for the mechanical errors, leads & bids out of turn, insufficient bids etc. The more fuzzy stuff BITs, UI, missing or incomplete disclosure is rarely addressed other than perhaps "was there damage? I will look at the other boards and get back to you".

Could Directors please include what level they are Directing at, and would apply the laws in their replies or "In an ideal (Kathryn's) world I would do this"
I am sure the laws are applied uniformly at some level of this game.

You should probably ask this in a specific thread, to get answers from all our Directors.

I'm a relative beginner, have been directing for four years and was inspired to do so by some others here. I don't regret it although I've learned it can be a thankless effort at times. So far I direct mainly at club level plus occasional regional level events. I was also a scorekeeper for WBF at the world championships in Salsomaggiore this year and saw the laws applied uniformly there. I try to do the same in my club, but I'm limited by many things, primarily the unwillingness of experienced players and previous directors to honestly affront the fuzzy stuff. I'm comforted by how readily our beginners pick up and respect the laws.

[mycroft]

Long answer. Vaguely if anything related to the topic. Vaguely if at all relevant to anybody.

If the TD doesn't get back to you after saying they will by the end of the session, go to them and ask about it. Okay, club directors, especially playing club directors, may handwave these calls, either due to lack of experience, lack of people to consult with (players and other directors), and especially lack of time. But at a tournament, if the TD says they'll look at it and get back to you, make sure they do. And if they rule "no damage" (or even if they rule damage!) ensure that you understand why. (This is not suggesting you be the person who calls every time they have a minute to find out "Are we there yet?" They haven't forgotten, or forgotten to tell you, if they're not back in 5 minutes. See below.)

In a normal tournament session, if I'm assigned primarily to the floor (so, not "only director", and not "computer/start/boards/results..."), the thing that takes up most of my attention is ensuring the game keeps moving, politely and without too much "we're done, so we'll talk. And then wonder why the slow players aren't catching up. But director, I can't play with all this distraction..." This gets interrupted by calls (which of course take priority), and most of them are book rulings (lead or call out of turn, IB, MPC, revoke with obvious results,...) or "can you get us a board" or "do we have a sitout?"

A lot of the rest are "this happened" "okay, do we agree? Here's the issue, we'll assume they will do the right thing, call me if you think there's a problem." Now, even there, the TD is responsible to assure themselves that there likely isn't (or likely is) a problem, so I'll take a copy of the auction and watch through the rest to get an idea. Then, assuming the players aren't all up in my (or the opponents') grill, it's time to go away and check the hand record.

Most of the time, it's obvious there's no problem (sure there was a hesitation, but partner passed with nothing, or made the obvious bid, or ended up dummy and can't use the UI in the play; or he hesitated and she bid, but that just converted a minus into a plus for the NOS, or +140 into +200 or 300, or...) and, if I said "call me back if you think there was a problem", I don't expect to be called back.

If it's more questionable at the table, or there's information I collected that the table should know about, but I can't tell them until the hand's over, I ask to be called back no matter what, rather than "if there's a problem". Sometimes they don't call me back, and when I ask about it later, "It was obvious there was no problem/we got a good board". Well, yes, but now I can't talk about "what if" or explain what they told me. Oh well.

But sometimes there sure is a problem, either one that the opponents see or one that I do. And frequently, the problem the opponents have with the auction, well, it just isn't (legally) a problem. Like the OP here. But even when that's the case, sometimes there's a problem (my classic line of "every MI call is a UI call and (usually) vice versa." The number of times I have said "the misexplanation didn't cause you any problems, because you were never coming into this auction anyway, and you had the right information in the play. However, declarer made this call, which was clearly based on 'partner didn't understand my last one', and we need to investigate that" is legion.

And sometimes, it's just screamingly obvious there's an issue. And in these cases as well as all the above, you get the "I'll get back to you with a ruling." and I go off and Do The Thing. Frequently after telling the other directors on the floor that I'll be off for a while "because", especially if I get the feeling this will be a complicated one.

