[gordontd]

barmar, on 2012-September-21, 14:27, said:

Doesn't EBU have an interpretation that's something like "at least 60% would consider, and at least 25% would choose"?

White Book 16.6.1:

Quote

Is an action a logical alternative (an LA)?
When deciding whether an action constitutes an LA under the 2007 Laws, the TD
should decide two things.
1. He should decide whether a significant proportion of the player's peers,
playing the same system as the player, would seriously consider the action.
What is a “significant proportion”? The Laws do not specify a figure, but the TD should
assume that it means at least one player in five.
If fewer than about one player in five of a player’s peers would consider the action then
it is not an LA.
2. If a significant proportion would consider the action, then the TD should next
decide whether some would actually choose it.
Again the Laws do not specify a figure for “some”, and the TD should assume that it
means more than just an isolated exception.
If no one or almost no one would choose the action having considered it, the action is
not an LA.
Serious consideration is more than a passing thought.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2012-September-21, 11:19, said:

I find it quite possible to consider a call, but then decide that I am definitely not going to select it. I would find it strange if you then said that I might select it when I know that I would not.

Yes, I think the idea is to exclude an action that is incorrect or inferior, but which we wouldn't realise was wrong until we had considered it.

[RunemPard]

I would contact the TD after...regarding the LOL. Any time we must play them after, I will have two cards ready, opened, facing them, and give a brief system overview before play. If she asks, the director is on their way.

The thing I never understood is...when there are convention cards available, asking for an explanation of an opening bid is simply pointless and lazy. If the card says that 1C is 2+ suit, no 5cM unless 65 or greater, then asking is pointless.

[Sjoerds]

jeffford76, on 2012-September-17, 09:12, said:

...Someone asked fairly pointed questions about the opponent's auction while their partner was selecting a lead, the questions suggested a particular lead, and that is the suit the partner led.

I would like to stipulate one possible violation. 41B "the leader’s partner ...may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent’s call" but only after a face-down opening lead.

[jillybean]

jules101, on 2012-September-19, 19:51, said:

Similar, but different (in local club)

We have one 80+ year old delightful LOL who (whenever holding suit RHO opens) ALWAYS asks if RHO's suit is natural....

Cascade, on 2012-September-19, 21:44, said:

penalties

bluejak, on 2012-September-21, 07:54, said:

Keep ruling against them, explaining carefully.

Nice idea but it won't happen. The laws are generally NOT enforced at the Club level. The club managers/directors want the players to come and have a nice time and not be scared away by the laws and the secretary birds.

It is funny when I compare this to my daughter's basketball game. She has just started playing and there are a lot of rules. When she or a teammate break a rule, the whistle is blown and they are penalized. They are learning the rules and they all come back and play next week.

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2012-September-22, 09:32, said:

Nice idea but it won't happen. The laws are generally NOT enforced at the Club level. The club managers/directors want the players to come and have a nice time and not be scared away by the laws and the secretary birds.

Depends on the club manager/director, and whether he/she has skills to deal with repeated violations such as described, and whether he/she believes the other players are having a nice time being victimized by what this player does.

Enforcement action and education for what this LOL does is way beyond "secretary bird" characterisation.

[jillybean]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-22, 09:47, said:

Depends on the club manager/director, and whether he/she has skills to deal with repeated violations such as described, and whether he/she believes the other players are having a nice time being victimized by what this player does.

Enforcement action and education for what this LOL does is way beyond "secretary bird" characterisation.

I think it has little to do with whether he/she has the skills to deal with the violations but rather, is there the desire to deal with it? After talking
with club managers/directors about this, I believe the general desire is to keep the players happy which means not enforcing the laws. The few people who may be turned away by the lack of enforcement is tiny compared to the number of players violating the laws and the perception that they wouldn't come back if the laws were enforced.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2012-September-22, 09:32, said:

Nice idea but it won't happen. The laws are generally NOT enforced at the Club level. The club managers/directors want the players to come and have a nice time and not be scared away by the laws and the secretary birds.

It is funny when I compare this to my daughter's basketball game. She has just started playing and there are a lot of rules. When she or a teammate break a rule, the whistle is blown and they are penalized. They are learning the rules and they all come back and play next week.

It doesn't help when people label anyone who asks for a ruling a "secretary bird".

I suspect that if club players would call the director more often, and directors would get off their asses and make reasonable rulings (and if their rulings aren't reasonable, learn TFLB) the same thing would happen as in your daughter's basketball game.

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2012-September-22, 10:03, said:

I think it has little to do with whether he/she has the skills to deal with the violations but rather, is there the desire to deal with it? After talking
with club managers/directors about this, I believe the general desire is to keep the players happy which means not enforcing the laws. The few people who may be turned away by the lack of enforcement is tiny compared to the number of players violating the laws and the perception that they wouldn't come back if the laws were enforced.

Yes, we have one director whose sole mission is to not upset any inexperienced player. We have a couple directors who balance the conflicting issues nicely. It is all about having the confidence in one's communication skills and picking one's shots.

