[helene_t]

pran, on Jan 19 2010, 05:33 PM, said:

If the Director looks at a hand and then makes a ruling, apparently influenced by what he has seen, then the Director is giving away extraneous information about that hand to the other players. This is an error for which more often than not no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, so we shall have to end up using Law 82C: Director’s Error

Good point. Thanks.

[VixTD]

pran, on Jan 19 2010, 06:28 PM, said:

And as said before, I have never seen any reason to take a player away from the table in such cases.

I often find it useful to take offender away from the table (at least for some sorts of offender), as it allows a much more free and open and honest discussion about their motives in making the first call. I'm not suggesting that many players are dishonest, but I do think that many of them worry about what they can say in front of the other players, and that you are more likely to get the whole story if the conversation is held privately.

I know that in theory all you need to do is ask the offender "What call were you trying to make when you bid 1♥?", but the erroneous notion that an "unintended call" really means one that you wouldn't dream of making if you were thinking straight at the time is so strong among some players that I don't think you always get a straight answer to that simple question.

I recall a case where I took offender away from the table, was assured that he was trying to make the second call all the time, that the idea of the first call had never entered his head, and then as we set off back to the table he said in all innocence "I'd got ahead of myself there."

I stopped and asked him what he had meant by that remark, went over the matter again and decided I was no longer convinced that his original call was inadvertent, so I disallowed the change.

[iviehoff]

Chris3875, on Jan 20 2010, 08:38 AM, said:

OK I'm going to try this - I must say that when you get to a table here, most people will say "I didn't mean to bid that" all the while flashing their cards in your face. SO, I will say "put your cards away - tell me what you meant to bid" - I will explain Law 25 - and see what happens.

I think a good question for written bidding is
"What bid did you think you were writing on the pad at the moment you wrote it"
It think that distinguishes nicely between intention at the moment of making the bid and intention at some other time.

[duschek]

For me it usually works well when I ask a question such as "why did you bid 1♥?" This practically forces the player to explain what went on in his head, which may help me decide whether to apply Law 25A or 25B.

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on Jan 20 2010, 03:26 PM, said:

I know that in theory all you need to do is ask the offender "What call were you trying to make when you bid 1♥?", but the erroneous notion that an "unintended call" really means one that you wouldn't dream of making if you were thinking straight at the time is so strong among some players that I don't think you always get a straight answer to that simple question.

Yes. You can see this clearly when the original call is insufficient -- "Of course I didn't mean to bid 1♥ -- it's insufficient!"

I have to admit that I do think that people lie sometimes; can one really mean to take the 4♥ card out of the box and take out a double instead?

[mycroft]

Yes, they do. And they "try one on" sometimes, too. But you know, Directors aren't stupid; after a while you learn the standard dodges. After a while, you learn the standard dodge*r*s, too.

I'm reminded of the Jerry Machlin story (it might be about him, or about Harry Anderson, don't have the book handy) of the day the TD sold a "special" section, and put all the players known or suspected of "playing games" into it. The looks on the faces of those people when they clued in to what was happening, it says...

[McBruce]

Two things I have learned:

1) When you get less than two tables away from the one where the Director call is, look towards the table and stand on the opposite side of the player who seems the most agitated. Players do want to show you their cards quite often, and if your approach vector allows a player to flash their cards in front of your eyes without flashing them to anyone else, they will. You don't want to see them.

2) Whenever there is a reason to take a player away from the table, I don't say "come away from the table with me" -- I say (after a short pause to ensure everyone at the table is listening) "put your hand face down on the table please...(and wait until this is done)...now, come away from the table with me."

[bluejak]

Quote

I have to admit that I do think that people lie sometimes; can one really mean to take the 4♥ card out of the box and take out a double instead?

Yes, I have done it. It takes a really stupid rearrangement of the brain paths, but it is not impossible.

[mycroft]

Of course, Bruce, you could do what I do (because I'm not as organized as you are): have the phrases "No." and "I don't want to see your cards - yet." to hand. And make it very clear you're not looking.

Of course, my eye level is higher than most people who stuff their cards in my face, so it's reasonably easy for me.

Looking forward to what that lady who told me last year in Penticton "I'll have you know, I'm very expensive" (in response to "if East doesn't accept the [opening] pass [out of turn], we'll take it back, and South will be on call. She is free [readers all know the rest of this spiel, but this is where I got cut off]") comes up with this year.

* and cut off was right. There was dead silence for a moment after that, and then I said "you know, I don't think there's anything I can say to that that won't get me fired." And then, "As I was saying. South, you are *allowed* to make any call..."

[movingon]

just last weekend at a sectional tournament:
I opened 1nt and opponent bid 2 clubs. A few seconds later she indicated that she had placed the wrong bid on the table. I suggested she call the director who came to the table. After she explained that she accidentally pulled the wrong bid card from the box, he allowed her to change the bid and left the table. She bid 2 spades

The director left the table and her partner, acting a bit confused and uncertain alerted the bid. when asked what the 2 spade bid was, he said, "I think it is a transfer to clubs."
He sounded uncertain, but the bidding continued.

