[Jinksy]

---

Playing a match point game, we bid our way like champions to 3D by south (me).

I received a H lead, E put on the king, and when I drew a round of trumps and all followed, I put my hand down. Obviously I can't remember the exact words I used, but as best as I can reconstruct them, I said something like

'I'll draw trumps, ruff a H which gives me 12 tricks and concede the A♠ at the end.' (but probably less concise and with more stuttering, since it has to be said I suck at claiming)

At this point, W became angry, and said that I'd given an insufficient line, and shouldn't have claimed. I rose to the bait, and said that unless she thought I was planning to either duck a heart then ruff my winner, or contrive to draw trumps and then lock myself in the wrong hand, there wasn't any ambiguity. She pressed the point aggressively, I pressed back, and eventually said something like 'I'll let it go this time, but you shouldn't claim if you're not ready to'. We left it there.

I have two questions:

1) Am I nuts, or are her comments ludicrous? I realise I didn't give an algorithm that a computer program would follow, and every once in a while the strictness of bridge law surprises me - but I still find it hard to believe any director would fault my claim here.

2) This is not the first time, and probably won't be the last that I've found (usually incompetent) players aggressively pushing nonsense bridge rules at the table, and it sometimes seems to me more like an attempt at bullying than anything else.* When I feel a player is bent on pushing a point of law highly aggressively at either me or my partner (or even theirs, on occasion), do I have any legal recourse on the spot, to oblige them to tone it down? Ie something better than quietly reporting it later which, realistically I'll never do, partly from a sense of distaste, partly from a lack of a sense of what to report.

The problem is of course that she wasn't doing any particular thing I could easily point to as a breach of conduct, other than being (I think) factually wrong. But I would very much have liked to say something like 'I insist we call the director at this stage, and that you apologise for being so vociferous if he rules against you' with a genuine threat of being able to get their behaviour noted while they're still in full flow, or something like that.

[wank]

clueless players often have silly ideas.

[pran]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-02, 15:38, said:

---

Playing a match point game, we bid our way like champions to 3D by south (me).

I received a H lead, E put on the king, and when I drew a round of trumps and all followed, I put my hand down. Obviously I can't remember the exact words I used, but as best as I can reconstruct them, I said something like

'I'll draw trumps, ruff a H which gives me 12 tricks and concede the A♠ at the end.' (but probably less concise and with more stuttering, since it has to be said I suck at claiming)

At this point, W became angry, and said that I'd given an insufficient line, and shouldn't have claimed. I rose to the bait, and said that unless she thought I was planning to either duck a heart then ruff my winner, or contrive to draw trumps and then lock myself in the wrong hand, there wasn't any ambiguity. She pressed the point aggressively, I pressed back, and eventually said something like 'I'll let it go this time, but you shouldn't claim if you're not ready to'. We left it there.

I have two questions:

1) Am I nuts, or are her comments ludicrous? I realise I didn't give an algorithm that a computer program would follow, and every once in a while the strictness of bridge law surprises me - but I still find it hard to believe any director would fault my claim here.

2) This is not the first time, and probably won't be the last that I've found (usually incompetent) players aggressively pushing nonsense bridge rules at the table, and it sometimes seems to me more like an attempt at bullying than anything else.* When I feel a player is bent on pushing a point of law highly aggressively at either me or my partner (or even theirs, on occasion), do I have any legal recourse on the spot, to oblige them to tone it down? Ie something better than quietly reporting it later which, realistically I'll never do, partly from a sense of distaste, partly from a lack of a sense of what to report.

The problem is of course that she wasn't doing any particular thing I could easily point to as a breach of conduct, other than being (I think) factually wrong. But I would very much have liked to say something like 'I insist we call the director at this stage, and that you apologise for being so vociferous if he rules against you' with a genuine threat of being able to get their behaviour noted while they're still in full flow, or something like that.

Your claim is of course good, although not given in a way easily followed by everybody. (Anybody is entitled to contest a claim they do not immediately fully understand!)

You should not have argued with West at all. If a TD was available the (only) correct procedure is to summon him to the table (without any further comments before he arrives).

