[weejonnie]

In fact at a Club directors course examination, explanation of the ramifications of a LOOT is the only aspect of the laws where referral to the Laws is not allowed. TDs are supposed to have committed it to memory.

(Had the director given a full explanation of the consequences of a penalty card a PP would be in order). The only time that declarer would rule no adjustment in this case would be if the NOS was going to make the same number of tricks absent the UI.

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2014-September-17, 12:47, said:

In fact at a Club directors course examination, explanation of the ramifications of a LOOT is the only aspect of the laws where referral to the Laws is not allowed. TDs are supposed to have committed it to memory.

(Had the director given a full explanation of the consequences of a penalty card a PP would be in order). The only time that declarer would rule no adjustment in this case would be if the NOS was going to make the same number of tricks absent the UI.

Most surprising.

Quite a few years have passed since last time I attended an examination but I believe the fundamental requirement for any candidate still is to correctly look up the relevant Law(s) in the book, be aware of all internal References, and quote the actual Law numbers with his answer. Even if his answer is correct he will fail if a law reference is missing.

[blackshoe]

Surprising to me, too. It's been many years since I took the exam, but I don't remember any such restriction. But that's the ABCL exam, of course. Other counties may well have different rules.

[mycroft]

In the EBU, specifically, my memory of the position is that the TD is expected to read the rulings out of the Law Book, *except in the case of OLOOTs*, because the huge amount of switching that is required to occur to do so makes the already very long ruling even longer.

They must, of course, *be able to* do it from the book; but in practise, that is the one where a correct spiel is to be memorized and given at the table in lieu of the reading.

That is an EBU peculiarity; but I'm sure other SOs have their own policies.

I notice that "weejonnie" has not set a Location here - but it's not hard to guess, given that name :-)

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2014-September-17, 14:56, said:

In the EBU, specifically, my memory of the position is that the TD is expected to read the rulings out of the Law Book, *except in the case of OLOOTs*, because the huge amount of switching that is required to occur to do so makes the already very long ruling even longer.

Yes, this is right. You are tested separately on your spiel, and for all other simulations you must bring the book to the table and read out the relevant law.

Apart from during the TD course, though, many directors bring the book but don't open it for the more common rulings.

[blackshoe]

I'm a good director. People know this because I don't have to — and don't — open the Law Book when I give a ruling. Of course, I might get it wrong, but who's going to know?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-17, 16:00, said:

I'm a good director. People know this because I don't have to — and don't — open the Law Book when I give a ruling. Of course, I might get it wrong, but who's going to know?

I think you are being too hard on people.

[blackshoe]

I'm just commenting on what I perceive the culture to be. Ability to rule from memory, rather than from the book, or at least the presumption of that ability, seems de rigueur around here.

[campboy]

Of course using the book when giving a ruling is good practice. However, the LOOT ruling is sufficiently complex (and common) that it is tested in the EBU exam without access to the book. I imagine it is felt that unless you know this particular ruling off by heart you are not going to be able to consistently get it right even with the book. I don't see this as any different from other exam situations where you aren't allowed to look things up, even though you would check with the book in real life.

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-September-18, 03:01, said:

Of course using the book when giving a ruling is good practice. However, the LOOT ruling is sufficiently complex (and common) that it is tested in the EBU exam without access to the book. I imagine it is felt that unless you know this particular ruling off by heart you are not going to be able to consistently get it right even with the book. I don't see this as any different from other exam situations where you aren't allowed to look things up, even though you would check with the book in real life.

What do they think about call out of turn? Shouldn't that deserve a similar consideration?

However, even with my experience call out of turn is an irregularity which I (for one) NEVER rule on without opening the book and finding the correct law. There are just too many variants.

(The only exception is pass out of turn before any player has bid (Law 30A) which I do handle from memory, but even then it is important to not forget Laws 29, 30C and 23.)

[gordontd]

pran, on 2014-September-18, 03:40, said:

What do they think about call out of turn? Shouldn't that deserve a similar consideration?

However, even with my experience call out of turn is an irregularity which I (for one) NEVER rule on without opening the book and finding the correct law. There are just too many variants.