As it turned out, it WAS a transfer to clubs. We ended up in a no trump contract down. I called the director after the fact. Since the 2 club bid and the 2 spade bid were not touching he ruled that her 2 spade bid was not a mechanical error but a change of mind (having forgotten her system).

He adjusted the board for us--giving us a spade partial (my partner would have bid 2 spades over 2 clubs). But he still gave the opponents the result as played at our table.

He indicated later to both of us that he erred in allowing the bid change without having taken her away from the table to find out what she wanted to bid and what her partnership understandings were over a 1nt opener.

[bluejak]

A reasonable effort by the TD in some ways, but he was wrong in others. He should have checked at the time whether it was a mechanical error, being more sceptical because the bids were not adjacent. But he should not have taken the player away from the table, and it is not automatically a change of mind because the bids were not adjacent. The actual split score sounds over-generous as well: were those really both the most reasonable possibilities?

[VixTD]

bluejak, on Jan 27 2010, 12:59 PM, said:

A reasonable effort by the TD in some ways, but he was wrong in others. He should have checked at the time whether it was a mechanical error, being more sceptical because the bids were not adjacent. But he should not have taken the player away from the table, and it is not automatically a change of mind because the bids were not adjacent. The actual split score sounds over-generous as well: were those really both the most reasonable possibilities?

It looks to me as if the director is applying law 82C because he considers that he has made a mistake in his initial ruling, in which case a split score of some kind (not necessarily the one he chose) would surely be normal.

He also seems to have made some effort to establish that it was a mechanical error, after all, offender did say she had pulled the wrong card out by accident; he just decided later that it was more likely to have been a change of mind.

Had I been the director I don't think I would have been beating myself up for failing to take the offender away from the table, but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that he should not have done so. In fact, I think it would have been a good idea, and is likely to have got to the truth of the matter. In my experience, offender is quite likely to say (in all innocence, with no intent to deceive) she accidentally pulled the wrong card out when asked at the table, but alone with the TD say something like "I meant to transfer to clubs".

What exactly is your objection to taking offender away from the table in such cases as these?

[bluejak]

My objections are threefold.

First, when TDs are taught to do things in a particular way, it is a bad principle in general to ignore the authorities' teaching. It may be especially bad for me who seem to have some sort of status with the EBU for providing advice, and ignoring the authorities' advice seems a bad idea.

Second, the absolute principle is that you must not give information to the other players during a hand. If you take a player away from the table and come back and rule, either it is because of what is in his hand, or it seems as though it is.

Finally, judgement rulings - as against matters of fact - are given slowly after consultation and consideration. Taking a player away from the tale certainly looks like, and may actually be, an attempt to treat this as a judgement ruling.

[VixTD]

I'm sorry to seem argumentative, but I don't find any of your reasons persuasive.

Quote

First, when TDs are taught to do things in a particular way, it is a bad principle in general to ignore the authorities' teaching. It may be especially bad for me who seem to have some sort of status with the EBU for providing advice, and ignoring the authorities' advice seems a bad idea.

I'm under the same authority as you, and I don't recall receiving any such advice that I must not take the offender away from the table under these circumstances. Is this advice written down anywhere, or is it just passed on by verbal tradition? However, I must admit it's been a while since I was trained as a director, and I'm sure you're more in touch with what is taught these days.

Just saying "it's what the authority advises" doesn't really help, though. Have you ever asked why the authority advises this? Presumably there's a reason. If it's a good reason, I'd love to know, it might persuade me. If it's a bad reason, it may be time to change the advice.

Quote

Second, the absolute principle is that you must not give information to the other players during a hand. If you take a player away from the table and come back and rule, either it is because of what is in his hand, or it seems as though it is.

This is the best reason you're offering, but if the players are erroneously leaping to conclusions about your motives, you could either say it serves them right, or do something to mitigate this error. Why not advise the director to say: "I just want to talk to you privately for a moment, you can leave your cards here, I'm not interested in them."

Quote

Finally, judgement rulings - as against matters of fact - are given slowly after consultation and consideration. Taking a player away from the tale certainly looks like, and may actually be, an attempt to treat this as a judgement ruling.

Isn't deciding whether a call could have been a mechanical error, or whether there was a break in tempo, a judgement ruling? Do you make these decisions "slowly and after consultation and consideration"? Once again, it's not for the players to speculate on your motives.

I still think the TD is more likely to get to the truth of the matter by talking to offender away from the table, particularly in the case of players whose understanding of the laws is fairly weak, and so this practice has a lot to recommend it. The only difficulty I encounter is when offender is elderly or infirm and cannot easily walk away.

[bluejak]

I suppose when I say a judgement ruling I mean where the cards are involved. It is true that TDs judge other things, but they are not generally called "judgement rulings".

It is true that our authority has been peculiarly lax in its training over the last five or so years, but all I can say is that promises have been made that this will not continue.

I still see no advantage whatever in taking a player away from the table. Whether a player understands the Laws or not is irrelevant: it is not his job to do so: it is the job of the TD to ask the right question, and it can be done at the table.