In the second of this series on the travails of directing, I would like to introduce you to some of the travails faced by directors as they attempt to execute their briefs.
Call the CTD
When I took up direction for the first time, I remember some players routinely ignoring my instructions and, when one attempted to remonstrate with them, I was once told "Don't throw your weight around just because you are a director".
Later on, in 2019, when I resumed directing, I remember being told to call a 'senior' director at almost any table I attended which featured some top player or the other. This, inspite of having shown them the rule book and how the ruling was arrived at. It was, in some sense, a negation of everything I had spent time and effort studying. Finally, in disgust, I told a player that if I called a senior director and he concurred with my ruling, I would penalise him for not obeying a director's instructions. This too was a reflection of my naivete. I should have instructed them to file for a review.
Flash forward to a couple of years earlier. One top class player was informed by a director that his request for redressal was denied and he could file for a review. The player demanded that the CTD be called, a request that was denied. He then got up from the table in the middle of the game saying "Nobody can stop me from talking to the CTD". We levied a penalty on the player for refusal to follow director's instructions. The player later went to the CTD and requested the penalty be revoked because the TD had levied it because of a personal grudge against him!
Another player threatened to stop playing if the CTD were not called and only took a step back when I said that they were forfeiting the match to their opponents.
New directors often have to face this sort of hectoring.
Smoking
The number of issues I have faced with smoking penalties is beyond imagination. Once I was abused at in a group chat because I levied a penalty on another top player who had left the table during an event to go to the toiled, which was over 100 meters away simply to light up a cigarette. Another top player had gone across an open ground and lit up a cigarette. When he was fined he said he was unaware that one was not allowed to leave the field. A third top player pleaded with me to revoke the penalty because his sponsor would get annoyed with him. A fourth top player demanded to see the time stamp on the photograph I had taken of him smoking. A fifth top player openly challenged a senior director to levy a penalty on him for smoking in an area clearly designated as no smoking. Very recently another top player lost a qualification berth due to a smoking penalty. The next morning he told me "I thought that this would not be enforced for the elimination, but since it was done it is fair". More than one player has told me "You please go ahead and penalize me".
For ready reference, I am once again publishing the regulations from the SCoC
Smoking: Smoking in the designated playing area is prohibited. Once the play starts, no player shall leave the table in order to smoke. Any violation will be subject to penalties: 1 VP (3 IMPs/20% of top earned MP in pairs) for the first offence, 2 VPs (6 IMPs/40% of top earned MP in pairs) for the second and any subsequent offence. For repeated violaƟon the player/pair may be suspended for the session at the discretion of the CTD and Chairman, Tournament Committee
My views on smoking during an event would take an article by itself and would detract from this article which is about the troubles faced by a director in applying / enforcing the law.
Break the law and accept the penalty
The attitude of several top players towards breaking the law in India is almost cavalier
In the recently concluded Inter State Championships, one set of the team finals / play offs was slated to begin at a time when a cricket match was poised at a very interesting finish. One player suggested to the Railways to delay the start of the match till the match got over and take the penalty because they were far ahead. Fortunately, the Railways team didn't do any such thing. But had they elected to do so, the directors would have been hapless.
It is another matter that none of these players would do anything of the sort in any international event. Why do they feel that it is okay to do so?
In the light of these sorts of goings on at many a tournament it is small wonder that the Junior team to Wroclaw was fined 40,000 Zloty for smoking in no smoking rooms. While there are many stories going on about the whole Wroclaw imbroglio, the genesis of this fine lies in one pair "deciding" that they would smoke in their room and pay the fine if caught. It is, of course, another matter that there is no mention of disciplinary action, if any, against this kind of wilful offence.
Why would one want to take up directing where the federation will not come down heavily on wilful offenders? Makes one want to think.
Disclaimer : All opinions are entirely those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the BridgeFromHome Team.
Very true . Misbehaving & abuse by Top players is rampant in India only due to lenient or inaction by Federation . Hope the Desciplinary Committee will take cognisance of this article.
Ranga,
Thanks for writing in.
let’s face it – these are your personal experiences and not of directors in general.
let’s face it, your knowledge of bridge law leaves a lot to be desired, and some times it’s so obvious that even making a counter argument with you seems pointless. In such cases wanting to speak to CTD is not unreasonable, and if you are denying that request, or making it conditional to penalty – it’s not justice. The option to review is nowhere near sufficient since the job of reviewer is to review the process. Reviewer very rarely, if ever, interacts with the aggrieved party. And do you think it’s beyond imagination that player might have a point of view that differs from yours that needs to be listened to. I know and accept that it’s a long road before all our directors reach a high level of competence. often, to get there, you need to be a very good player yourself, which unfortunately, is not a requirement for being a director.
I’d go one step further and say that often the most competent director in the field is not the CTD. But the way you are going around swinging your stick, and awarding penalties for not following directors instructions is – absurd to say the least.
I have my own opinions about the way you go around imposing smoking penalties, and your biases – another comment or discussion.
Dear Sandeep,
Thanks for writing in. Let me respond to your points one by one
let’s face it, your knowledge of bridge law leaves a lot to be desired, and some times it’s so obvious that even making a counter argument with you seems pointless. In such cases wanting to speak to CTD is not unreasonable, and if you are denying that request, or making it conditional to penalty – it’s not justice.
