[FrancesHinden]

Rob F, on Jan 30 2009, 02:41 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 30 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The director rules that people of your ethnicity are not allowed to play in the finals, and disqualifies your team for insufficient players. Your call.

So I can't play in the finals.

It's a game. The referee/TD runs the game. If he says I can't play, then I can't play.

An appeal to the national authority will follow in due course, and possibly a court case under the relevant anti-discrimination law (if there is one in the country concerned).

But that's not defying the TD's ruling at the time.

[fred]

Rob F, on Jan 30 2009, 02:41 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 30 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The director rules that people of your ethnicity are not allowed to play in the finals, and disqualifies your team for insufficient players. Your call.

That's an easy one for me.

As always there is no need to violate the TD's instructions. My ethnicity has an entire squadron of black helicopters at its disposal. I would radio in a couple of units and have them strafe the playing site.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

Shevak said something in one of the other threads about system regulation that really struck home for me. I am not going to find the quote, but he said something like this:

"Often those in favor of looser systems regulations are their own worst enemies".

The reason I remembered this comment is because Shevak is on "your side" (in terms of systems regulations) and, at the time I read it, I found it most refreshing and unusual that someone on your side could admit this.

IMO some of the recent comments in this thread are a good case in Shevak's point.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[rbforster]

Rules are important for any game. It's not surprising that people get unhappy when the rules of the game are changed from what they expected, in the middle of the game and to their detriment. This whole discussion is a direct consequence of the ACBL not stating the rules clearly. The rest of this arguing is largely an academic exercise and a waste of time.

In the future I'll try not to take as much offense when I'm accused of cheating and lying.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Jan 30 2009, 04:22 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 29 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

He talked to Rick Baye directly.
He went as high in the food chain as its possible to go

This turns out not to be the case. The ACBL agency with the remit to define what agreements as to the meaning of calls and plays are and are not legal is the Competition and Conventions Committee, subject to the approval (or disapproval) of the Board of Directors. The BoD is "as high in the food chain as it's possible to go".

OTOH, I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said about the ACBL.

Sorry, I should have appended the word practically

Quote

He talked to Rick Beye directly.
He went as high in the food chain as its possible to go in any practical manner.

All the more so because Beye is (essentially) the gatekeeper to the Conventions Committee

[qwery_hi]

shevek, on Jan 28 2009, 07:01 AM, said:

awm, on Jan 25 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

1. Any sensible reading of the mid-chart will indicate that 1♣ or 1♦ can mean whatever you want, provided it guarantees 10+ points. Of course, your 1M openings are much more restricted, so in general it's hard to play "two under transfers" or whatever. You can occasionally find random rulings from ACBL HQ contradicting this, but then they can contradict themselves at any time no matter what the regulations say...

Well, I (foolishly?) asked Rick Baye whether we could play our 1D = 4+ spades and he said no, that it wasn't an "all purpose opening bid"

Are you sure Rick wasn't kidding you? He could be like "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer"

[jdonn]

Rob F, on Jan 30 2009, 09:41 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 30 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The director rules that people of your ethnicity are not allowed to play in the finals, and disqualifies your team for insufficient players. Your call.

I would meet everyone at the door, tell them to put their yarmulkes in their pockets, and say merry Christmas on the way in. Wtp?

My new signature is dedicated to recent forum postings.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 31 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The laws restrict a directors power. If the director oversteps his authority then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders.

Judge for yourself whether there is something that a director might instruct you that you would be unwilling to do.

It is like the old joke about a man propositioning a woman:

"Will you sleep with me for a $1000000?"

"Yes!!!"

"How about $10?"

"What do you think I am? A prostitute?"

"We have already established that. Now we are just haggling over the price"

We all have our limits.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 31 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The laws restrict a directors power. If the director oversteps his authority then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders.

It's within the authority of a director to determine if people are playing legal or illegal systems. In this thread you have been suggesting defying him because you disagree with his judgment, not because he overstepped his authority.

Sorry you win if the question is will I do absolutely anything the director asks. I will not jump off a cliff for a director. Nor do I think a discussion about that has anything to do with anything.

