[blml] club director torment

[Robert Frick]

On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:15:00 -0400, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

> On May 8, 2008, at 4:03 AM, <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>
> <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> From: "Robert Frick" <rfrick at rfrick.info>
>>
>>> Hmm, I can read through 8 years worth of minutes of meetings of Law
>>> Commissions/Committees. Sorry to say this, but I have not seen a
>>> WBFLC
>>> opinion (or whatever) that I liked.
>>>
>>> Maybe I shouldn't be spending all of today running my
>>> obsessive-compulsive-perfectionistic programs and trying to figure
>>> out if
>>> there even is a right ruling or how I would find that out. Maybe I
>>> should
>>> just take for granted that if I make a ruling, a higher up will
>>> probably
>>> judge it "wrong" and there is nothing I can do in advance to avoid
>>> that.
>>> Maybe no one really expects club directors to do anything more
>>> than apply
>>> their own interpretation of the laws.
>>>
>>> Or, as you all know, the laws are pretty good, but they aren't
>>> great, and
>>> there is no good way of handling the ambiguities.
>>
>> +=+ No grief Bob about not liking a WBFLC opinion. It is a rare
>> opinion that does not meet with 'dislike' on the part of some people.
>> We live with that.
>>         Take the law step by step. When a Director is summoned to
>> deal with an insufficient bid the first duty lies upon his
>> shoulders. He
>> must tell the players at the table what the law is. He ought to
>> tell them
>> about the LHO's option to accept or not accept, and that when LHO
>> has decided the offender will have options. He should tell them about
>> 27B1(a) and (b) , about 27B2 and that replacement with a double or
>> redouble is only permissible if it meets the requirements of 27B1(b).
>> (It will help the Director if he thinks about his task beforehand and
>> works out the simplest way for him of stating the law adequately to
>> the players. I suspect that numbers of TDs will start by telling
>> LHO of
>> his options and that if he rejects the IB the offender will have
>> options
>> some of which will place restrictions upon his side.  If LHO asks for
>> more information about offender's options he is entitled to it. ) When
>> he has stated the law he should ask the LHO to decide whether to
>> accept the IB or not.
>>         Only after LHO has decided not to accept the IB does offender
>> have any options and he does not have to select an option until he has
>> options. He may need to be reminded again what they are. My advice
>> is to work out beforehand the easiest way for you of accomplishing all
>> of this.
>
> That is a formula for achieving Bob's dystopia, in which "directors
> [do nothing] more than apply their own interpretation of the laws".
> ISTM it should be up to our RAs, or some higher authority, to "think
> [] about [the] task beforehand and work[] out the simplest way for
> [TDs] of stating the law adequately to the players", and to
> communicate it to the TDs within their jurisdiction.  That might
> actually prevent our winding up with every club having the functional
> equivalent of its very own version of L27.

I think we disagree on which is the utopia and which is the dystopia.  
These are still developing thoughts for me, but...

The other day I went to table and there was the start of mild hard  
feelings. Mild but typical -- one side is a little upset by the criminal  
behavior of their opps, the other side is upset to be called out in public  
like they were criminals. I made a joke, I did my ruling, and I left the  
table. A few seconds later I heard the table laughing, now at their own  
jokes. Okay, I am bragging here, but did it really make any difference if  
my ruling was technically correct?

Conversely, a player plays out half of the hand with an extra card (from  
the next board) before it is noticed. I make a Law 14 ruling. The opp is  
very unhappy and argumentative. She says that I should be applying Law 13.  
I point out that Law 13 makes no sense in this situation, while Law 14  
does. She points out that Law 14 is for missing card, and this wasn't a  
missing card. I point out that Law 13 will come out about the same. She  
points out that Law 13 will give her the chance to refuse to play the  
board. I don't want to give her the chance to refuse to play the board  
just because of some extra card that didn't influence anything. (Sincere  
appreciation of the new laws. But this was old laws.) I don't change my  
ruling.

Was my ruling "correct"? I don't even know what "correct" means. Will we  
really find that 5 experts all agree? And what good does that do me anyway  
-- I had to make a ruling that night. The situation is ambiguous, the  
player is not happy, and if I gave the opposite ruling, probably the opps  
would be unhappy.

So my dystopia is (1) ambiguous laws, or laws that are not ambiguous but  
are nonetheless interpreted in different ways, and (2) a culture in which  
the director is supposedly can just apply the laws and the opps complain  
if the director is wrong. (I have no problem with the opps complaining for  
Law 84B irregularities with clear penalties.) If we can eliminate either  
one, my dystopia disappears.

I understand that the laws have to be ambiguous. But there is no good way  
of resolving the ambiguities. Meanwhile, new laws....if a player makes an  
insufficient bid, shoots out a contract barring partner, and gets a top  
because of a 5-0 spade break, then the director adjusts using 27D, who on  
this list is going to support that director? My worry is that I will be  
the only one.