[McBruce]

Hasn't happened; just something I thought about after a difficult game.

A pair is loudly discussing the deals with enough detail and volume to disturb other players. After a stern warning or two, is it legal to give them a DP or PP of, say, half a board, while also saying that if they can get through the rest of the game without another incident the fine will be rescinded, but increased dramatically if there is another incident?

The rationale here is that the threat is not going to work as well as the carrot.

[pran]

McBruce, on Jun 11 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

Hasn't happened; just something I thought about after a difficult game.

A pair is loudly discussing the deals with enough detail and volume to disturb other players. After a stern warning or two, is it legal to give them a DP or PP of, say, half a board, while also saying that if they can get through the rest of the game without another incident the fine will be rescinded, but increased dramatically if there is another incident?

The rationale here is that the threat is not going to work as well as the carrot.

"After a stern warning or two" I don't think a carrot of waving the penalty is wise. I would recommend a carrot that they will avoid further penalties continuously increasing unless they stop misbehaving.

[axman]

McBruce, on Jun 11 2010, 05:19 PM, said:

Hasn't happened; just something I thought about after a difficult game.

A pair is loudly discussing the deals with enough detail and volume to disturb other players.  After a stern warning or two, is it legal to give them a DP or PP of, say, half a board, while also saying that if they can get through the rest of the game without another incident the fine will be rescinded, but increased dramatically if there is another incident?

The rationale here is that the threat is not going to work as well as the carrot.

In the situation described, upwards of three comparisons have just been damaged; and up to this point, if the behavior has now stopped how many others have been/ will be damaged?

A player has earned a PP/DP or he has not and ought to be treated as such. To do otherwise shows disrespect for him and for you. It is one thing to prescibe a penalty incorrectly and remedy the error and quite another to pat the bad boy on the head and tell him to keep it up.

As for bribing players, I do not believe that there is a prohibition against it. I for one do not have the wisdom of Solomon when it comes to choosing when to do it. I do know that once you take Monty Hall's job it will be a tough sell to be a leader of these people, and if I were around it's quite likely that I will soon want to not be around.

There is something that takes many a long time to learn- if ever- in that the next hand is but a shuffle away.

[blackshoe]

I agree with the idea that either a penalty is appropriate, or it is not. So either you give it or you don't.

Two stern warnings is, IMO, one too many. It diminishes your credibility. I would give a warning, then a penalty. If they continue, increase the penalty. If they complain, tell them "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". The alternative is to do nothing - no penalties, no warnings, anything goes. You don't want that, either.

Establish a reputation for being fair and even-handed — if you give penalties for something, give them to everybody. IME, people will continue to come to your game, even if in the heat of the moment they swear "never again".

[gnasher]

McBruce, on Jun 11 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

After a stern warning or two, is it legal to give them a DP or PP of, say, half a board, while also saying that if they can get through the rest of the game without another incident the fine will be rescinded, but increased dramatically if there is another incident?

So either
- There are no more incidents, and they escape without penalty, or
- Another incident occurs, in which case they receive a larger penalty than half a board

It seems to me that all you've done is to issue another warning, stating that the penalty for a further incident will be more than half a board.

[Bbradley62]

According to the Zero Tolerance procedures posted at ABCL.org:

The following procedures have been given to the tournament directors for implementation.

At the start of each event, the director shall make an announcement that the tournament will be observing ZERO TOLERANCE for unacceptable behavior. It is requested that the director be called whenever behavior is not consistent with the guidelines outlined above.

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!). The Board of Directors strongly believes that assignment of disciplinary penalties will improve the overall behavior at our tournaments.

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.

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.

In accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, a director's decision to impose a disciplinary penalty is final; however, all such decisions may be appealed. An appeals committee may not overturn the director's decision, but could recommend that the director reconsider the imposition of a penalty. It should be noted that the committee may feel that the penalty assessed was not severe enough and may refer the matter to a disciplinary committee.

So, it's possible that you cannot determine the facts the first time there is an issue (wink wink)...

Then you impose the 1/2 board penalty the second time you have to talk with the offenders...

Then, either:
(a) there is another problem, you eject the offenders; or
(b) there are no more problems, and they can appeal the penalty, in which case the appeals committee (which might simply be you) can recommend that you reconsider the penalty and you can decide to rescind it.

It does not appear that you are at liberty to assess a dramatically increased penalty short of ejection.

Please note that I'm not encouraging this "stretching" of the procedures, but the original question asked what was allowed, not what was a good idea.

[peachy]

Bbradley62, on Jun 12 2010, 06:53 PM, said:

Then, either:
(a) there is another problem, you eject the offenders; or
( there are no more problems, and they can appeal the penalty,

Except that DP's for ZT violation cannot be appealed, director's decision is final. Though the regulation makes the statement once where it is not appealable, then says it is...

[blackshoe]

The law doesn't say that a DP can't be appealed, it says the AC can't overturn the TD, only recommend he reconsider. I would think it would be very rare that an AC would recommend to a TD that he reduce or eliminate a DP, particularly for a ZT violation. They might, of course, recommend he increase it.

