I have been watching, with some consternation, the exchanges on a WhatsApp group about a particular ruling.
I had suggested that it is unfair to expect a director to explain a decision in a WhatsApp group. It was suggested that this particular decision may serve to discourage newcomers to bridge from playing.
What causes consternation and dismay is the ease with which all players automatically figure that this ruling is incorrect without going deeper into the matter.
And if directors continue to be flayed like this in public without enough information on the facts of the ruling, or knowledge of the law or how it is to be applied, how will we attract younger players to sign up as directors?
This chat has moved me enough to consider writing on the topic. As I started laying out my thoughts, the length and diversity of my views led me to the realization this is best put out in multiple articles.
Hence this is the first in a series of 3 articles which I will be publishing on this topic.
In this, the first, I will attempt to explain the process involved in a ruling. In the next two articles, I will elaborate more about how directors are treated by both players and administrators.
Throughout these articles, I will refrain from using names of people. Because these articles are not about individuals. They are more about systems and policies and how we seem to be shooting ourselves in the feet about directors
As far as yesterday's ruling discussion goes, I do know more about the facts concerning the ruling than I am writing about here. I do not care to comment about the ruling or the merits thereof.
I can, however, confirm that the players at the table have both represented India in junior world events. They have been playing as professionals from the time the world has emerged from Covid and, as such, certainly do not qualify as 'newcomers'.
The lady who posted the complaint on WhatsApp, I am given to understand, was participating with them as a trio.
What I will state is that rulings of this nature are normally consulted at a senior level and are rarely unilateral. I can confirm that such consultation did take place among senior directors before the ruling was delivered. So it was definitely not a whimsical ruling given by a director who had got up from the wrong side of the bed on the day in question. At the very least, it is available in the public domain that a poll was conducted and at least some players, arguably of skill similar to the players at the table, would have acted differently (no matter what all the players in the WhatsApp group may say).
There were a number of suggestions that the action to double was 'automatic'. As per the law, the director is not allowed to take such decisions. What the director is required to do is to determine what other players of a similar calibre would do under the circumstances. If there was a pause, and if more than one alternative emerges as to alternate actions if there were not one, the player is expected to ethically take the less appealing of the actions available. Once again, what happened in the ruling in question is not germane to the decision here, so I will not go into the details.
Again, there are a number of people who believe that the names of the pollees should be made available to the aggrieved party. Let me assure you that there are extremely valid reasons (discussed and determined by the WBF too) for not revealing the names of the pollees.
Whenever players at a table are not satisfied with a ruling, they are entitled to request for a review of the ruling. To quote from the SCoC of the recently concluded Summer Nationals:
The recipients of a ruling will be entitled to ask for the matter to be reviewed by a reviewer who was not involved in the original decision. The reviewer will check that the TD has gathered the necessary evidence of what occurred when infraction arose. The Reviewer will then need to be satisfied that the correct law was applied and that other TDs were consulted where appropriate. In matters involving the judgment that was exercised by a player following unauthorized information, incorrect explanation or failure to alert, the Reviewer will clarify that suitable players were consulted. Finally the Reviewer will check that ruling that was issued based upon all the information available to the TDs was within the
bounds of reasonableness.
When a review is requested, a TD is always advised to alert the appellants of the possibility that their review fee could be forfeited.
The pair in question yesterday opted not to review. Given the class of players, they would have undoubtedly been aware of the process of review which was available to them and they would have certainly taken into consideration the fact that the request for review could have been considered as 'frivolous' leading to forfeiture of deposit. Further they are likely to have consulted other expert players around them about filing the review. That they elected not to file for a review should make us pause to consider 'Could the director perhaps have been right?'
But, right or wrong, why should any director have to face this kind of insinuation that he is behaving in an arbitrary fashion? And if becoming a director means I would be subject to this kind of treatment, why should I become a director?
I am more than happy to answer any questions on this topic that are raised on this post itself.
Disclaimer : All opinions are entirely those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the BridgeFromHome Team.
