[axman]

One of the missions of this forum is to provide good technique for running bridge contests [directing]. With this in mind I wish to impart that there is no place for emotion in a TD/adjudicator.

As stern an admonition as that is, there is good reason for it. Emotion not only impairs the ability to be objective, but also the ability to appear to be objective. And an adjudicator that fails to be objective is in a position to make improper rulings.

This bit may well have been left unsaid except for the following advice within the revoke and bad defense thread:

 bluejak, on 2011-April-28, 11:45, said:

Not much sympathy for North, eh?

On the surface, you are being entreated as a TD/ adjudicator to have sympathy**(have emotion). But not merely that. The message itself is sparked with emotion, coached in a way to engender action.

My understanding of the British language is that the above enjoinder would be taken by a Brit as a rebuke, and a stiff one at that. In YankeeSpeak it carries with it the import that you [a] do not have sympathy as a TD [b] you are supposed to have sympathy as a TD and [c] you very well are supposed to already know you are to have sympathy as a TD- which carries the beneath the surface meaning ‘you will be ostracized if you don’t get your act together’.

And, that is a very powerful message. And a very bad one for a TD to receive as emotion not only is a source of destruction of bridge, but a source of destruction of one’s bridge reputation and social reputation.

The function of law is to provide solutions to problems and as an adjudicator it is important to rule in accordance with law- so that problems are solved rather than created.

** one of the adjuncts of the definition of sympathy is ‘A feeling of loyalty; allegiance.’ An adjudicator with sympathy can be viewed as showing loyalty to one party over another rather than ruling in accordance with law [in other words, a recipe for ill will].

[BunnyGo]

This reminds me quite a bit of the criticism Obama received after mentioning that a Supreme Court Justice should have "empathy." However, both of those criticisms are quite incorrect and requires a simplistic understanding of law as the ability to "call balls and strikes."

It is in fact important that a judge have sympathy (likewise a TD). How else can someone understand a claimant's position if one is not empathic enough to appreciate their individual situation. The laws of bridge are purposefully written to include subjective words because there are situations where intent matters. One should appreciate that this is not like Baseball which can be objective because all that matters is physical actions. Actual law requires empathy (or sympathy) as do the laws of bridge because the TD or AC must determine intent and are empowered to consider individual circumstances.

[AlexJonson]

Mm

I believe that in most circumstances, most TD calls are for technical reasons,
and the TD's contribution is very welcome and helps everyone immediately.

Then there are the UI MI/UI situations. I've been impressed by the practicality of TDs
in these situations: given that they will not often leave everyone happy.

I've never personally seen a TD exhibit emotion or favouritism. So, though I imagine I understand
what axman is talking about, and sort of agree, there is a big difference between a forum and a tournament hall.

[Bbradley62]

 axman, on 2011-April-29, 10:38, said:

In YankeeSpeak it carries with it the import that you [a] do not have sympathy as a TD [b] you are supposed to have sympathy as a TD and [c] you very well are supposed to already know you are to have sympathy as a TD- which carries the beneath the surface meaning ‘you will be ostracized if you don’t get your act together’.

What pure nonsense!

To sympathize with a person or his argument can also simply mean to agree with that person or the argument he is presenting, without any emotion necessary. Bluejak's post doesn't imply any of the things you fabricated here.

[blackshoe]

Consider two doctors. They are equally competent. One's bedside manner is aloof, cold, unsympathetic. The other's is compassionate, sympathetic. Both tell the patient the same facts, in their different ways. To which one is the patient more likely to return the next time he has a problem?

So it is with TDs. One's "bedside manner" need not require, or imply, that one cannot or will not be objective in ruling.