If no TD is available you should calmly explain in more detail (trick by trick) your line of play (carefully keeping within your first stated line of play). If West still complains you might ask what her problem with your claim really is.

[blackshoe]

1. You're not nuts.

2. What pran said.

[mycroft]

some people don't like to think on claims, and if it isn't running winners, they gripe. Some people don't like claims at all, and "want to play bridge" instead.

But, the proper response is to claim, make your claim statement, explain quickly if needed, and if there's any hitch on it, call the TD and state that they are contesting your claim. Preferably not with the subtext of "because they couldn't count to 13 if they weren't wearing sandals" or "because they were rooked on an 'obvious' claim once, and they're going to try for every stupid trick they can see in future". Even if it's true.

Like all above, don't get involved in an argument, and don't respond to any histrionics; call the TD and tell her that they're disputing your claim. The TD will thank you, because she'll be called anyway, 20 seconds later after everyone's started yelling at each other, and now she has two problems (and she hasn't even used regexes!)

[Jinksy]

My problem is the TD usually *isn't* called anyway. Assuming you don't kowtow like a little lamb, these episodes inevitably end with a sanctimonious 'I'll let you get away with it this time'. It's at this point I want to say 'that's not good enough at this point - you made a huge issue of this, now deal with some ***** consequences', so they don't try this on with the next nervous-looking opps who arrive at their table. People like this are a substantial part of the reason it's so hard to get new members for bridge clubs.

But if they've technically retracted their contesting claims, it's hard to justify a director call, however sourly they've done so.

[Cyberyeti]

I played in a club I don't normally play in for a county trophy event locally, claimed, and the two lols said words to the effect of "we don't claim here". I called the director and was told to "remember where you are". Claims seem to be a problem with weak players, yours was so obvious I might not even have bothered with a line of play against anybody who could follow suit.

Funnily enough, later in the event partner claimed when dummy fairly obviously had all winners, opps eventually realised this and we moved on. In the car on the way home, we realised that dummy was all winners because it had a card less at the time than all the other hands.

[Jinksy]

Sheesh, what options are there for complaining about directors? That's horrific behaviour - I think I'd actually walk out mid-session if someone pulled that on me. Probably after demanding my table money back, (on the grounds that they'd falsely advertised their club as 'bridge', if anyone objected).

[blackshoe]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-02, 17:52, said:

My problem is the TD usually *isn't* called anyway. Assuming you don't kowtow like a little lamb, these episodes inevitably end with a sanctimonious 'I'll let you get away with it this time'. It's at this point I want to say 'that's not good enough at this point - you made a huge issue of this, now deal with some ***** consequences', so they don't try this on with the next nervous-looking opps who arrive at their table. People like this are a substantial part of the reason it's so hard to get new members for bridge clubs.

But if they've technically retracted their contesting claims, it's hard to justify a director call, however sourly they've done so.

No, it's not. What this person has done violates the zero tolerance policy. Granted some clubs won't implement it, and some claim to implement it and then don't follow it. But I would call the director and report exactly what happened. If the director's handling of the situation is unsatisfactory, I would tell him so - and tell him if it ever happens again, he will lose at least one customer, and his malfeasance will be reported to the ACBL. Nothing may come of that, but at least I will have done the right thing.

[Nabooba]

The claim is correct, of course. If a claim is contested, call the director. Do not argue.

[Jinksy]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-02, 19:55, said:

No, it's not. What this person has done violates the zero tolerance policy.

What does the policy state? I'd find it hard to describe on the spot exactly what I was objecting to (assuming they don't keep it up when the TD arrives), other than some hand-wavy claim about aggressiveness which, with multiple angry players at the table, will surely be hard for the director to take a firm position on?

Incidentally, the same woman, later in the session, picked a fight with an experienced club director (not active in that session). Whatever the contest was, at some point I saw her, him, and the active TD talking heatedly. Non-active TD started contradicting her, and she pointedly said 'Actually you'll find I'm not talking to you at the moment' - at which point he walked off in disgust.

In retrospect I wish I'd gone over to talk to him, but it was the end of the session and I didn't really think of it at the time.

