- Welcome to Aust. Bridge Directors Ass..
News:
January 2024
The ABDA has relaunched this forum with upgraded software, appearance and features. All the old content remains. Users should log in and update their membership profile.
Only financial members of the ABDA can register to be part of this forum. Non-members can browse the open sections of the forum and post questions to "Ask a Director" and "Online Directing" without registration.
Posted by Ed Reppert
- 15 March, 2010, 04:17 PMThere are some things here that I think you've not considered, Matthew. First, you award average plus to a contestant "in no way at fault". Yet in the case of a playing director, his action did, as David points out, lead directly to the board being unplayable at his table. Second, and more important IMO, is the perception of the players. You talk about the practicalities of the situation. This is one of them. Some, perhaps many, players will perceive unfairness on the part of a TD who awards himself average plus in a case like this, whatever the law says.
For myself, the possibilty that I may get no more than average on a board or two is a consequence of my taking the option (is there a playing TD at a club somewhere who didn't, in the end, volunteer for the job?) to be a playing director. In all honesty, it seems to me unfair of me to take on the job, and expect to give myself average plus on boards I don't play because I had to make a ruling. Perhaps that's a personal ethic that's outside the scope of the ethics of the game, but there it is. And at least I don't have to worry about players accusing me of "stacking the deck" in my favor on these boards.
For myself, the possibilty that I may get no more than average on a board or two is a consequence of my taking the option (is there a playing TD at a club somewhere who didn't, in the end, volunteer for the job?) to be a playing director. In all honesty, it seems to me unfair of me to take on the job, and expect to give myself average plus on boards I don't play because I had to make a ruling. Perhaps that's a personal ethic that's outside the scope of the ethics of the game, but there it is. And at least I don't have to worry about players accusing me of "stacking the deck" in my favor on these boards.
Posted by Matthew McManus
- 14 March, 2010, 07:44 PMI'm afraid I will disagree with David here. To suggest that a playing director is "at fault" by doing his job strikes me as an overly legalistic interpretation which gives no weight to the practicalities of the situation. The laws of bridge do not recognise playing directors, and so to attempt to assign some legal significance to the realities of the role really is outside the scope of the laws as they are currently written.
It seems to me that it would be just as valid to say that all players are at fault because they are playing in a session without employing the services of a non-playing director.
If we must have a legal justification of my ruling in awarding average plus to both sides, try Law 81C1. One of the director's duties is "to ensure the orderly progress of the game". If we end up without a "game" because no-one is willing to take on the role of non-playing director, then the director is failing in that duty. Another of the director's duties is to interpret the Laws (Law 81C2). It is imperative that the director interpret the laws sensibly. Construing the laws so as to satisfy the "bush lawyers" does nothing at all for the game other than to diminish the players' enjoyment.
It seems to me that it would be just as valid to say that all players are at fault because they are playing in a session without employing the services of a non-playing director.
If we must have a legal justification of my ruling in awarding average plus to both sides, try Law 81C1. One of the director's duties is "to ensure the orderly progress of the game". If we end up without a "game" because no-one is willing to take on the role of non-playing director, then the director is failing in that duty. Another of the director's duties is to interpret the Laws (Law 81C2). It is imperative that the director interpret the laws sensibly. Construing the laws so as to satisfy the "bush lawyers" does nothing at all for the game other than to diminish the players' enjoyment.
Posted by bluejak
- 23 February, 2010, 03:20 AMSorry, Matthew, the legal reason why Ave+ is not suitable for the Director's side is that he was "at fault" within the meaning of the Law. At fault means that if he had not done something, the board would have been played. If you, the Director, had not gone and given a ruling, the board could have been played, so you count as at fault.
This question has been asked in various forums. The vast majority agree with playing the board if at all possible, especially in clubs, and giving Ave+/Ave if not.
Not played is very unsuitable: Law 12C requires an artificial adjusted score.
This question has been asked in various forums. The vast majority agree with playing the board if at all possible, especially in clubs, and giving Ave+/Ave if not.
Not played is very unsuitable: Law 12C requires an artificial adjusted score.
Quote from: EBU White book 2010, to be published 1st April 201012.13 ‘Not played’
Computer software usually has a possibility of inputting ‘not played’ for a table on a specific board. Some TDs or scorers use this when a table loses a board for slow play, late arrival or other similar reasons but this is illegal. At such a time the TD should decide whether to give Ave+, Ave or Aveâ€" to each side as is required by Law 12C2A.
