[msheald]

Fortunately, it does not happen often, but every one and a while I've been in a tournament in which a Director makes a mistake.

Since I am an player intermediate player and am not hunting for the next level, I usually don't follow up in any way at the tournament. However, afterward, a couple of times I've written to the ACBL for a rules clarification for my own education and found that my interpretation was correct.

If I'm in a tournament, and the rule interpretation matters, are there options for clarification during the actual tournament rather than having the Director state vaguely "rules?" Best regards.

Mike

[helene_t]

The club regulations should specify the appeal procedure. Typically, if an appeal request is submitted in accordance with the procedure (i.e. not too late) the committee can adjust the result, or, if the board is made unplayable due to the error (for example if the director gave wrong instructions on how to deal with an insufficient bid so that the auction became a mess), to 60/60 if it is matchpoints.

[mycroft]

Law 82C - one of the most important, and one of the most embarrassing, Laws in the book:

Quote

If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, an adjusted score shall be awarded, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.

So the first thing to do is to ask the director if they can explain their ruling more clearly (or, if it's a straight blackletter Law issue, if they could read it out of the Law Book/show you the Law in the Book). Frequently at this point one or the other of you are enlightened.

If you query something about the analysis or judgement (as opposed to the reading of the Law), and it convinces the Director that more investigation should be done, it will probably get done. I had one last weekend where it was obvious to me that declarer knew what he wanted to do, but called the wrong suit. But it was pointed out to me after that "it looked like he was a trick ahead of himself, 'ruff high and then play <the card called>'". And yeah, it did. So I took it to a couple of players and asked "what do you think happened". They all said (effectively) "a trick ahead of himself", so - Director's Error.

Certainly, if after discussion/explanation with the Director, you still feel like there was an error in judgement, now follow Hélène's pattern - if there's a DIC, check with them; if not, the club should have an appeal process, you can initiate that. Note that this should be very rare - unless the directors are very bad (in which case, step up yourself, find another game, or decide it's not worth fighting in this club game). You don't want to be known as the person who appeals every bad ruling you get (because while there is a difference between "bad ruling = incorrect" and "bad ruling = against you", the reputation you will gain will heavily imply the latter, no matter what - especially if you don't push the incorrect rulings in your favour equally hard, whether that's because you don't notice or you "don't notice", or even "that's the opponents' problem to resolve").

If you're an ACBL member, check the "ruling the game" articles in the Bulletin. Notice how many of them are written in "clearly this was wrong", and how many of those are responded to with "good on the director for actually knowing the Law".

But a lot of these can be smoothed - and/or corrected - by a quick "can you explain your ruling more clearly/this part of the ruling/what about this issue" discussion with the Director away from the table, between rounds (and not the immediate round of being given the ruling. Give yourself time to "walk away" from the situation, so you can listen more carefully).

And while I note that the Laws really aren't that complicated (although some of the rulings required by those Laws absolutely can be), there are 30-odd footnotes in there, and multiple "(but see...)"s and "<law> does not apply"s, all of which and more are able to trip even experienced directors up. Which is why even experienced directors - especially experienced directors, frankly - have their Law Book in their pocket at least all the time, and pull it out if they even catch a whiff of "hey, this is one of those where I'd better check"...

[thepossum]

Can I ask do people choose to be TDs or in most clubs is it a thankless task that is done on rotation
I used to play in a football league like that - used to dread when my half game came round and everyone hated me

I am interested that their decisions are not taken as final no matter how bad

Maybe there are some people who enjoy being referees - a role for everyone I guess

[Gilithin]

You can make an appeal but it is almost never worth it at club level. If the TD just made a mistake of judgement, brush it off and move on. If the TD makes grossly clear errors, or is obviously abusing the bridge laws to rule in favour of the club regulars (sadly a rather common occurrence) the best solution is to stop visiting that club and find a venue where you can play real bridge.

[ArdnaXur]

msheald, on 2024-February-15, 06:10, said:

Fortunately, it does not happen often, but every one and a while I've been in a tournament in which a Director makes a mistake.

Since I am an player intermediate player and am not hunting for the next level, I usually don't follow up in any way at the tournament. However, afterward, a couple of times I've written to the ACBL for a rules clarification for my own education and found that my interpretation was correct.

If I'm in a tournament, and the rule interpretation matters, are there options for clarification during the actual tournament rather than having the Director state vaguely "rules?" Best regards.