[Jinksy]

mycroft, on 2014-October-02, 17:07, said:

Preferably not with the subtext of "because they couldn't count to 13 if they weren't wearing sandals"

I regret to inform you that that is the best bridge put-down I've ever heard, and you almost certainly haven't decreased the chances that I'll use it at some point

[billw55]

If she really thought there was a problem, she would call the director. Ergo she knows it is nonsense.

Perhaps she is one of those who feels she has paid to play cards, and claims deprive her of her evening enjoyment.

[weejonnie]

1) Claim is valid
2) Don't rise to the bait. Just say "If you are disputing the claim then under the laws of bridge we'd better call the Director". Most arguments and bad feelings arise from failure to call the TD early enough. Both pairs would have received a DP in this case.
3) Obviously Bridge in America is not like bridge in the UK (at least not when I'm directing!)
4) I suspect that if I were to direct a club in America then the club membership would initially fall as the obnoxious customers found their percentages dropping by 3 or 4 a week. Then it should start rising - especially if players travelling to other clubs say 'We play at ... and the Director clamps down on antisocial behaviour'
5) You ALWAYS have the right to call the TD if you feel that a player is acting unreasonably (81C1) and 90A. The nice thing about Disciplinary Penalties (Law 91) is that they can't be removed without a Director's permission.

[blackshoe]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-03, 03:14, said:

What does the policy state? I'd find it hard to describe on the spot exactly what I was objecting to (assuming they don't keep it up when the TD arrives), other than some hand-wavy claim about aggressiveness which, with multiple angry players at the table, will surely be hard for the director to take a firm position on?

In the ACBL, the policy says, among other things

Quote

If a player at the table behaves in an unacceptable manner, the director should be called immediately. Annoying behavior, embarrassing remarks, or any other conduct which might interfere with the enjoyment of the game is specifically prohibited by Law 74A. Law 91A gives the director the authority to assess disciplinary penalties.

and

Quote

The director, when called, shall make an assessment of the situation. If it is established that there was unacceptable behavior, an immediate ¼ board disciplinary penalty (3 IMP in team games) shall be assigned to all offenders. This may involve any one or all four players at the table irrespective of who initiated the unacceptable behavior. If both members of a partnership are guilty, the penalties are additive (¼ board EACH = ½ board!).

and

Quote

If it is determined that the same offender is responsible for a second offense in the same event, then the offender(s) shall be ejected from future competition in that event. An offender removed from an event shall be deemed to have not played in the event, no masterpoints will be awarded and no refunds will be made. All previously-obtained results shall, however, remain valid as to their effect upon other competitors. In the case of a serious offense and in the case of multiple offenses (three) during a tournament, a disciplinary committee may be convened to determine whether the offender(s) should be allowed to play in other events at the tournament and/or whether additional sanctions may be appropriate.

and also

Quote

Warnings are strongly discouraged and will be given only when there is no clear violation or in cases where the facts cannot be determined. Offenders are to receive immediate penalties. Regardless of who may have initiated unacceptable behavior, ALL offenses are punishable. Retaliatory behavior is a punishable offense. Frivolous accusations will also be considered as offenses under this policy.

I believe the EBU has a similar policy. Don't know about other jurisdictions.

Weejonnie's advice is sound.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2014-October-02, 17:07, said:

some people don't like to think on claims, and if it isn't running winners, they gripe. Some people don't like claims at all, and "want to play bridge" instead. But, the proper response is to claim, make your claim statement, explain quickly if needed, and if there's any hitch on it, call the TD and state that they are contesting your claim. Preferably not with the subtext of "because they couldn't count to 13 if they weren't wearing sandals" or "because they were rooked on an 'obvious' claim once, and they're going to try for every stupid trick they can see in future". Even if it's true. Like all above, don't get involved in an argument, and don't respond to any histrionics; call the TD and tell her that they're disputing your claim. The TD will thank you, because she'll be called anyway, 20 seconds later after everyone's started yelling at each other, and now she has two problems (and she hasn't even used regexes!)

weejonnie, on 2014-October-03, 07:22, said:

1) Claim is valid
2) Don't rise to the bait. Just say "If you are disputing the claim then under the laws of bridge we'd better call the Director". Most arguments and bad feelings arise from failure to call the TD early enough. Both pairs would have received a DP in this case.
3) Obviously Bridge in America is not like bridge in the UK (at least not when I'm directing!)
4) I suspect that if I were to direct a club in America then the club membership would initially fall as the obnoxious customers found their percentages dropping by 3 or 4 a week. Then it should start rising - especially if players travelling to other clubs say 'We play at ... and the Director clamps down on antisocial behaviour'
5) You ALWAYS have the right to call the TD if you feel that a player is acting unreasonably (81C1) and 90A. The nice thing about Disciplinary Penalties (Law 91) is that they can't be removed without a Director's permission.