If the director at some tournament told you that you can't play a 1♦ opening shows 4+ spades, and you believe it's legal, will you play it anyway (assuming you want to play it to begin with)?

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 10:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 31 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The laws restrict a directors power. If the director oversteps his authority then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders.

I don't disagree with this statement:

There is always the option to withdraw from an event.

If, however, you are going to play in an event, I think that you (typically) are obliged to follow the rules.

I can conceive of some (rare) examples where I consider it perfectly reasonable to deliberately break the rules. I don't have a problem with civil disobedience. I think its entirely justified on occasion.

However, I also believe that civil disobedience needs to be a public act. The point behind civil disobedience is that you invite punishment upon yourself to draw attention to an unjust law.

This is why I find Robert's recommendations so objectional...

He's not describing any kind of civil disobedience.
He's lying about his methods

[rbforster]

hrothgar, on Jan 30 2009, 03:43 PM, said:

This is why I find Robert's recommendations so objectional...

He's lying about his methods

You keep saying that, but it's neither true nor is it what I was endorsing. My point has been merely that because of the erratic responses from the ACBL staff regarding conventions and interpreting the charts, presenting your proposal in certain ways is more likely to garner approval than others. If I wanted to lie about my methods, I wouldn't need to ask the ACBL's permission!

That said however, I can't see anything at all is to be gained by asking the ACBL's permission to play an apparently legal method. If you ask at the event and the local TD doesn't like it, you can't play it (regardless of what some other official might have told you). If the local TD says it's fine, you can play it (again regardless of what some other official might have told you). So why bother asking the guys in Memphis anything? Because you're under the mistaken impression that a copy of an email from Mr. Baye will force the local TD to change his mind? Good luck with that. As we've discussed, you're forced to deal with the local TD's ruling anyway, so why bother asking anyone else?

I would like to play the following system:

1♣ strong 15+
1♦ 0+ unbal 10-14
1♥ 4+ unbal (not both majors) 10-14
1♠ 5+ unbal 10-14
1N 12-14 bal
2♣ 5+ unbal, no 4cM, 10-14
2♦ 5+ unbal, no 4cM, 10-14

It sure looks like an all-purpose 1♦ opener, doesn't it? Maybe that's because it is.

Spoiler

and 1 diamond promises 4 spades, or at least it might depending on your opening styles in the other bids (open 2m in your better minor with 5/5, open 1 diamond with majors 4=5, etc)

...

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 31 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 31 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The laws restrict a directors power. If the director oversteps his authority then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders.

It's within the authority of a director to determine if people are playing legal or illegal systems. In this thread you have been suggesting defying him because you disagree with his judgment, not because he overstepped his authority.

You would do well to read my posts before commenting on them and putting words in my mouth.

I don't recall any statement from me that backs up your statement here. I have skimmed through the thread and cannot find such a statement.

The sentiment behind this question best describes the position that I have been arguing:

Quote

Is failing to be bound by the laws and announced regulations not enough to cross the line?

There is nothing in this question that remotely refers to judgement.

Quote

Sorry you win if the question is will I do absolutely anything the director asks. I will not jump off a cliff for a director. Nor do I think a discussion about that has anything to do with anything.

Fred, sarcastically I believe, argued

Quote

Let's all play a game where is OK for the players to defy the referee's decisions whenever they disagree with them.

That sounds like a fun game.

Hello?

This strongly suggests to me that his opinion is that it is improper to defy a referee's decision. And since my arguments have been prefaced with

Quote

If the director is failing to comply with the announced regulations then ...

it seems that this is the case even when the director is acting completely outside his power.

Quote

If the director at some tournament told you that you can't play a 1♦ opening shows 4+ spades, and you believe it's legal, will you play it anyway (assuming you want to play it to begin with)?

It is impossible to answer that question in isolation. What are the regulations? If the regulations say 1♦ showing 4+ spades is legal then I would play it anyway. If the regulations say 1♦ showing 4+ spades is illegal then I wouldn't be attempting to play it in the first instance so I can't imagine why the director would be telling me that. Between these two extremes there obviously has to be a boundary somewhere on one side of which the director is right and on the other side the director is ruling completely outside of his power.