Mike

Everyone got mistake...

[pescetom]

thepossum, on 2024-February-15, 18:29, said:

Can I ask do people choose to be TDs or in most clubs is it a thankless task that is done on rotation

I chose to be a TD for exactly the reason suggested by mycroft, our TD was hopeless and I could only see one solution. Which is of course a consequence of the fact that I care about the game and believe it only makes sense when played by the rules. I expect that is common as motivation.

[msheald]

Thank you, all. I appreciate your guidance. At my level, I doubt that I would ever appeal a decision. Best regards.

Mike

[hrothgar]

The easiest thing to do is recognize that nothing matters, ignore the ruling, and get on with your life...

[mycroft]

I have appealed to my memory twice, and had another one killed by talking to the DIC who said "yes, if <what you were told> was our ruling it would be absolutely wrong. But it wasn't. It was <this>." to which we said "okay. We disagree with that ruling too, but it's not ludicrous. No appeal."

As far as I remember, I did not succeed in either appeal - but they were both considered very much "with merit".

I have had to my memory 3 appeals of rulings at my table by my opponents. They did not succeed in any of those appeals - and two of them were "clearly without merit". One is in the National Casebooks.

In my memory, I have had 6 of my rulings appealed. In two of those cases, I was not surprised by the ruling given by the AC. In some of the cases I was surprised, my ruling was upheld.

I can't remember the last tournament where I didn't have a ruling questioned and had an explanation session after the ruling was given. Occasionally, they brought up a good point not found or stated at the table, and the ruling was revisited/changed.

I've been playing tournaments somewhat regularly for 30 years, and directing ~50 sessions of tournaments a year for 20.

Most of the time (at least pre-covid) NABCs had minimum 10 000 tables (and frequently many more). Apart from that one Toronto where Mel Lastman put something in the water (61 appeals if my memory holds), they average 20-30.

It should not be common - it should be available for the very uncommon times.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-February-16, 14:00, said:

I have appealed to my memory twice, and had another one killed by talking to the DIC who said "yes, if <what you were told> was our ruling it would be absolutely wrong. But it wasn't. It was <this>." to which we said "okay. We disagree with that ruling too, but it's not ludicrous. No appeal."

As far as I remember, I did not succeed in either appeal - but they were both considered very much "with merit".

I have had to my memory 3 appeals of rulings at my table by my opponents. They did not succeed in any of those appeals - and two of them were "clearly without merit". One is in the National Casebooks.

In my memory, I have had 6 of my rulings appealed. In two of those cases, I was not surprised by the ruling given by the AC. In some of the cases I was surprised, my ruling was upheld.

I can't remember the last tournament where I didn't have a ruling questioned and had an explanation session after the ruling was given. Occasionally, they brought up a good point not found or stated at the table, and the ruling was revisited/changed.

I've been playing tournaments somewhat regularly for 30 years, and directing ~50 sessions of tournaments a year for 20.

Most of the time (at least pre-covid) NABCs had minimum 10 000 tables (and frequently many more). Apart from that one Toronto where Mel Lastman put something in the water (61 appeals if my memory holds), they average 20-30.

It should not be common - it should be available for the very uncommon times.

Not sure how it works at club level in other RAs (and curious to know) but here an appeal is much more likely in higher level competition because if you do formally contest a decision at club level there is nobody in the middle, the decision goes straight to the top and both sides have a lot to lose. In 4 years as TD (time flies) I've only had that happen twice, once "without merit" and once not but with ruling upheld. They haven't appealed me yet in my limited excursions at higher level behind screens (fingers crossed).
As a player in not many more years of serious competition I have yet to make an appeal that goes beyond "if you think so, but please find time to read this point of Law/Regulation", partly the price of being a TD as you are well aware.

[thepossum]

pescetom, on 2024-February-16, 03:47, said:

I chose to be a TD for exactly the reason suggested by mycroft, our TD was hopeless and I could only see one solution. Which is of course a consequence of the fact that I care about the game and believe it only makes sense when played by the rules. I expect that is common as motivation.

I am happy you enjoy the role and saw a need for your skills
"The club needs me"

I'm not much of a rules person and need to defer to and put up with what others decide
Not saying I disapprove of rules, just that I like to think I understand the basic principles of the game and that nothing too bad happens

[jillybean]

Lol
This is why I became interested in Directing