I agree that my knowledge of the laws requires improvement. And I am striving to improve.
Nevertheless, when a player is shown the law and how it is applied, asking to see the CTD is seeking privileges which are not acceptable.
In most cases, and particularly while dealing with top players, rulings are taken in consultation with the CTD. The CTD reviews the process adopted by directors and arrives at a ruling. In such cases, demanding a personal audience with the CTD simply because you are a top player, to me, and perhaps others, is not justice.
The option to review is nowhere near sufficient since the job of reviewer is to review the process. Reviewer very rarely, if ever, interacts with the aggrieved party. And do you think it’s beyond imagination that player might have a point of view that differs from yours that needs to be listened to.
The view of a player, and imagination, such as it may be, is allowed to be documented on the review form. Is it that difficult for a top player to express it there?
I know and accept that it’s a long road before all our directors reach a high level of competence. often, to get there, you need to be a very good player yourself, which unfortunately, is not a requirement for being a director.
I agree that good players with good knowledge of the law and how it is to be applied, will make for better directors with the same knowledge.
But the way you are going around swinging your stick, and awarding penalties for not following directors instructions is – absurd to say the least.
Swinging the stick. That is an interesting expression. But you seem to think it is okay for players to break the law and the director should use discretion while taking action while attempting to enforce it. Is it your contention that application of law is absurdity?
Why would one want to take up directing where the federation will not come down heavily on wilful offenders? Makes one want to think.
And why would players submit to stasi like police state environment – and btw you shd go and see how wbf “enforces” smoking laws.
The idea behind the law is protecting the sanctity of game – to avoid opportunities for unlawful communication – and so, where matches are simultaneously played, and broadcast, smoking policies are strictly enforced. But during pairs events where barometer format is followed, one is free to move once they finish their boards.
But in your particular case, I’d seriously like to know if you are hired to direct bridge or spend your time outside the play area following smokers.
That you chose to photograph a player smoking – yes it was me – what does that say about your own mental state. you are using the letter of law to fuel and fulfill your own biases.
The idea behind the law is protecting the sanctity of game – to avoid opportunities for unlawful communication – and so, where matches are simultaneously played, and broadcast, smoking policies are strictly enforced. But during pairs events where barometer format is followed, one is free to move once they finish their boards.
Why do players think it is their right to ignore laws which they disagree with? In terms of smoking, you may perhaps be oblivious to the fact that the smell emanating from a smokers mouth can disturb the concentration of his opponent. A fact that he should not have to contend with since the law is meant to protect the sanctity of the game for him as well.
But in your particular case, I’d seriously like to know if you are hired to direct bridge or spend your time outside the play area following smokers.
Thanks for writing this. When I took up directing, I was instructed to do this. So yes, this is part of my duties. This was reinforced by the BFI authorities in the recently concluded Inter State Championship too. Whether other directors choose to follow this or not, I cannot say.
That you chose to photograph a player smoking – yes it was me – what does that say about your own mental state. you are using the letter of law to fuel and fulfill your own biases
You are suggesting that I am following you and penalizing you for smoking to satisfy my own urges or biases. Before I respond to that, it is worth remarking here that you are aware that you are willfully breaking the law. Why, pray, do you think that this is your right?
While you have mentioned the incident that had happened at Ahmedabad, you have omitted to mention what transpired before the event. You may recall that I had remonstrated with you to refrain from smoking. To that your reply was to not bother about your health and go ahead and penalize you if I felt like. When I said that in that case I will penalize you, you asked for evidence.
As far as my biases go, I have none about smoking. During tournaments, I still share rooms with smokers. And, if BFI waives this law against smoking, I wouldn’t lift a finger at anybody who smokes. But yes, as long as the law is there, I will penalize anybody who smokes when he isn’t supposed to be doing so. My job is simply to enforce the law. My knowledge of all laws may be incomplete, but there is nothing incomplete here.
As for your suggestion this is a personal bias against you, you are simply not that important in my life.
Do you want me to cite how many times the directors fail to understand the point being made, convey wrong information to CTD and other directors, and frame wrong questions for a poll.
it happened to me 3 times in s single tournament, and my expression is not equivocal. Consider how frequently it would happen across the field, so pardon me if I don’t trust some of the directors to have the ability to even phrase the problem.
and yes, I was threatened with penalties – for director incompetence. yes I had to resort to discontinue playing. Luckily the tournament committee took pains to listen.
Do you want me to cite how many times the directors fail to understand the point being made, convey wrong information to CTD and other directors, and frame wrong questions for a poll.
The CTDs I have worked under take painstaking efforts to understand what happened at the table when I have consulted. That includes visiting the table and ascertaining the facts for themselves. I am reasonably certain that they would take the same efforts had any other director consulted them.
As far as framing the correct questions go, that is the job of the reviewer, to ascertain that correct questions have been asked of the correct pollees.
The nature of rulings, being what they are, is that one party will feel aggrieved about it. If, as you say, more than one player has been at the wrong end of 3 rulings in a given tournament, it leads me to wonder why you are the only player to resort to discontinue playing.
Having said that, I would like to acknowledge here that were it not for humongous efforts on your part, the pairs event in the tournament you are mentioning would have collapsed under itself.