[axman]

jillybean, on 2012-September-22, 10:03, said:

I think it has little to do with whether he/she has the skills to deal with the violations but rather, is there the desire to deal with it? After talking
with club managers/directors about this, I believe the general desire is to keep the players happy which means not enforcing the laws. The few people who may be turned away by the lack of enforcement is tiny compared to the number of players violating the laws and the perception that they wouldn't come back if the laws were enforced.

It is the opposite that is true.

An example being a game in Canada that was on its dying gasp because the rules were not applied as written; when a player was asked to run that game he agreed on the condition he would run it in accordance with the rules. In spite of protracted resistance the players agreed. Inside of a year the club wasn't merely growing robustly- it was thriving- and other clubs undertook the same policy.

Now, the real problem with not conducting things according to the rules [which is similar to enforcing bad rules] is that the very people that are the substance of the well being of the group [in terms of skill and fair play] are the ones that stay away while it is the ruffians that remain.

[jillybean]

Ok, that is not my experience. I would very much like to see these overt and some not so overt, questionable actions addressed rather
than overlooked.

[bluejak]

jillybean, on 2012-September-22, 09:32, said:

Nice idea but it won't happen. The laws are generally NOT enforced at the Club level. The club managers/directors want the players to come and have a nice time and not be scared away by the laws and the secretary birds.

And they ignore the players who are thoroughly upset when their opponents get away with being complete pains in the behind, cheats, and so on, and they stop coming because of this?

I find the idea that failing to rule in favour of players who know they have been treated badly keeps them coming is laughable.

[jillybean]

To those posters who think I am out to lunch suggesting that rules are not enforced in club games, how often do you play or direct in a regular
club game?

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2012-September-22, 17:33, said:

To those posters who think I am out to lunch suggesting that rules are not enforced in club games, how often do you play or direct in a regular
club game?

Suggesting that rules not be enforced at club games is a whole lot different than suggesting that they aren't being enforced.

Characterising those TD's who choose to enforce certain basic ethics rules as Secretary Birds is advocating, not merely making an observation about common practice at the club level.

[blackshoe]

I don't think the rules are being enforced evenly and objectively in club games, generally, because I play in such games three or four times a week, and also direct sometimes, and that experience tells me it's not happening. Not to mention that I have had club directors here tell me they don't enforce certain rules — and club owners have asked me to "be careful" about enforcing certain rules (Law 90 in particular) when directing for them. OTOH, I do think the rules should be enforced — all of them, objectively and fairly in all cases. I have noticed that if I do enforce the rules in that way in certain peoples' games, I don't get asked to direct there again if there is anyone else available.

[jillybean]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-22, 18:20, said:

Suggesting that rules not be enforced at club games is a whole lot different than suggesting that they aren't being enforced.

Characterising those TD's who choose to enforce certain basic ethics rules as Secretary Birds is advocating, not merely making an observation about common practice at the club level.

Oh! I didn't mean the directors were the Secretary Birds, rather the players who call after these infractions have occurred.

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2012-September-23, 23:13, said:

Oh! I didn't mean the directors were the Secretary Birds, rather the players who call after these infractions have occurred.

Either way, the characterization is not appropriate, except maybe in the eyes of the perpetrators.

[jillybean]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-23, 23:15, said:

Either way, the characterization is not appropriate, except maybe in the eyes of the perpetrators.

I agree, however I think the characterization is the view of the majority. Most people want to play a "nice game" which means
having no director calls and in some cases using these little infractions with impunity. I have come to realise it is futile to
expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws.

[Zelandakh]

RunemPard, on 2012-September-21, 17:49, said:

The thing I never understood is...when there are convention cards available, asking for an explanation of an opening bid is simply pointless and lazy. If the card says that 1C is 2+ suit, no 5cM unless 65 or greater, then asking is pointless.

Is it? Do you not think I might want to know whether 1♣ was 2 only with exactly 4432 distribution or could be any balanced hand? Not only does it determine the level of nebulousness involved but it might change the defence being used. If I understood the ACBL discussions on the matter then a 1♣ opening showing the former allows only natural defences while a 1♣ opening of any balanced hand allows any defence. Pointless? Lazy? Only for those who think the opponents bids do not matter very much when selecting their own.

[richlp]

jillybean, on 2012-September-22, 09:32, said:

It is funny when I compare this to my daughter's basketball game. She has just started playing and there are a lot of rules. When she or a teammate break a rule, the whistle is blown and they are penalized. They are learning the rules and they all come back and play next week.

The analogy is not exact. Imagine that an extra free-throw is awarded if the referee determines that the infraction was intentional. Then see how many would drop out after being whistled for a couple of intentional fouls each game.

My feeling is that most beginners don't mind so much when a ruling is given for a breach of the mechanical rules of the game. Insufficient Bid, Lead out of turn, Revoke, etc. rulings will not cause somebody to drop out of the club. But a ruling with an implication of cheating (and players at ALL levels feel this way (whether they should or not, they do) when ruled against on matters of UI, MI etc) will send a beginner away from the club and back to the kitchen table where nobody notices or cares.