‘Not played’ should only be used when a board is not played as part of the general movement. Suppose the TD sets the computer up to play nine three board rounds, but because the evening is slow decides to stop after eight rounds. He should now enter ‘not played’ for all the scores for round nine that the computer is expecting.
Suppose a movement is set up for nine tables, but there are only eight and a half. When a pair sits out ‘not played’ is entered because this is part of the movement.
Posted by Paul Sherman
- 22 February, 2010, 08:41 PMAnd the "practical" reason makes a lot of sense, particularly in country clubs where the directors are almost always playing directors.
Posted by Matthew McManus
- 22 February, 2010, 06:38 PMThe "legal" reason why you would award Average Plus to both sides is that Law 12 authorises this when play of a board is not possible through no fault of either side.
The practical reason for awarding Average Plus to both sides is that players generally are less likely to be willing to volunteer to be a playing director if they are going to get a worse score than their opponents when they can't play a board on which they have made a ruling.
The practical reason for awarding Average Plus to both sides is that players generally are less likely to be willing to volunteer to be a playing director if they are going to get a worse score than their opponents when they can't play a board on which they have made a ruling.
Posted by Paul Sherman
- 16 February, 2010, 12:58 PMChris and Peter, a few points:
1. Both of you direct at country clubs (as I do these days) where most of the players prefer to play the hands even if they knew you had a look at all 4 hands at the other table. In small country clubs directors are held in a far higher esteem than in city clubs: they tend to trust the TD implicitly. Go with the flow and play the hand and award an average only if you feel that your knowledge contributed substantially towards the result.
2. The hand may play out totally differently at your table than at the other. E.g. you may have been called to the table where NS played in 2S but at your own table (you sitting NS) the opps may have bid on to 3C and a totally different scenario presents itself.
3. Whether you agree or not with either A+ to both or A+ to the opps and A to you and partner, the bottom line is YOU ARE THE TD. You may assign what you deem to be correct on that hand on that day and I would be astounded if any of the players in that duplicate would not honour your decision.
1. Both of you direct at country clubs (as I do these days) where most of the players prefer to play the hands even if they knew you had a look at all 4 hands at the other table. In small country clubs directors are held in a far higher esteem than in city clubs: they tend to trust the TD implicitly. Go with the flow and play the hand and award an average only if you feel that your knowledge contributed substantially towards the result.
2. The hand may play out totally differently at your table than at the other. E.g. you may have been called to the table where NS played in 2S but at your own table (you sitting NS) the opps may have bid on to 3C and a totally different scenario presents itself.
3. Whether you agree or not with either A+ to both or A+ to the opps and A to you and partner, the bottom line is YOU ARE THE TD. You may assign what you deem to be correct on that hand on that day and I would be astounded if any of the players in that duplicate would not honour your decision.
Posted by Chris
- 15 February, 2010, 09:08 PMPeter, I have had that comment too .. "let's just play it for fun then". While I feel uncomfortable awarding myself A+ in these circumstances, I also feel pretty crappy about giving myself an A and the opponents A+ - it's not MY fault I got called to the table to make a directing decision (and certainly my partner has a big enough cross to bear playing with me already).
Posted by pwg
- 15 February, 2010, 11:52 AMThe reasons I play the board (after warning opponents that we may have to cancel the result because I have some potentially compromising information) are:
- Players want to play boards and prefer to do so even if they don't count! If I give the opponents the option, they normally say "let's play it for fun anyway & decide afterwards".
- The information, which may seem compromising before playing the hand, often doesn't turn out that way.
Like Chris, I feel uncomfortable awarding myself an A+. It seems to me that I am partly at fault through not having resolved the original call without acquiring the compromising info, and hence Av is the appropriate award to my side, and A+ to the opponents.
As a playing director, I am very aware of the "above board" perception issue. In practice one has to adopt a stance of resolving any doubtful issues involving oneself in favour of the other side :( - unless another director can be called. So, if, after play, there is any doubt, I cancel the result.
- Players want to play boards and prefer to do so even if they don't count! If I give the opponents the option, they normally say "let's play it for fun anyway & decide afterwards".
- The information, which may seem compromising before playing the hand, often doesn't turn out that way.