We could of course 'all play a game where it is ok for the director to defy the laws and regulations of the game'. I for one don't think that would be much fun.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Jan 31 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 10:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 31 2009, 03:38 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

I am sure we all would defy the referee's (director's) decision at some point.

You are?

The laws restrict a directors power. If the director oversteps his authority then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders.

I don't disagree with this statement:

There is always the option to withdraw from an event.

If, however, you are going to play in an event, I think that you (typically) are obliged to follow the rules.

I agree.

My argument has been that the director also is obliged to follow the rules.

[blackshoe]

The question is, what do you do when you believe the director is not complying with Law 81B2?

The answer is not "ignore him", or "defy him", or "argue with him". It's "accept his ruling gracefully, and get on with the game, stating your intention to appeal (to the TO or higher authority if necessary)".

One should also keep the second sentence of Law 81B1 in mind:

Quote

He [the director] has powers to remedy any omissions of the tournament organizer.

This means that if the TO provides an ambiguous regulation, it is within the powers of the TD (not the players) to decide how to interpret it.

Also, note that

Quote

failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the director

is an offense subject to penalty (Law 90B8).

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jan 31 2009, 05:28 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 31 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 30 2009, 10:57 PM, said:

The laws restrict a directors power.  If the director oversteps his authority then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders.

I don't disagree with this statement:

There is always the option to withdraw from an event.

If, however, you are going to play in an event, I think that you (typically) are obliged to follow the rules.

I agree.

My argument has been that the director also is obliged to follow the rules.

No it hasn't, look at your quote above. Your argument has been that IF you believe the director is not following the rules, THEN you don't have to do what he says ("see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders".) At least admit what you are saying.

[Cascade]

You are a master at twisting what I am saying.

"If the director oversteps his authority ..."

There is no statement of opinion in here. This is an entirely objective statement. I have never suggested that my opinion has weight in the matter. The basis is simply that the director does not have free reign to make up his own rules. He is bound by the laws and announced regulations. Once outside those he is not acting as a director.

" then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders. "

If the director tells you that 5-card majors are illegal in a GCC event would you stop playing them?

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jan 31 2009, 06:05 PM, said:

You are a master at twisting what I am saying.

I'm not twisting anything. I quoted what I was referring to, for anyone who reads it to judge if I am wrong or misrepresenting you. I admit that I often make the judgment error of assuming that you are staying on the topic of the thread and that this may cause me to slightly misinterpret your posts, for which I apologize.

Quote

"If the director oversteps his authority ..."

There is no statement of opinion in here.  This is an entirely objective statement.  I have never suggested that my opinion has weight in the matter.  The basis is simply that the director does not have free reign to make up his own rules.  He is bound by the laws and announced regulations.  Once outside those he is not acting as a director.

" then I see no reason to feel compelled to follow orders. "

Ok as referred to above, I won't assume anything, I'll ask instead.

Would it be fair to say that this discussion is entirely theoretical to you, because even if you believe the director is not following the rules then your opinion is irrelevant? Or would you ignore his instructions if you are absolutely sure? 99% sure? What is your stance?

Slightly related question: Would you say you have ever been 100% sure of something, then been shown you were wrong?

Quote

If the director tells you that 5-card majors are illegal in a GCC event would you stop playing them?

Of course I wouldn't play anything he says I can't play, I would choose between playing something else and not playing that day. I might say some things I shouldn't, and I might engage some kind of complaint about the director, but since I'm not a cheater I follow the (bridge related!) instructions of the director. I recall making my feelings on that matter clear when I said the following:

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 02:19 AM, said:

If a director rules against you, even if you know for a fact he is wrong, you must do what he says. If you believe he is breaking a rule then appeal, write your congressman, I don't care. But if you defy him you are cheating.

So, what would you do?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Feb 1 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 31 2009, 06:05 PM, said:

You are a master at twisting what I am saying.