Well written. Very correctly too… except that tailpiece! Why should comments in a chat group affect a competent Authority? They r views which is what chat groups are meant for ! By the same logics can we perceive that Elite Cricket / Soccer Referees face “ Trial by You tube”? That reaches globally while this is a closed , small group .
Dear Sridhar,
Thanks for writing in and thanks for the compliments too.
The tailpiece was not about the comments per se.
The tone of some of the comments seemed to suggest that the director in this case was a perfect idiot.
The limited point I was making was that just as players need to be encouraged, younger directors need to be encouraged too. Especially if nobody is satisfied with any of the directors we have currently.
Any person who would be considering taking up direction could also go on the lines “Part of taking up direction involves being commented about like this’. And this could influence him to not taking up direction.
Trust this clarifies
it’s a nice article articulating the Director’s side of all that which goes in and before the ruling. I feel, as far as WhatsApp discussion is concerned, it is in fact helpful that these issues are brought to the fore and players get sensitized.
Dear Niranjan,
Thanks for writing in.
As mentioned in my reply to Sridhar earlier, the tone of some of the comments seem to imply that the director is a complete idiot. WhatsApp is a good forum for discussion. Having said so, all parties need to be respectful to all other parties in the topic.
For example, there are statements being made to the effect that West denies that there was a pause. Now, let us say that the maker of the statement is telling the truth and there was no pause. The complaint needs to have come from the other side of the screen. So, East complained that there was a pause (which is why the director was called). Is this person saying that East is lying? Does that seem logical to you? Think about it. Note that I am still not talking about what actually happened at the table.
My point, I reiterate, is that if being a director means having to tolerate such nonsense, any person considering taking up directing may be deterred from doing so.
Let us ignore the comments on the group, if they were raising doubts directly on the TD.
Can you answer the following queries of a bridge player please ?
1. Can you kindly clarify the logic that was used by the TD which disallowed the Double in the passout seat (by South) ?
2. Which section of the applicable bridge law was enforced on this occasion?
3. As a corrective measure , how should NS handle this particular situation ?
Dear Manohar,
Thanks for writing in.
I will refrain from commenting about the actual ruling. Nevertheless it is possible to answer your queries, albeit not in the same order that you raised them.
2. Which section of the applicable bridge law was enforced on this occasion?
The law that is applicable is Law 16 B (1) I am reproducing this at the end of the response so that it does not detract from the explanation.
1. Can you kindly clarify the logic that was used by the TD which disallowed the Double in the passout seat (by South) ?
The duty of the TD, in such a case is to determine whether any alternative bids exist in the situation. The definition of a logical alternative is given in Law 16 B (1) b.
The TD would have determined that Pass is a logical alternative (no matter how many players are screaming that a double is automatic in the given case, it must have transpired that people of a similar calibre opted to “Pass” or, at the very least, seriously considered passing).
3. As a corrective measure , how should NS handle this particular situation ?
North, in this case, is required to be guided by Law 16 B (1) a
The whole subsection of Law 16 B is reproduced below for ready reference.
B. Extraneous Information from Partner
1. Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized.
This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert,
unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or
mannerism.
(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by
unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.
(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in
question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some
might select.
You may of course, refer to the rest of this law at any source on the web.
On the whatsapp group, I had run a poll on recordkeeping. This article does not say anything about public availability of rulings and appeals. Accountability will only begin when extensive records of all decisions are available.
Are you aware of any such records? Could I know how many director calls were made for similar issues and what where the decisions? Does BFI keep such records?
Hi Panja,
Thanks for writing in.
Not being part of any official BFI body, I am unaware of the records maintained by the BFI.
Practically speaking, it is not possible to maintain a record of every ruling made at every tournament. There are so many rulings at any given tournament involving lead out of turn, bid out of turn, insufficient bid, revoke etc… Recording each of them would require one more person, in my opinion.
I think, though, that Reviews are recorded; especially those at major tournaments. You would have to check with BFI if they would make such records, if any are available, public.