[bluejak]

McBruce, on Jun 11 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

A pair is loudly discussing the deals with enough detail and volume to disturb other players.  After a stern warning or two, is it legal to give them a DP or PP of, say, half a board, while also saying that if they can get through the rest of the game without another incident the fine will be rescinded, but increased dramatically if there is another incident?

Legal, yes. What level of DP [including a warning] is a matter for the TD.

Desirable, I tend to agree with others in this thread that the answer is probably no.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on Jun 13 2010, 05:26 AM, said:

The law doesn't say that a DP can't be appealed, it says the AC can't overturn the TD, only recommend he reconsider.

I had reason to check on this yesterday, when a player wished to appeal a DP. It seems to me that the words of the Law might be interpreted two ways:

1) That an appeal can be insisted on, but that the AC would not be able to do more than recommend that the TD reconsider, or

2) That there is no right to an appeal, but that an appeal committee convened for another purpose (regarding the same matter) could recommend that the TD reconsider the DP.

I spoke to Max Bavin, and his reading of it, and his understanding of precedent in this matter, was that the second one applied. Clearly it is undesirable to be forced to convene committees and ask people to give up their time to serve on them when they have no power to over-rule.

Furthermore, because it is under the same clause, L91A, a result of allowing players to insist on an AC for DPs would be that they would also be able to insist on an AC if they were suspended for the rest of a session, and this would have severe consequences for the smooth running of events. My understanding is that this is the reason that "The Director’s decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee".

Consequently I refused the player's request for an AC, and recommended that he pursued his grievance by writing to the L&E committee.

[blackshoe]

I hate to disagree with such an eminent authority, but I think Mr. Bavin is wrong. Law 92A says

Quote

A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the director. Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation.

The emphasis is mine, but it clearly (to me at least) indicates the right to appeal is qualified only by the possibility that it may be deemed to lack merit. There may be precedent that an appeal of a DP lacks merit because the AC cannot change it, but IMO that would be unfortunate, at best. At worst, it would mean that an appeal of a ruling made as a matter of law would also lack merit, and that cannot be, for while the AC cannot overturn such a ruling, the NBO can, and the Laws require that an appeal be heard by an AC before the case goes to the NBO.

As for the case of a suspension for the remainder of a session, I find your argument bizarre, since IME ACs are not convened during a session, but after, and since after the session there will be no way to rectify the situation — no way to "undo" the suspension — and so such an appeal would prima facie be without merit.

I don't think it's "undesirable" to convene committees who cannot but recommend the TD change his ruling. It's my understanding that's one of the functions of an AC. The members might be more pleased to be able to demonstrate their power, but that's more a matter of ego than law.

I hope this player does write to the L&E committee. I would like to see what they say on the matter. I'd also like to know what the specific precedents that you mentioned say, exactly.

I would add that I don't believe the precedent, whatever it is, applies in the ACBL, and AFAIK, the ACBL has made no policy statement or regulation which disallows such an appeal.

[bluejak]

gordontd, on Jun 14 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 13 2010, 05:26 AM, said:

The law doesn't say that a DP can't be appealed, it says the AC can't overturn the TD, only recommend he reconsider.

I had reason to check on this yesterday, when a player wished to appeal a DP. It seems to me that the words of the Law might be interpreted two ways:

1) That an appeal can be insisted on, but that the AC would not be able to do more than recommend that the TD reconsider, or

2) That there is no right to an appeal, but that an appeal committee convened for another purpose (regarding the same matter) could recommend that the TD reconsider the DP.

I spoke to Max Bavin, and his reading of it, and his understanding of precedent in this matter, was that the second one applied. Clearly it is undesirable to be forced to convene committees and ask people to give up their time to serve on them when they have no power to over-rule.

Furthermore, because it is under the same clause, L91A, a result of allowing players to insist on an AC for DPs would be that they would also be able to insist on an AC if they were suspended for the rest of a session, and this would have severe consequences for the smooth running of events. My understanding is that this is the reason that "The Director’s decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee".

Consequently I refused the player's request for an AC, and recommended that he pursued his grievance by writing to the L&E committee.

This worries me, because not only do I believe Max is wrong here, but believe he has agreed to number 1 in the past.

The principle we have always worked on in the past is that anything may be appealed apart from suspension for a whole or part session.

Furthermore, it has always been our view that it is very reasonable to hold ACs who do can not over-rule because a TD would have to have a very strong reason not to follow an AC's advice to change his ruling. In such a case, of course, he would normally have explained this to the AC anyway.

[gordontd]

I've had a further conversation with him since then, and it seems we were both wrong. Blackshoe & Bluejak are correct that he was entitled to an AC.

[FrancesHinden]

gordontd, on Jun 15 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

I've had a further conversation with him since then, and it seems we were both wrong. Blackshoe & Bluejak are correct that he was entitled to an AC.

But in the general sense you probably did him a favour, because I would expect that in the vast majority of cases, appealing a DP will result in the deposit being forfeited.

I actually find it extraordinarily hard to think of a circumstance when appealing a DP would result in it being reduced or removed. This isn't about a bridge judgement, or a potentially tricky reading of the Laws. Either the TD was justified in giving it, or he was barmy. If he was barmy, surely he'll still be barmy when the AC suggest he change it, and he won't.

All DPs get reviewed by the L&E committee anyway, so a barmy TD will be found out in due course.