I'm not twisting anything. I quoted what I was referring to, for anyone who reads it to judge if I am wrong or misrepresenting you. I admit that I often make the judgment error of assuming that you are staying on the topic of the thread and that this may cause me to slightly misinterpret your posts, for which I apologize.

You quoted and then distorted by adding words that I have never said nor thought. This significantly distorts my argument.

In my experience it is a tactic that you use at times when you don't like or agree with the argument made by others.

Quote

Would it be fair to say that this discussion is entirely theoretical to you, because even if you believe the director is not following the rules then your opinion is irrelevant? Or would you ignore his instructions if you are absolutely sure? 99% sure? What is your stance?

No to your first question. It is not entirely theoretical.

I would ignore an instruction that was 100% wrong e.g. If the director in a GCC event (or similar) told me that my 5-card major 15-17 1NT methods were illegal I would not listen to that. Similarly if I was playing other methods that had been checked out in advance to comply with the system regulations I would ignore a director who made a contrary spur of the moment decision to disallow them. The director has no such power. The director is bound by the announced regulations. Bound is a very strong word.

Quote

Slightly related question: Would you say you have ever been 100% sure of something, then been shown you were wrong?

Of course I have. I am not talking about something that I could be wrong about.

Quote

Quote

If the director tells you that 5-card majors are illegal in a GCC event would you stop playing them?

Of course I wouldn't play anything he says I can't play, I would choose between playing something else and not playing that day. I might say some things I shouldn't, and I might engage some kind of complaint about the director, but since I'm not a cheater I follow the (bridge related!) instructions of the director.

Calling someone a cheat when they refuse to follow an instruction that the director is not empowered to make is taking things a little far IMHO.

It maybe two late the director may not make this ruling until several rounds into the event. Then your choices are:

• to comply with the ruling and play some other methods
  
  
• to continue playing your methods which you know are legal
  
  
• to walk out of the event
  
  
• or in some other way go over the directors head to get an alternative ruling e.g. seek out another director

I am pretty sure if as a director I said 5-card majors were illegal (in a GCC or similar event) that very few would fall into the first group who complied with my ruling.

Quote

I recall making my feelings on that matter clear when I said the following:

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 02:19 AM, said:

If a director rules against you, even if you know for a fact he is wrong, you must do what he says. If you believe he is breaking a rule then appeal, write your congressman, I don't care. But if you defy him you are cheating.

So, what would you do?

I would not comply with the director when the ruling was obviously nonsense.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Feb 1 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

You quoted and then distorted by adding words that I have never said nor thought. This significantly distorts my argument.

In my experience it is a tactic that you use at times when you don't like or agree with the argument made by others.

I quoted so anyone can make their own judgment. If you would like a discussion of posting tactics I would be most happy to analyze you as well. How do you think you would do?

You criticizing someone's posting style is one of the more hilarious things I have seen in my time on the forums. No one is a bigger troll.

Quote

I would ignore an instruction that was 100% wrong e.g. If the director in a GCC event (or similar) told me that my 5-card major 15-17 1NT methods were illegal I would not listen to that.

Are you the one who decided the director is wrong? I thought this was a completely objective argument where your opinion doesn't matter? Is it any wonder I'm confused?

Quote

Quote

Slightly related question: Would you say you have ever been 100% sure of something, then been shown you were wrong?

Of course I have. I am not talking about something that I could be wrong about.

Again my fault. I was under the impression that you know what 100% means. To be more clear, I guess I'm not understanding how someone can know he is not wrong about something even if he is aware that he could be 100% sure of something and still be wrong. Maybe you can enlighten.

Quote

Calling someone a cheat when they refuse to follow an instruction that the director is not empowered to make is taking things a little far IMHO.

Who decides what instructions the director is empowered to make! At the end of the day, if you don't follow the instruction of a director, it is because you decided he was not empowered to rule in that way or make that decision. Which means YOU have made a decision that YOU are not empowered to make. Which means you are cheating.

