[blml] almost td problem 2

[Roger Eymard]

Roger Eymard :

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Easterson" <JffEstrsn at aol.com>
To: <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:05 AM
Subject: [blml] almost td problem 2


> Thanks for the input; probably more will come.  To clarify a few points:
> yes the TD asked if there had been a hesitation ("pass" was typo that I
> didn't catch when rereading).  Naturally someone should have called the
> TD.  The lady in question was afraid to, the partner of the willfully
> misscoring fellow appears to have agreed with him and I don't know about
> the partner of my lady acquaintance. But she and her partner are, as far
> as I know, not terribly experienced players and were conscious of being
> guests in a foreign club and there were some linguistic limitations as
> well.  None of this excuses their pusillanimity (there's a word creation
> for you!) of course.  Naturally, when she told me the story I
> immediately told her that playing duplicate bridge carries certain
> obligations.  Such as not falling asleep at the table so as to naturally
> be aware of any hesitation, particularly the partner's, and that it was
> 100% necessary to call the TD in such a case, allowing the opponents to
> get away with such an action, "if you want a top so much, okay" does not
> only give the opponents a top (or good score) but affects all other
> competitors and falsifies the result.
> The club was licensed by the French federation and awarded MPs, so it
> was hardly social bridge and surely subject to the rules of bridge and
> civilised behaviour.  I think most of the ruling is obvious.  What
> inspired my enquiry was the personal speculation as to what I, as TD,
> should have done. Only a warning (with explanation) is too little I
> think, even a most severe warning.  The culprit was an experienced
> player.  I think a procedural penalty is necessary but don't know how
> massive it would have been.  I also considered reporting the whole
> incident to the national federation (or at least threatening to do so)
> but, of course, I wasn't there.  As to hearsay: yes, of course, you
> can't be certain but that was not the point.  Assuming that things were
> as reported and you were the TD, what would you have done?  That is what
> I wanted to know.
> To Sven:  No, as far as I know the social aspect is unimportant at said
> club, the opponents were described as being very intense and ambitious.
>    Yes, I also immediately said that 3 hearts would probably have been
> better than pass after the 2 spade bid.  I don't know if there was a
> stop before 2 spades (probably was since it wasn't mentioned) but that
> is really irrelevant I think since the (probable) hesitation of partner
> which was the cause of the discussion was after the 3 diam. bid.  I also
> think that it was a competitive auction but then there are hesitations
> in such auctions as well, only the time-limit of normal tempo is
> somewhat increased.
> I, of course, told her that she was obliged to call the TD as soon as
> the trouble started, but timid players against veteran players can cause
> the timid player to not do so.  Incidentally, I assume that the
> opponents were not only more experienced but also more proficient
> players which makes their transgression all the more serious.
> I agree with your 4 points at end of your email; was pondering further
> steps (such as procedural penalty) without commotion or further
> problems.  As one of the other correspondents wrote, "un-f-believable
> arrogance" (and he didn't even mention that it was willful falsification
> of a result!).  Thus I was pondering what I'd do after carrying out your
> 4 steps.  Ciao, JE
>

As a TD , appointed to direct official events of the French Bridge 
Federation, as well as directing occasionally as a volunteer playing TD in 
regular tournaments of my Club - probably quite similar to the one cited -, 
I agree of course with points 1 to 3 of Sven Pran's analysis.
But such a willful falsification of a result, if attested, would be 
certainly reported (by myself if not by the Club Directing Board) to the 
relevant disciplinary instance, and lead to the appropriate penalty, which 
may include, among other penalties, the interdiction for the culprit to 
enter any bridge event pertaining to the FFB (including any local club 
tournament in France), during a definite period.

Active zero tolerance of such behaviours is the constant policy of the FFB 
for bridge events which pertain to her - that is, for which MPs are awarded 
by her.
And I would certainly not write here the word qualifying this man, despite 
the freedom generally allowed in the posts :-(








> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>