[blackshoe]

A director who tells players "don't call me except for... " should not be directing. Even at a club.

If someone calling the director annoys or embarrasses someone else then either the tone of the director call was problematic, or the annoyed player is too sensitive or doesn't understand the purpose of director calls. Either case should be handled calmly and objectively by the director, and then he should deal with the reason for the call. I will say that if a director tries to penalize, or even mildly censure, a player who called him without being accusative or mean about it because the mere fact of a director call annoyed someone, well, that director should turn in his director card.

[jillybean]

 sanst, on 2022-November-17, 12:28, said:

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.

And this is where the problem starts. Why would calling the Director cause "annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game" ?

If I yell "Director !!! This twit Bob has led out of turn again". - now you have 2 infractions to deal with

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

A director call is not a remark nor is it an extraneous action. Therefore if it causes annoyance or embarrassment to another player, or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game, that's not legally relevant. "Sorry you feel that way. Now why was I called?"

[barmar]

 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.

There's a difference between bridge and real life.

In real life we penalize most infractions as a deterrent. Even if you didn't cause an accident this time, if you keep acting this way you're likely to cause an accident in the future, and that could be a disaster. So we use penalties as incentive to follow the laws.

I know it may be heresy to say it, but bridge is just a game. The primary goal of when dealing with infractions is restoring equity, not punishment or deterrence. The assumption behind this is that most infractions are innocent mistakes, due to losing concentration, not deliberate. Punishment is not likely to be very effective in preventing this, unless everyone without perfect concentration is driven away from the game due to the appearance that this is too severe.

If players deliberately and/or repeatedly violate the Laws, we do have the option of Procedural Penalties and Disciplinary Penalties. These are considered extreme actions, and only used in exceptional situations. And in more serious cases, bridge organizations can prohibit players or pairs from competing at all, strip them of titles, etc.

[mycroft]

There are people who believe that nobody would follow the rules if there wasn't somebody watching over them with a big stick. Frequently because they, themselves, fit that category to one extent or another.

But most of the world, and a huge majority of bridge players, prove that belief wrong. People follow the rules because they're expected to follow the rules, and if they make a mistake, they welcome gentle correction so they get it right the next time, and are willing to accept an adjusted score if getting it wrong actually caused a problem.

Even in - perhaps especially in - the rare heights of the game where good results are how the players feed their family, and where one would expect "every little advantage you can legally get" to be taken. Interestingly enough, the culture that has grown up there gives higher respect, and higher fees, to those who do slightly worse playing by the rules - note, not necessarily "the Laws", but "the rules of the professional Game" - than those who are known to play every angle. Partly because the line between "playing angles" and "cheating" is so easy to cross; partly because the clients who hire the angle shooters find it harder to also hire the players who don't want to be known as associating with "angle shooters"; probably for a number of reasons I don't have enough in to the professional world to hear about or work out.

Thank you, barmar, for saying what I was going to say last night (but decided not to post) in the polite and civilized way that I was failing to be able to do.

[mycroft]

One side note (from that not-posted response): those that read and understand L9B1 (and all should, and all should follow it; it's The Rule that the rest of the Laws revolve around) need to ensure they also read and understand "The purpose of the Laws" in the introduction (without force of Law, sure, but the rest of the Laws are clearly written with that purpose in mind).

[sanst]

Barmar hits the nail on the head: “I know it may be heresy to say it, but bridge is just a game.” The primary goal of most players at the lower levels in the clubs here is to have a nice afternoon or night , not even to win or score the best they can. These players don’t care much about infractions and call the director only when there’s a situation they can’t handle themselves. Think about discovering, usually sometime during the play because they don’t count their cards, that one player has more cards than the others and another having one less. An insufficient bid, if noticed at all, is solved by bidding something sufficient or passing, a LOOT is mostly not noticed either, but, if necessary, ‘corrected’ by taking the card back. A revoke is handled in the same way.
The rules are ignored on a massive scale. Opening leads are standard face up, if you ask about their agreements, you get answers like “Huh? I don’t know but (s)he probably has this or that, I guess”. Thereafter the player him or herself corrects it. Quite often a player who makes an alertable call says to the partner “You should alert”, whereafter the partner unasked says “Can be two clubs”. That, because they know that an opening bid of 1♣ which can be made with a doubleton is alertable. Usually no other call is alerted and they even don’t like it if a beter player alerts according to the regulations. UI is passed freely and used quite innocently, because they even don’t know that that isn’t allowed.
I for one am not going to try to make these people stick to the rules. It won’t help, they will still see calling a director in such cases an accusation of cheating. Let them enjoy their game as they like, but be serious at a more serious level, also in the club, if only because the clubs couldn’t survive without these members.

[jillybean]

I occasionally play at a game like that, it's a 5 minute walk away at a Community Centre, costs $3 a game and a nice place to meet up with a friend for a visit and a game of cards. It's not an sanctioned game awarding master points. If others want to charge $10 a game, call themselves sanctioned and award masterpoints, that's obviously at their discretion but shouldn't it be clear what the rules, if any, of the game are, and be told when players should call the Director? Perhaps only if you can't sort it out yourself.

I imagine, and hope that the occasional lower level player eventually becomes a tournament player. They will be so ill prepared that should anyone dare call the Director, it will be such an unsettling experience, I bet they won't be back.

[jillybean]

 mycroft, on 2022-November-18, 15:59, said:

One side note (from that not-posted response): those that read and understand L9B1 (and all should, and all should follow it; it's The Rule that the rest of the Laws revolve around) need to ensure they also read and understand "The purpose of the Laws" in the introduction (without force of Law, sure, but the rest of the Laws are clearly written with that purpose in mind).