I'm not even going out on a limb. You have been pointed to several rules that you have chosen to ignore: That it is the director's dutie to administer and interpret the laws and advise the players of their rights and responsibilities, and that failure to comply with instructions from a director is subject to procedural penalty.

Quote

Quote

I recall making my feelings on that matter clear when I said the following:

jdonn, on Jan 29 2009, 02:19 AM, said:

If a director rules against you, even if you know for a fact he is wrong, you must do what he says. If you believe he is breaking a rule then appeal, write your congressman, I don't care. But if you defy him you are cheating.

So, what would you do?

I would not comply with the director when the ruling was obviously nonsense.

Nonsense in whose opinion? Careful, you wouldn't want to contradict yourself.

[blackshoe]

Positing ridiculous scenarios ("director says 5-card majors are illegal under the GCC") is not helpful. Neither is calling people cheats, even by implication.

In the ACBL, wilfully walking out of an event you have started is a violation of the general (and probably the specific) conditions of contest. It may well result in a disciplinary hearing.

Under the laws of bridge, willful defiance or disregard of a director's instructions is subject to penalty, and rightly so. Note that the laws don't distinguish between legal and allegedly illegal instructions.

Bottom line: Wayne, if you actually do these things you claim you'd do when you disagree with the director, you should IMO be expelled from the organization in which you do them. Permanently.

[fred]

Wayne,

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the GCC is really the deeply-flawed document that some people (including you I think) claim it to be.

There are a number of reasons this state of affairs could exist, but for the purposes of this discussion, the reasons don't matter.

The sort of flaws I am referring to are things like:

1) Ambiguous wording (for example apparently "range" means different things to different people)

2) Incomplete (does not clearly categorize all possible methods as either legal or illegal)

3) Less than ideal technical support (no fast and accurate mechanism exists whereby players and TDs can get answers that are acceptable to everyone)

Given GCC-flaws 1 and 2 and that some players like to experiment (for whatever reasons), it is a fact of life that TDs will sometimes have to use their judgement in order to decide as to the legality of a given method under the GCC. Given GCC-flaw 3, it will often be impractical/impossible for the TD to seek guidance from a unversally-respected higher authority, especially in real time. The bottom line is that the TD is forced to make a judgment call. Even if the higher authority happens to be available, that only shifts the judgment call to someone else.

GCC-flaws 1 and 2 guarantee that someone has to make a decision as well as making it likely that, in some cases at least, not everyone's judgment will agree.

If players who disagree with the judgment of the TD (or the higher authority) feel free to override such decisions, then the result would be chaos.

Your example of a TD disallowing 5-card majors and 15-17 notrumps is not meaningful because (I am assuming at least) there is no ambiguity or incompleteness in the GCC in this area. Even if some person thought they found a flaw in the wording of the GCC as it pertained to such a system, this would represent nothing more than an amusing curiousity with a resolution that would be obvious to everyone.

The hypothetical situation you are clinging to is impossible. It could never happen.

If you continue to cling to the impossible and ask "but what if it did happen?", then I believe Josh's response is completely correct:

By playing in an event you have an obligation to accept the TD's judgment pertaining to systems regulations. If you do not agree with the TD's judgment you have the option of not playing. You then have the further option of lodging a complaint about the TD with the sponsoring authority that the TD must answer to.

Yes, of course life would be better for everyone if the GCC was flawless and that judgment and interpretation never came into play, but I personally believe this is not a realistic goal - there will always be a small % of players who delight in looking for holes or pulling a Clinton by questioning the meaning of words like "is". Even if it is possible to fill every hole and define every word, the resulting document would not be comprehensible to anyone other than the lawyers. A complete cure, if it could even exist, might well be worse than the disease.

Given that GCC-flaws exist, however, the only workable solution is for the players to defer to the TD's judgment. If instead players feel free to take the law into their own hands whenever their judgment disagrees with the TD's, there will be much more serious problems than those that exist now (IMO). Even if you think that your judgment is always correct (and that would be pretty arrogant), do you really want to play (or TD) a game in which those players with lesser judgment behave as you would like to behave?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com