[Brandal]

coyot, on Jul 27 2005, 07:20 AM, said:

You're assuming that if we want the TDs to know the rules, there will not be enough TDs?

I've had a few conflicts or misunderstandings with TDs before - and in all cases, they were caused by lack of experience or knowledge of the rules on the part of the TD

Doesn't this "prove" my point?

And knowing the laws is one thing,knowing the correct ruling is more difficult.

[lipi]

No, I hope now everything is OK. The confusion was caused by the BBO setup of showing me in the south position all the time.

We were E/W. The opps, N/S ended up in 4♥x and went down 3. And the adjustment was the opps (N/S) making the 4♥ contract. Probably if they knew my partner had only 5♠ then they would have made it, don't you think?

[coyot]

Brandal, on Jul 27 2005, 07:23 AM, said:

coyot, on Jul 27 2005, 07:20 AM, said:

You're assuming that if we want the TDs to know the rules, there will not be enough TDs?

I've had a few conflicts or misunderstandings with TDs before - and in all cases, they were caused by lack of experience or knowledge of the rules on the part of the TD

Doesn't this "prove" my point?

No, it proves nothing. I only wanted to show that most of the TDs aren't bad by nature, only by lack of knowledge.

I believe that it would take you only a few hours to "learn" the things you need to know to be a reasonably good TD when it comes to rulings and adjusts.
It would certainly be worth it - and I believe that most of the existing TDs would not abandon their status if this requirement would be added.

And, I certainly would not mind if TDs like the one in the example above were kicked out (and admitted back only when they prove that they know better)

[Brandal]

lipi, on Jul 27 2005, 07:26 AM, said:

No, I hope now everything is OK. The confusion was caused by the BBO setup of showing me in the south position all the time.

We were E/W. The opps, N/S ended up in 4♥x and went down 3. And the adjustment was the opps (N/S) making the 4♥ contract. Probably if they knew my partner had only 5♠ then they would have made it, don't you think?

very creative TD

this is good bridge Luis

[Brandal]

coyot, on Jul 27 2005, 07:30 AM, said:

Brandal, on Jul 27 2005, 07:23 AM, said:

coyot, on Jul 27 2005, 07:20 AM, said:

You're assuming that if we want the TDs to know the rules, there will not be enough TDs?

I've had a few conflicts or misunderstandings with TDs before - and in all cases, they were caused by lack of experience or knowledge of the rules on the part of the TD

Doesn't this "prove" my point?

No, it proves nothing. I only wanted to show that most of the TDs aren't bad by nature, only by lack of knowledge.

I believe that it would take you only a few hours to "learn" the things you need to know to be a reasonably good TD when it comes to rulings and adjusts.
It would certainly be worth it - and I believe that most of the existing TDs would not abandon their status if this requirement would be added.

And, I certainly would not mind if TDs like the one in the example above were kicked out (and admitted back only when they prove that they know better)

Well I never meant they are bad intentionally....

[coyot]

Brandal, on Jul 27 2005, 07:33 AM, said:

Well I never meant they are bad intentionally....

Sorry, bad choice of words. I didn't want to imply they do it on purpose - more likely they do it on their own ignorance (not bothering to learn the rules, thinking they know them already) - these should be swept out of the system.

[Brandal]

coyot, on Jul 27 2005, 07:55 AM, said:

Brandal, on Jul 27 2005, 07:33 AM, said:

Well I never meant they are bad intentionally....

Sorry, bad choice of words. I didn't want to imply they do it on purpose - more likely they do it on their own ignorance (not bothering to learn the rules, thinking they know them already) - these should be swept out of the system.

I agree with you coyot,there should be some way
to help TD's improve their ability to make less bad
rulings.

Knowing the laws is one thing,as I said earlier,knowing
how to properly apply them is another.

Knowing when a law is violated,and rule accordingly.

I doubt even the TD in question here think setting the
contract to 4H= is a good call,but I think he meant there
is damage and this was his only way to show that.

Obviously I disagree with there being damage,but my guess
is he felt that there was.

[jillybean]

This is an on going topic – going nowhere.

People give their time free to run (free) tournaments, you can chose to play in these or not. If it is unacceptable that a ruling may not be 100% or even 1% in accordance with bridge laws, don’t play in free tournaments.

A lot of TD's state in the description that they don’t follow the law, are playing td’s, no adjustments etc and all these tournaments have willing players.

The critics have been suggesting for a loooooooong time some sort of reference system to help td’s, it sounds great and a lot more helpful than continuing to complain about the bad rulings.

[Brandal]

jillybean2, on Jul 27 2005, 10:29 AM, said:

This is an on going topic – going nowhere.

it sounds great and a lot more helpful than continuing to complain about the bad rulings.

I couldn't agree more,probably 1000 tourney brds played
in 24 hours........not even one bad ruling a day finds its
way here.

I know not everyone posts here,but still,we're not exactly
victims here