aguahombre, on 2017-May-15, 09:41, said:
Some ethics to consider?
#21
Posted 2017-May-15, 18:35
#22
Posted 2017-May-16, 08:41
Vampyr, on 2017-May-15, 09:19, said:
There are two types of rules:
1. There are the basic rules that define how the game is played: you start with an auction, during the play you have tricks of 4 cards, the highest card of the suit led or trumps wins, etc.
2. Then there are the rules that govern what to do with there's an irregularity.
No one wants to avoid the first type of rules, they just have a relaxed attitude towards the second type.
Consider that the first type are common to social bridge and duplicate bridge -- everyone has to learn those rules when they learn to play bridge with their friends and families. There's no director when you're playing around the kitchen table -- you resolve infractions yourself in an equitable way.
#23
Posted 2017-May-16, 09:10
In truth it is even worse than this in many places. Even asking the opponents about their bidding is often frowned upon, either because it wastes time or because "it is not the Bermuda Bowl". And of course, in many clubs even if you do get the TD they will rule in favour of their favourite player regardless of the merits of the case. It is a sad truth that club bridge is so beset by these issues that it is barely worth playing.
Which brings us to bridge at home. My experience of that is that someone usually knows the rules well enough to act as TD. My ex-partner and I often enough held little bridge events and essentially I took that role over for us. Somehow playing by the rules managed to be an enjoyable experience for everyone. If noone knows the rules then yes, you obviously just need to muddle through. That then becomes a little like 2 minute blitz chess in the pub - yes it is chess but has little do with tournament play. Only that is at least still played by the same rules, the "fun" bridge really is a completely different game.
#24
Posted 2017-May-17, 08:56
Zelandakh, on 2017-May-16, 09:10, said:
Being lenient about minor irregularities doesn't mean you also ignore blatant, eggregious misbehavior. We still expect reasonable judgement.
#25
Posted 2017-May-17, 20:14
barmar, on 2017-May-17, 08:56, said:
But where do you draw the line?
And do you do it more for people you like than people you don't like?
At the North London Bridge club the directors are competent and friendly. The less experienced directors have plenty of backup. If things go wrong the director sorts it out. That is expected and doesn't, as far as I can tell, detract from anyone's enjoyment of the game.
The game described above where the players do things like discuss their bids during the auction is more like a learning group than a competitive club. That is fine, but then why ask for opinions about a (self-made) ruling? I phone a director when I am playing a match at home, but not when I am playing at home with friends who are learning, or any game at home that is purely social, though my bridge friends are all pretty competitive. (But there are always highly qualified directors in attendance, because even there people prefer to have irregularities sorted out the correct way).
#27
Posted 2017-May-18, 11:42
barmar, on 2017-May-18, 08:49, said:
If it is understood in this 'loose, relaxed' game that our threshold for enforcing rules includes "egregious" and "not tolerated", we no longer have a loose, relaxed game. We have a built-in negative connotation to every TD call and/or ruling. Draw that line in different terms.
#28
Posted 2017-May-18, 14:08
aguahombre, on 2017-May-18, 11:42, said:
I suppose that's a possible interpretation. But I think if people are being reasonable, they won't make that association. They understand that some situations are inherently complicated, and need the assistance of the director, even if they're not accusing anyone of deliberate misbehavior.
#29
Posted 2017-May-18, 14:28
barmar, on 2017-May-18, 14:08, said:
If not accusing anyone of deliberate misbehavior, they shouldn't draw the line at deliberate misbehavior in describing when they call for rulings. Of course, they won't do that, but that is the way you worded the policy for these games.
#30
Posted 2017-May-18, 17:54
#31
Posted 2017-May-19, 03:25
Vampyr, on 2017-May-18, 17:54, said:
I asked a similar question at the last but one club I played at. The answer, "Well it depends who it is." Super!
Of course this is the same club (Bamberger Reiter) where someone saying to the table "420 or 500" before making a (penalty) double was cleared by the (nationally known) TD as nothing to worry about, whereas a bid opposite the mere hint of a pause against the TD's wife would tend to result in a ruling. Yes it was a fine club.
#32
Posted 2017-May-19, 09:06
Are we overstepping some forum bounds, here?