(The only exception is pass out of turn before any player has bid (Law 30A) which I do handle from memory, but even then it is important to not forget Laws 29, 30C and 23.)

I agree with these comments about COOTs, but the difference between them and opening leads out of turn is that the COOT laws are in one place whereas the OLOOT laws require cross-referencing back and forth through the law book.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-September-18, 03:01, said:

Of course using the book when giving a ruling is good practice.

In clubs with a playing director, if the TD knows the procedure for the common infractions, it is quicker to give the ruling without the book.

[campboy]

pran, on 2014-September-18, 03:40, said:

What do they think about call out of turn? Shouldn't that deserve a similar consideration?

Evidently not [edit: I mean evidently they think it doesn't], since a call out of turn is not automatically part of the final exam.

However, the two are completely different. Every time you have an opening lead out of turn, the spiel is exactly the same, but there is a lot of it; the difficulty is in not missing anything out. For a COOT there are several possibilities, but the ruling in each case is shorter; the difficulty is in finding the right bit.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-September-18, 04:30, said:

In clubs with a playing director, if the TD knows the procedure for the common infractions, it is quicker to give the ruling without the book.

True, although I would prefer to say "without opening the book".

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-September-18, 09:38, said:

Evidently not [edit: I mean evidently they think it doesn't], since a call out of turn is not automatically part of the final exam.

However, the two are completely different. Every time you have an opening lead out of turn, the spiel is exactly the same, but there is a lot of it; the difficulty is in not missing anything out. For a COOT there are several possibilities, but the ruling in each case is shorter; the difficulty is in finding the right bit.

Are you saying that the candidates will know (in advance) in what themes they will or may, respectively will not or may not be examined?????

(And a side remark: There is a difference between OLOOT and LOOT. I believe these themes have been mixed within this discussion.)

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-September-18, 11:00, said:

Are you saying that the candidates will know (in advance) in what themes they will or may, respectively will not or may not be examined?????

Of course not. What they do know is that they will be expected to give their OLOOT spiel (they are called away individually from the written exam to do this) and they will each be given several simulations on other topics to do. They don't know what these topics will be.

The assessment follows a three-day course (prior to which a quiz whose answers can be found in the Laws and the various-coloured books is submitted).

The EBU Club TD course is very popular; it is even taken by people who have no intention of ever directing,

[blackshoe]

Sounds like a pretty good course. My "TD course" was me reading the law book, duplicate decisions, appeals casebooks, and all I could find about ACBL regulations, and then taking the (open book) multiple guess written test, which, iirc had some 100+ questions, of which the last few were "extra credit". I missed three (out of all including the extra credit). :-) I don't recall the details any more, but I do remember that one of them I disagreed with the "correct" answer, and the other two were IMO poorly worded. But I wasn't allowed to keep a copy of the test, so no record of what they were.

[campboy]

pran, on 2014-September-18, 11:00, said:

(And a side remark: There is a difference between OLOOT and LOOT. I believe these themes have been mixed within this discussion.)

Yes, I said "LOOT" in a previous post when I meant "OLOOT". It is specifically OLOOT where the EBU exam requires you to give the ruling from memory.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-18, 14:51, said:

Sounds like a pretty good course. My "TD course" was me reading the law book, duplicate decisions, appeals casebooks, and all I could find about ACBL regulations, and then taking the (open book) multiple guess written test,

Yes, I did this one many years ago. Doesn't really seem like a great way to qualify directors. The hardest part, by far, was calculating a fouled board and an average board.

I assume that the ACBL have something better now.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-September-18, 16:58, said:

Yes, I did this one many years ago. Doesn't really seem like a great way to qualify directors. The hardest part, by far, was calculating a fouled board and an average board.

I assume that the ACBL have something better now.

I don't know. I think they might have an online course. I'll have to look into that. Of course, there's the standard (one day, I think) TD course given at NABCs, and there's a refresher also given at NABCs, but I've not taken either of those, and a lot of people can't get to NABCs. I think the ACBL will give these courses at regionals if the TO requests them, but I've not seen that happen (not that I pay all that much attention to what goes on at regionals other than in my own area).