But you know, even with the complicated ones, sometimes there just isn't damage. Whether it's because after going through everything we realize that "everything makes, and without the infraction they'd have found 4♥ instead of 5♦", or "3♦ on the UI makes, but so does 2♥ not using the UI. All roads lead to -110." or whether it's "we took this hand to 5 players at their level, and 3 of them passed. So passing is a LA. But then we have to look at the play in 2♠, and that depends strongly on the opening lead, so we polled that. And then we polled the play with players at your level on the 'bad' leads. And it turns out that it goes down often enough that a weighted ruling will be worse than the +50 you picked up at the table" (remember, the ACBL is not a "best result likely/worst result at all possible" jurisdiction any more. For good reason). And when we decide that, we give that ruling to the players.

But sometimes there is damage. And then we make a ruling on that and give that to the players. Sometimes it's easy. Sometimes, it takes hours. But it gets done.

I worked 10 sessions of the Puerto Vallarta Regional last week, and was usually responsible for 16-20 tables or so. Plus, I consulted on a number of rulings the other directors picked up (as they did for me). I'd say there were two or three judgement rulings that got past the "yeah, it's obvious to everybody there's nothing here" point (even to the "check the hand records, realize there's nothing there" point) a session, and maybe one in two sessions got "complicated". And sometimes it took longer to do than others, because in the morning I'm the only TD on the floor, and I have to do all this consultation while ensuring the game keeps moving (remember, the thing that takes most of my attention?) and doing all the computer entry and financial work (for, granted, 20 tables, so not huge) and prep for the second session.

Personally, I'm pretty lenient on technical infractions of the Alert Procedure, yes - as I said above, in the ACBL we've created a maze (for good reasons), and everyone will slip up eventually. Obviously, if it causes a problem, I'm right up front protecting the NOS, but "it didn't cause a problem this time, and wasn't likely to"? I'm not going to issue 1/4 boards (even the EBU's 1/10 boards) left and right if it isn't necessary. I feel I have a pretty good nose for who didn't know and will get it right next time, who didn't know and probably won't understand, who need to be leaned on, who didn't know deliberately because they don't care, and who are actively fighting against it, because 'Announcing 15-17 is stupid, everybody plays that.' - and I think I can issue the appropriate penalty to each. Because, remember, the goal isn't to punish every infraction, the goal isn't even to get near-perfect adherence to the Alert Procedure (picture the SB in me wincing at that); the goal is to ensure the opponents aren't misinformed about what one's agreements are, and ensure they are protected when they are. Similarly with UI, the goal isn't to beat everybody into automoton-like tempo; it's to ensure that the information is "deliberately avoid"ed when it does happen, and to protect the opponents when it isn't.

And hopefully not drive half the room away from the game because of too-aggressive punishment or too-intimidating accusations of ch- inappropriate conduct while we're doing it. We're not replacing the ones who leave, either the game or this life, as it is.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2022-November-14, 18:48, said:

Personally, I'm pretty lenient on technical infractions of the Alert Procedure, yes - as I said above, in the ACBL we've created a maze (for good reasons), and everyone will slip up eventually. Obviously, if it causes a problem, I'm right up front protecting the NOS, but "it didn't cause a problem this time, and wasn't likely to"? I'm not going to issue 1/4 boards (even the EBU's 1/10 boards) left and right if it isn't necessary. I feel I have a pretty good nose for who didn't know and will get it right next time, who didn't know and probably won't understand, who need to be leaned on, who didn't know deliberately because they don't care, and who are actively fighting against it, because 'Announcing 15-17 is stupid, everybody plays that.' - and I think I can issue the appropriate penalty to each. Because, remember, the goal isn't to punish every infraction, the goal isn't even to get near-perfect adherence to the Alert Procedure (picture the SB in me wincing at that); the goal is to ensure the opponents aren't misinformed about what one's agreements are, and ensure they are protected when they are. Similarly with UI, the goal isn't to beat everybody into automoton-like tempo; it's to ensure that the information is "deliberately avoid"ed when it does happen, and to protect the opponents when it isn't.

And hopefully not drive half the room away from the game because of too-aggressive punishment or too-intimidating accusations of ch- inappropriate conduct while we're doing it. We're not replacing the ones who leave, either the game or this life, as it is.