Like Chris, I feel uncomfortable awarding myself an A+. It seems to me that I am partly at fault through not having resolved the original call without acquiring the compromising info, and hence Av is the appropriate award to my side, and A+ to the opponents.
As a playing director, I am very aware of the "above board" perception issue. In practice one has to adopt a stance of resolving any doubtful issues involving oneself in favour of the other side :( - unless another director can be called. So, if, after play, there is any doubt, I cancel the result.
Posted by Chris
- 14 February, 2010, 07:34 PMMatthew, I know A+ is the correct way to go here - but somehow, it doesn't seem quite FAIR to give myself an Average Plus in this situation. I have a real problem getting my head around this. When I am called to a table I try very hard to stand behind the North hand if at all possible (I usually play North when directing). Like Ed said, I do try to make it very obvious that I am not playing this board because I have seen the opposition hands or know what the final contract is, or know what the final result was, etc. etc. Justice is not only done but seen .. blah blah blah.
Posted by Matthew McManus
- 14 February, 2010, 03:49 PMAs Ed says, ideally if you do need to investigate a hand in some detail, it would be better if there was another director available who had already played the board. Many times of course this luxury does not exist.
If you do feel compromised by the information you received when making a ruling, then it is probably best not to play the hand when it gets to you. Even if you do your utmost not to take advantage of any information you may have, it is important to uphold the perception that everything is "above board".
The appropriate ruling is to award average plus to both sides.
If you do feel compromised by the information you received when making a ruling, then it is probably best not to play the hand when it gets to you. Even if you do your utmost not to take advantage of any information you may have, it is important to uphold the perception that everything is "above board".
The appropriate ruling is to award average plus to both sides.
Posted by Ed Reppert
- 14 February, 2010, 12:45 PMQuote from: pwg on 13 February, 2010, 08:32 PM
My question is: what is the correct action in such a case?
QuoteLaw 16C1: When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.
So when it comes time to play a board on which you have such information you, wearing your "player" hat, call yourself, and tell yourself the facts (out loud, so the opponents don't think you're any crazier than they already do 8)). Then wearing your TD hat, you consider Law 16C2:
QuoteIf the director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may, before any call has been made:
(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand; or
(b) if the form of competition allows of it, order the board redealt for those contestants; or
(c) allow completion of the play of the board, standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result; or
(d) award an artificial adjusted score.
If Law 16C2c or d comes into play, and the TD is going to adjust the score, that is done under Law 12C1 (assigned adjusted score) in case c, or under Law 12C2 (artificial adjusted score) in case d. If you are going to award an artificial adjusted score, then your opponents, who cannot be in any way at fault here, should get A+. I would give my side A-, but I wouldn't argue with A (after all, part of the blame accrues to the players who screwed up at the other table, and so had to call the TD). I do not think "not played" is appropriate here.
Note that, in law, the decisions are the TD's alone â€" your opponents, or for that matter your partner, have no legal say in them. OTOH, in the interest of harmony, you might, if you have any doubt whether the result may have been affected, consult the other players (or players at another table). Even better would be to call another qualified, but uninvolved, TD, and ask him to make the ruling. Of course, if you don't have one available, you're kinda stuck.
Posted by Chris
- 13 February, 2010, 10:51 PMI don't play the hand at all and make the board "not played" - a "session average".
Posted by pwg
- 13 February, 2010, 08:32 PMAs a playing director, I'm often called to a table playing a hand I'll get later. Normally, I can avoid looking at hands,etc, but sometimes I can't avoid getting information about a hand. Sometimes (not often) that information is such that it compromises my ability to play the board ethically. My question is: what is the correct action in such a case?
At present, I play the board when it comes to me. After play, I tell the opponents that I had information regarding the hand. If I or the opponents think the result might have been affected by my knowledge, I cancel the result and award average+ to my opponents (in no way at fault) and average to my pair (partly at fault, since I can't play the board ethically). If the original result is more favourable than 60% to the opponents, I let it stand in any case. What do others do?
Peter.
At present, I play the board when it comes to me. After play, I tell the opponents that I had information regarding the hand. If I or the opponents think the result might have been affected by my knowledge, I cancel the result and award average+ to my opponents (in no way at fault) and average to my pair (partly at fault, since I can't play the board ethically). If the original result is more favourable than 60% to the opponents, I let it stand in any case. What do others do?
Peter.