[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-May-29, 08:26, said:

Is it really likely that West, a director, thinks there's a rule in the game that allows him to ask questions but prohibits his partner? How would such a biased rule be written? Is this what was meant by having a reputation for "inventive rulings"?

I've known this director for nearly twenty years. I used to play in his games. My assessment is that in making up his mind about a ruling, he goes with what he thinks it ought to be, rather than with what the law book says — and he does not consult said law book. And once he makes up his mind, that's the end of it. He will not change it. He frequently gets it wrong.

I suspect that his focus in this case was on the fact that he doesn't want his partner to ask questions. He doesn't care what the rules say about that. Still, if I were ruling on this incident at the table, I would ask him what his thinking was, rather than assume that "he's a director, he can't possibly believe that". Particularly having known him for so long.

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-27, 20:44, said:

"I will always protect partner" is willful violation of Law 20G1. In particular I expect a director of 35 years' experience to be aware of this law.

Probably he is aware; he has just decided he knows better and that in his little kingdom (club) he will do as he pleases. My guess is he doesn't venture this attitude at tournaments, where he would risk receiving a correct ruling.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-29, 12:37, said:

I've known this director for nearly twenty years. I used to play in his games. My assessment is that in making up his mind about a ruling, he goes with what he thinks it ought to be, rather than with what the law book says — and he does not consult said law book. And once he makes up his mind, that's the end of it. He will not change it. He frequently gets it wrong.

Do a lot of people appeal his rulings?

[barmar]

So he's so narcissistic that he thinks "I don't want partner to ask questions" == "There's a rule prohibiting partner from asking questions"? Wow!

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 02:34, said:

Do a lot of people appeal his rulings?

No idea. He once ruled that my partner and I were told we could not play a particular GCC convention. At that time, he did not own the club (he does now) and it was run by a BoD, one member of which suggested we bring the question before the board. Unfortunately my then partner died before we could do that. I haven't played in this game since.

barmar, on 2013-May-30, 08:39, said:

So he's so narcissistic that he thinks "I don't want partner to ask questions" == "There's a rule prohibiting partner from asking questions"? Wow!

I suspect he's not unaware that it's a rule he made.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-30, 10:26, said:

I suspect he's not unaware that it's a rule he made.

So he somehow imagined that there's a rule like "West can ask questions, but East can't"?

I guess you're saying that doesn't really think about these things, just makes things up as he goes along.

[blackshoe]

Pretty much, yeah.

[nige1]

TFLB, L20G1 said:

It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit.

The worst infractions were West's and all players should have called the (proper) director. But IMO law 20G1 is one of the unnecessary laws that add no value and should be scrapped.

[GreenMan]

nige1, on 2013-May-31, 10:09, said:

The worst infractions were West's and all players should have called the (proper) director. But IMO law 20G1 is one of the unnecessary laws that add no value and should be scrapped.

I suspect that if we actually scrapped it, then many, many pro/client pairs (or good player/less-good player pairs) would adopt the practice of the better player asking many detailed questions about the opps' auction just to be sure partner knows everything the pro knows but couldn't work out himself. Improper? Why, they actually got rid of the Law that forbade it! It's perfectly legal now!

That's not a game I want to play. 20G1 is needed.

[mycroft]

The other benefit of 20G1 is disallowing the pro asking questions that imply not only that the client needs to know this, but partner wants the client to pay particular attention to either the question or the response. Which is more critical, of course, when the pro *doesn't* ask the "partner, wake up" question, because the righter lead is more likely to come when the client isn't woken up.

Yes, this happened - it was at least common in the time before the time before. It was even easier in the time before Alerts.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2013-May-31, 10:09, said:

The worst infractions were West's and all players should have called the (proper) director. But IMO law 20G1 is one of the unnecessary laws that add no value and should be scrapped.

In this case, as I said in the first post, West is the "proper" director. That is, he is the (playing) director in this game. And I disagree with you regarding 20G1.

[pran]

nige1, on 2013-May-31, 10:09, said:

The worst infractions were West's and all players should have called the (proper) director. But IMO law 20G1 is one of the unnecessary laws that add no value and should be scrapped.

Law 20G1 was added in the Laws for a very specific reason: The increasing number of "unbalanced" partnerships and their practice which was found to threaten the way bridge "should be played".

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-31, 11:07, said:

In this case, as I said in the first post, West is the "proper" director. That is, he is the (playing) director in this game. And I disagree with you regarding 20G1.

Normally when a ruling is needed at the playing director's table, another qualified director will be asked to rule.

[nige1]

GreenMan, on 2013-May-31, 10:41, said:

I suspect that if we actually scrapped it, then many, many pro/client pairs (or good player/less-good player pairs) would adopt the practice of the better player asking many detailed questions about the opps' auction just to be sure partner knows everything the pro knows but couldn't work out himself. Improper? Why, they actually got rid of the Law that forbade it! It's perfectly legal now! That's not a game I want to play. 20G1 is needed.

"Detailed" questions are a separate issue I like the ACBL position, that you should reveal (or offer to reveal) all relevant information, even in response to a woolly question.

[mycroft]

Heh, I'm really lucky that usually in games I play in, even if I'm the playing TD, there *is* another qualified director.

And by qualified, I don't mean "uh, Mycroft, what do I do here?" having passed the exam several years ago :-)

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-31, 12:02, said:

Normally when a ruling is needed at the playing director's table, another qualified director will be asked to rule.

Heh. I'll have to ask the people who still play in his game whether he ever does that. I doubt it.

On reflection, I do recall having seen it once. It was teams, and the call came from the other table in our playing director's match. The director hadn't yet played the board, so he asked someone else to handle it. Unfortunately, although the man was qualified in the sense that he held a valid ACBL club director's card, he had not directed in some years and was unsure of the ruling. When the player who called for the director found that out, he yelled at the top of his lungs "I WANT A REAL DIRECTOR!" and things went downhill from there.

[GreenMan]

nige1, on 2013-May-31, 13:28, said:

"Detailed" questions are a separate issue

I should have said "gratuitous", don't know why I didn't. That's the idea I had in mind, anyway.