I agree with all of that, including the wince
Although unfortunately the norm our players were used to was zero punishment, so it is inevitable to be seen as too-aggressive at first.
Italy too has 1/10 boards as penalty for many minor infractions of regulations and my experience is that this is quite enough, as club players (unlike team captains in more serious events) will squeal at any penalty, however minor it may be in terms of impact on the final classification.
Which in a way I guess is encouraging, because it means that they do not see themselves as engaged in ch inappropriate conduct and might desist if we can retain them and remain firm at the same time.

[PeterAlan]

mycroft, on 2022-November-14, 18:48, said:

... (even the EBU's 1/10 boards) ...

Very much a detail, but from White Book 2018 onwards EBU differentiated 'standard penalty' from 'standard adjustment' and increased the former to 25% of a top (with related increases for IMPs, VPs etc): White Book 2022 section 8.12.3 (pp 109-110).

[mycroft]

Thanks for that. I will read.

However, looking for it I have definitely found my QOTD - and may even change my signature here.

EBU White Book said:

(“You are the country’s most irritating player” is, sadly, not an objective reason to increase a penalty.)

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2022-November-14, 18:48, said:

In a normal tournament session, if I'm assigned primarily to the floor (so, not "only director", and not "computer/start/boards/results..."), the thing that takes up most of my attention is ensuring the game keeps moving, politely and without too much "we're done, so we'll talk. And then wonder why the slow players aren't catching up. But director, I can't play with all this distraction..." This gets interrupted by calls (which of course take priority), and most of them are book rulings (lead or call out of turn, IB, MPC, revoke with obvious results,...) or "can you get us a board" or "do we have a sitout?"

Sorry to completely hijack the thread.

I think it is apparent that most Directors are far too busy doing everything needed to run a game, they don't have time, resources or whatever to spend on the fuzzy stuff.
Adding staff costs money and that's not going to happen so why aren't the laws simplified?

[blackshoe]

Easier said than done, Jilly.

[mycroft]

I don't understand that question. There are enough directors to do everything - imagine back in the days where everything was entered on tickets, or the games were hand-matchpointed. I don't understand what you mean by the fuzzy stuff, that isn't getting done.

Things get done. Do we wish sometimes there was one more on the floor so that we didn't feel like we had to scrimp on X to do Y? Of course. But things get done, even if the game runs 10 minutes longer than intended or the results don't go up for another 5 minutes. If we had one more, we'd wish for one more yet, so that we could do Z and Q as well. Where do you stop? Well, obviously, where the cost becomes too great.

With respect to judgement calls where the director has to go away and consult, I reiterate what I started with: you should get an answer; it should come when you have a minute; it should come when it's done; and it should make sense, at least after the session when we both have a bit more time. If you let "when is the ruling going to show up?" or "what will be the result on board 5?" intrude on your thoughts on board 9, you will make more mistakes that will hurt your score more than "there was no damage" when you believe there was.

Note that I didn't say you are entitled to a ruling you agree with, or even necessarily understand. But the Law, and the reasoning that applies the Law to the situation, that you should get.

And the laws are not simplified because (short of Burn's solution) there's no fair way to simplify them. Or it's one of the laws where all the exceptions and special cases are there to close obvious (once they had been used) loopholes that no, we're not going to open up again. Judgment rulings are complicated because bridge is complicated; and it is not right to use your judgement, or mine, or Kevin Dwyer's, or Hrothgar's, for the person at the table, if said person at the table isn't at your level, or a SB that directs a lot, or a pro, or a system freak playing strong club/relay.

And the people who want "two minutes for cross-checking"? Well, that's just a less over the top version of Burn's solution. And I wish we had a bit more of it, but even I know that you get more coöperation from rich people with spare time using carrots than sticks.

[jillybean]

Sorry, the remaining quote was cut off where you refer to polling players, other directors, sometimes spending hours if there is damage etc.
A non tournament Director, Club director, playing Director, I'd even go as far to say some Directors of Sectionals if operating alone don't have the time, resources, whatever, to address issues other than the LOOTs, BOOTs and as said above, a failure to alert/disclose is treated with "call me back if there is damage". In this way, the Laws seem to be unenforceable at the club and lower level games.