Yes! Unfortunately L9B1 is ignored for a myriad of reasons, thus the "Purpose of the Laws" is irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

It may surprise some here, but in general I agree with barmar and Mycroft and sanst: it's just a game. Also, if people don't call the director IAW Law 9B1, ie, they handle irregularities themselves, well, the director can't do much about things he doesn't know about, can he?

I do believe that organized tournaments and sanctioned club games should be played more strictly, but again if the players don't call, the director can't help. For that reason when the opportunity arises I try to teach them that they should call, that calling is not in itself an accusation of cheating, and that the director's main purpose is to help the game run smoothly, not to smack errant players on the knuckles.

I know I've consistently advocated more attention to procedural penalties than is usual, but that's because I strongly believe that constant warnings are worse than useless --- they result in contempt for the rules. That's how cheating gets its nose in the tent.

BTW, the Introduction to the Laws, and the Definitions, are part of the laws. So maybe the "purpose" paragraph doesn't have the force of law (whatever that means) but it's certainly part of the laws.

[jillybean]

ring ring
Turn that phone off please.
phone continues to ring, player searches for phone

Turn that phone off!
(hi, I can I call you back, I'm playing bridge right now)

15 minutes later
ring ring
If you don't turn that phone off and put it away, I will!

next session

ring ring
Turn that phone off!

Some of the most amusing moments at tournaments have been hearing the ring tones players have on their phones.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2022-November-19, 13:34, said:

It may surprise some here, but in general I agree with barmar and Mycroft and sanst: it's just a game. Also, if people don't call the director IAW Law 9B1, ie, they handle irregularities themselves, well, the director can't do much about things he doesn't know about, can he?

I do believe that organized tournaments and sanctioned club games should be played more strictly, but again if the players don't call, the director can't help. For that reason when the opportunity arises I try to teach them that they should call, that calling is not in itself an accusation of cheating, and that the director's main purpose is to help the game run smoothly, not to smack errant players on the knuckles.

I know I've consistently advocated more attention to procedural penalties than is usual, but that's because I strongly believe that constant warnings are worse than useless --- they result in contempt for the rules. That's how cheating gets its nose in the tent.

BTW, the Introduction to the Laws, and the Definitions, are part of the laws. So maybe the "purpose" paragraph doesn't have the force of law (whatever that means) but it's certainly part of the laws.

I agree with most of that, in particular calling the Director and also accepting the opponents' Director call with serenity.
For the rest, like mycroft I have been uncharacteristically silent, in part because I agree in principle with pilowsky rather than sanst and like to think I have partially resolved those issues in my own club (previously a real wild west), but I recognise how difficult (and variable by geography, organization and level of play) they are.
My experience is that new players can understand the laws (including thorny ones like 9 and 16) if they are taught to do so and that they will actively embrace them if duly supported by Directors. That's really no surprise, as like mycroft says the majority of pros are on the same wavelength despite the electricity bill, which must mean it is the only way for the game to make sense. Sure, it's just a game. But like all others, more fun and more dignified when played by rules, a bit of a waste of time otherwise.

[axman]

 barmar, on 2022-November-18, 15:26, said:

There's a difference between bridge and real life.

...
I know it may be heresy to say it, but bridge is just a ....

Bridge Player’s Creed

Bridge is a game and I will remember that its place in my life is that of a game. I will respect those who play and endeavor to be worthy of their respect. I will remember that which makes bridge so interesting is its limitation on the most human of all activities- communication. And in doing so I will always contribute my best and seek to conduct myself in a fair manner.

[sanst]

Just published on the internet: 70% of the Dutch club players find calling the director by one of the opponents unpleasant. Why they find it so:

• it’s an accusation of cheating (27%),
  
• it’s very aggressive (27%),
  
• unpleasant if done in an aggressive way, SB style (20%),
  
• it destroys the pleasant mood (20%),
  
• it’s done to get a better score.

Revealing but very disturbing results.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2022-November-20, 13:36, said:

Just published on the internet: 70% of the Dutch club players find calling the director by one of the opponents unpleasant. Why they find it so:

• it’s an accusation of cheating (27%),
  
• it’s very aggressive (27%),
  
• unpleasant if done in an aggressive way, SB style (20%),
  
• it destroys the pleasant mood (20%),
  
• it’s done to get a better score.

Revealing but very disturbing results.

It looks like there was no "other", otherwise I would expect more rational things like "concern that we may have done something wrong".
But the disturbing aspect is that 70% find a Director call unpleasant in the first place.

[jillybean]

Disturbing perhaps but hardly revealing or surprising.

[barmar]

 sanst, on 2022-November-20, 13:36, said:

Just published on the internet: 70% of the Dutch club players find calling the director by one of the opponents unpleasant.

87% of statistics are totally made up. Twice as many if they're published on the Internet.

[pilowsky]

 barmar, on 2022-November-21, 09:41, said:

87% of statistics are totally made up. Twice as many if they're published on the Internet.

That comes to 174% - proving your point.

[mycroft]

The only one I've ever given credence to is the survey of bridge players that determined that 90% of them were better than their partners.

[sanst]

 barmar, on 2022-November-21, 09:41, said:

87% of statistics are totally made up. Twice as many if they're published on the Internet.

It was nothing commercial, but a survey under club players. The numbers are indicative, but credible given the background. It was done by Rob Stravers and his coworkers, who run a very well read website and publications - free of charge - on bridge.