Thank you, mycroft and weejonnie, for good advice. I still wish the rule were changed to "Declarer claims by stating a number of tricks and facing his hand. Defenders dispute the claim by playing on, with declarer's hand exposed, until they're satisfied."

[Jinksy]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-03, 10:37, said:

In the ACBL, the policy says, among other things
and
and
and also
I believe the EBU has a similar policy. Don't know about other jurisdictions.

Weejonnie's advice is sound.

I still find myself at a loss as to what I'd say - or rather have said - if I called the director. Suppose you'd been in the OP situation. The woman involved hasn't sworn or insulted you, or done any such thing that would fit into an easy tick box of 'non-best behaviour', but as a sentient human she's left you feeling extremely put out. You call the director. He arrives at your table (let's pretend he teleports there instantly, so we don't have to hypothesise what would happen in the interim as a result of you doing so*), and the woman at least partially settles down as self-preservation kicks in in the presence of someone who can figuratively harm her. You have no evidence of how she was behaving, nor even any specific claims you can make about e.g. phrases she used, items she threw. Naturally she'll deny any nebulous claims of being aggressive.

What do you say to the TD?

* Separately, let's not assume this and look at it separately, since this is a very human part of bridge that the laws as I've heard them seem to ignore. Let's say the TD is taking a while to get there. What do you do to fill the time? Do you try to inform the woman that you're about to report her for bad behaviour? If so, do you attempt to describe why? Or do you refuse to talk to her until the TD arrives? Or do you have some other conversational strategy to pass the time?

(if these questions sound rhetorical, btw, they're not supposed to be! I would love a good one-size-fits-all approach here)

[mycroft]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-02, 17:52, said:

My problem is the TD usually *isn't* called anyway. Assuming you don't kowtow like a little lamb, these episodes inevitably end with a sanctimonious 'I'll let you get away with it this time'.

That's why you circumvent the game playing with no kowtow, no stand up to it, just a quiet "Director, please" and an innocent "She's disputing my claim. This was my statement" - and she can play the game with the TD.

Make it clear that not only will that game not work with you, but you're not even interested in playing it (because, of course, you don't have to), and it will go away (and if it doesn't go away, the TD knows intimately that this player plays this game). Also, others will see that, and perhaps emulate it when she plays that game with them (of course, you can offer this advice when someone else rants about it, just like I did when you ranted :-).

The key is to remember L9B1. These people get away with their crap because "it's the 'non-offender's ' job to call the TD, and I'd rather intimidate than do that" - guess what? It's not. And those who say "they have a problem, they can call the TD" get sucked right into the game. Those that know and follow the Law get to smile and let someone else play the game.

Have I mentioned I'm passive-aggressive recently?

TL;DR:

Quote

But if they've technically retracted their contesting claims, it's hard to justify a director call, however sourly they've done so.

So get the TD there *before* they retract their contention!

[Vampyr]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-03, 14:11, said:

What do you say to the TD?

You say there has been a contested claim. Without getting involved in an argument first.

There seem to be a lot of awful people at this club. Are you sure you are. It oart if the problem though? You referred to your opponents, in another thread, as "bunnies" -- a term I have not heard applied to specific players on these forums before (bunny-bashing just refers to people in general, and it is usually the bashers themselves who are subject to disrespect.)

[Jinksy]

Quote

There seem to be a lot of awful people at this club.

This feels mean-spirited. The only person whose character I've criticised is the woman in this thread's - in the other thread on this forum I explicitly said I didn't believe they'd acted with any malice, and other than the 'bunnies', I've never referred to anyone else from this club on BBF. Do you really find 'bunnies' worse than 'LOLs'?