[sanst]

mycroft, on 2022-November-16, 15:57, said:

… but even I know that you get more coöperation from rich people with spare time using carrots than sticks.

That has nothing to do with wealth, not even with humans. If I remember right, it’s about a donkey.

[sanst]

jillybean, on 2022-November-16, 20:09, said:

Sorry, the remaining quote was cut off where you refer to polling players, other directors, sometimes spending hours if there is damage etc.
A non tournament Director, Club director, playing Director, I'd even go as far to say some Directors of Sectionals if operating alone don't have the time, resources, whatever, to address issues other than the LOOTs, BOOTs and as said above, a failure to alert/disclose is treated with "call me back if there is damage". In this way, the Laws seem to be unenforceable at the club and lower level games.

I’m wondering what you want TD’s to do. Act if there’s an infraction in the alert procedure? What about insufficient explanation - what is insufficient exactly? And, even more important, what would you want done in these cases?
Basically, a TD acts when:

• There is an infraction,
  
• there is damage,
  
• and the damage is the result of the infraction.

If there’s an infraction without damage you might warn the culprit(s) and in rare cases give a penalty, but in clubs that’s unusual, to say the least. Changes are you won’t have any members but the SB’s left in a couple of months or you’re dumped by the members.

[pilowsky]

sanst, on 2022-November-17, 02:59, said:

Basically, a TD acts when:

• There is an infraction,
• there is damage,
• and the damage is the result of the infraction.

This syllogism is the reason why Bridge makes so little sense to people new to the game.

This kind of logic if applied to everyday life would mean:
Driving while holding a mobile phone is ONLY illegal if there's an accident.
Driving while drunk is only illegal if you crash into a pedestrian.

The average person who starts to play Bridge is baffled by the idea that:
There are multiple rules that change whimsically and are different at different levels and in different countries.
The rules - even when available in an easily readable form to the players - are not actually rules because you are free to break them unless damage results.
You don't have to understand the rules to play the game.

Bridge appears - to the newcomer - to be a game designed by Kafka and implemented by George Orwell.

[axman]

jillybean, on 2022-November-16, 20:09, said:

Sorry, the remaining quote was cut off where you refer to polling players, other directors, sometimes spending hours if there is damage etc.
A non tournament Director, Club director, playing Director, I'd even go as far to say some Directors of Sectionals if operating alone don't have the time, resources, whatever, to address issues other than the LOOTs, BOOTs and as said above, a failure to alert/disclose is treated with "call me back if there is damage". In this way, the Laws seem to be unenforceable at the club and lower level games.

I used to run 54 tables (it was common to turn away half a dozen tables) in 190 to 200 minutes for 26 boards. The only occasion above my pay grade was a question over improper deception by partner of .a defender's bum concession immediately rejected by partner. In that case I made a provisional ruling subject to consultation and life went on. (consultation confirmed the ruling even though I believed the ruling incorrect) Oh, 1/3 of the field didn't play sanctioned tournament. The biggest problem was the time spent verifying the play of 5-10 PCs a session (tough to be in two places at once).

The biggest source of infractions are TDs that do not explain the reasoning in their rulings (which is just about all of them except me and Al La Tuchie). Surely they justify not giving the reasoning because they don't have time. But giving the reasoning teaches and thus minimizes the creation of repeat offenses in the future.

[jillybean]

pilowsky, on 2022-November-17, 03:20, said:

This syllogism is the reason why Bridge makes so little sense to people new to the game.

This kind of logic if applied to everyday life would mean:
Driving while holding a mobile phone is ONLY illegal if there's an accident.
Driving while drunk is only illegal if you crash into a pedestrian.

The average person who starts to play Bridge is baffled by the idea that:
There are multiple rules that change whimsically and are different at different levels and in different countries.
The rules - even when available in an easily readable form to the players - are not actually rules because you are free to break them unless damage results.
You don't have to understand the rules to play the game.

Bridge appears - to the newcomer - to be a game designed by Kafka and implemented by George Orwell.

May I add to your excellent post,
A newcomer is unlikely to be able to answer the Directors question - was there any damage, call me back if there was damage.

[sanst]

jillybean, on 2022-November-17, 07:50, said:

May I add to your excellent post,
A newcomer is unlikely to be able to answer the Directors question - was there any damage, call me back if there was damage.

Why don’t you answer my question: what would you want TD’s to do if there’s an infraction, even if you find about it without being called or when there’s no damage? This is not about top level tournaments, but the social game that’s played at the average club.
It’s easy enough to state that the players should follow the rules, but how do you manage that?

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2022-November-17, 10:02, said:

Why don’t you answer my question: what would you want TD’s to do if there’s an infraction, even if you find about it without being called or when there’s no damage? This is not about top level tournaments, but the social game that’s played at the average club.
It’s easy enough to state that the players should follow the rules, but how do you manage that?

sanst, on 2022-November-17, 02:59, said:

I’m wondering what you want TD’s to do. Act if there’s an infraction in the alert procedure? What about insufficient explanation - what is insufficient exactly? And, even more important, what would you want done in these cases?
Basically, a TD acts when:

• There is an infraction,
  
• there is damage,
  
• and the damage is the result of the infraction.

If there’s an infraction without damage you might warn the culprit(s) and in rare cases give a penalty, but in clubs that’s unusual, to say the least. Changes are you won’t have any members but the SB’s left in a couple of months or you’re dumped by the members.

Somewhere in the laws it tells me that I must call the Director when there has been an infraction, hesitation, rude comment, problem of any kind.
How you handle the call is up to you and your interpretation of the laws.

If you only want to be called for certain violations, hesitations, comments or problems then that should be made clear to the players.
If you only want to be called if there has been "damage", that could be very problematic.

[sanst]

jillybean, on 2022-November-17, 11:50, said:

Somewhere in the laws it tells me that I must call the Director when there has been an infraction, hesitation, rude comment, problem of any kind.
How you handle the call is up to you and your interpretation of the laws.

If you only want to be called for certain violations, hesitations, comments or problems then that should be made clear to the players.
If you only want to be called if there has been "damage", that could be very problematic.

Am I to believe that you call the director every time you think that there has been an infraction, hesitation or problem of any kind? If so, I don’t think bridge is a pleasant pastime for you. I usually let go, especially if I know that my opponents are not aware of all the rules and regulations. Calling the TD would certainly cause “annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game”.
I deliberately leave out the rude comment, because these are in my experience very rare and can usually be handled by the players at the table. You just point out that you’re not happy with this behavior and ask the player to behave properly. I don’t need the TD to do that, although I’ve once asked the director to correct a player who went on and on with blaming his partner for all kinds of real and supposed mistakes. Didn’t help, anyway.

[sanst]

pilowsky, on 2022-November-17, 03:20, said:

This syllogism is the reason why Bridge makes so little sense to people new to the game.

This kind of logic if applied to everyday life would mean:
Driving while holding a mobile phone is ONLY illegal if there's an accident.
Driving while drunk is only illegal if you crash into a pedestrian.

The average person who starts to play Bridge is baffled by the idea that:
There are multiple rules that change whimsically and are different at different levels and in different countries.
The rules - even when available in an easily readable form to the players - are not actually rules because you are free to break them unless damage results.
You don't have to understand the rules to play the game.

Bridge appears - to the newcomer - to be a game designed by Kafka and implemented by George Orwell.

I’ve read this more than once, but I don’t think you’re right. Newbies are quite often baffled by the complexity of the game, not by the Laws and regulations, which they more often than not don’t know. As a teacher I told them to call the director when they thought something went wrong, like a revoke or a LOOT.
The average person who starts to play bridge is baffled by the difficulties that the auction provide, that are plentiful. They don’t worry about hesitations, sighs and comments like “I don’t know, well, I bid XYZ, but that will not be right, I think”. Never heard anyone new to the game call the director for that. Actually, they solve the problems their way at the table themselves, because they don’t dare to call the director.
I’ve never heard anyone quitting bridge because the rules are not kept rigorously. New players might give up because they find it too difficult or demanding, more experienced players quit mainly for all kind of reasons of age and/or health. A fairly recent one was the result of the covid pandemic when people discovered new hobbies that gave them more fun or satisfaction than bridge.