[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-October-20, 12:36, said:

Some of us already "vary our ruling and appearence at the table" depending on the (class of) players involved and I see no problem with it.

I remember (must have been at least 10 years ago) I was called to a table in what one would probably call a "C-flight" event. It was a judgment case involving one of the best Norwegian TDs at the time and I eventually came back to the table announcing my verdict which went against her. I added: "This is a situation where I rule differently in A-flight and C-flight".

My (female) fellow burst out in laughter and stated she had absolutely no problem with that.

Good for her. But my point was not about what TDs should do, but rather how we get beginners from stage 1 (totally clueless) to stage 2 or 3 (understanding the need for consistent tempo and minimization of 'tells' and at least trying to 'do it right'). The current "learn from experience" meme doesn't seem to be working all that well.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-20, 13:01, said:

Good for her. But my point was not about what TDs should do, but rather how we get beginners from stage 1 (totally clueless) to stage 2 or 3 (understanding the need for consistent tempo and minimization of 'tells' and at least trying to 'do it right'). The current "learn from experience" meme doesn't seem to be working all that well.

Oh, that is part of my "varying my ruling and appearence at the table" depending on the (class of) players involved.

I tell beginners in an apparently (according to feedbacks) very appreciated manner the ruling they shall expect (and why) in a higher level event.

[blackshoe]

Ah. Well, if it works, I suppose you should keep doing it.

[jillybean]

This could work in NA too, if people called the director and the director was willing & able to explain the laws.

[blackshoe]

And if the players were willing to listen. Sometimes they're too busy complaining to do that, though.

[jillybean]

Ah, well. I tried..shrug

[blackshoe]

I'm not saying it's a waste of time. I've been known to do it myself as a director, and sometimes, as in Sven's experience, they were happy to learn, but sometimes, like I said, they didn't want to hear it. So have at it.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2012-October-20, 13:15, said:

I tell beginners in an apparently (according to feedbacks) very appreciated manner the ruling they shall expect (and why) in a higher level event.

I believe blackshoe was suggesting that players learn it in some other way apart from director calls (which is not a very consistent method!)

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-21, 18:50, said:

I believe blackshoe was suggesting that players learn it in some other way apart from director calls (which is not a very consistent method!)

Yep.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-21, 18:50, said:

I believe blackshoe was suggesting that players learn it in some other way apart from director calls (which is not a very consistent method!)

This is a difficult issue. We're often advised that players should not give unsolicited lessons at the bridge table -- if you think the opponents need to be instructed in proper procedure, tell the director.

What's often suggested is talking to the director between rounds or after the game, asking him to talk to the player in question. However, I'm not so sure how well that would work for something like this. The player is not likely to even remember what they did or what they were thinking about unless it was in one of the last rounds of the game.

[blackshoe]

I'm not suggesting one on one "education" of individual players. I'm suggesting a formal curriculum of classes*, which could be taught before or after a game session, or at some other time and place. At one of the clubs here, they give 'mini-lessons' before the game to those the director/club owner calls her "babies" - the non-Life Masters who don't have the guts to play with the big kids — but while I used to give lessons in that venue on various aspects of the laws (which BTW were very well received) I have not been asked to do so in some time, and the lessons I've seen over the last year or so have all been about play problems.

* I realize that a class titled "your legal obligations at bridge" or some such is not likely to be a big draw, but perhaps something along the lines of using appeals books to discuss these things (and giving the course a more palatable name) would work.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 00:46, said:

* I realize that a class titled "your legal obligations at bridge" or some such is not likely to be a big draw, but perhaps something along the lines of using appeals books to discuss these things (and giving the course a more palatable name) would work.

The idea of such a "class" for newer players was mentioned before, on these fora. And, indeed it was not a big draw here.

I received exactly one PM request from a BBF'r when I offered to share an entire eleven-installment email class produced by one of our local teachers. It was in the form of a weekly "Email the Director" series and was quite well received by the target group being brought into ACBL from party Bridge. They even practice most of what was presented ---but, more importantly they try to practice the frame of mind about rules and rulings which the teacher instilled.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-19, 17:55, said:

"How many legs has a sheep?"
"Four."

This reminds me of a joke. An English mathematician, physicist and engineer were travelling together to Wales for the very first time on the train. The engineer the notices a sheep out of the window - it is black. From this he concludes: "All sheep in Wales are black." "Perhaps" says the physicist, "but all we can really say is that there is at least one black sheep in Wales." "Nonsense" says the mathematician. "We can only see half of ths sheep. Correct is to say that there is at least one sheep with at least one black side in Wales." The point is that sometimes it is enough to call a sheep black and let it stand for the matter at hand rather than creating artificial silliness. Oh yes, and the correct answer to your question is that a sheep has between 0 and 4 legs.

On a more practical note, I am reminded of many sporting events where unethical behaviour has resulted in a win for the player or team involved. Whether it be allowing a ball to hit you to get an opponent sent off, a handball on the line in the last minute of a game, falling over to win a penalty, or punching the ball into the net through divine intervention. It does not really matter whether you call this - cheating, professional, inspired. What matters is what the end result is. If you allow pausing in such situations for dubious bridge reasons then players will do this even without needing to think. Sometimes the rules of a game need to be practical if you cannot tell the difference between ethical and unethical behaviour. Yes it might be that that sheep is completely black on one side and completely white (or purple for that matter) on the other. On the other hand, practical experience tells us that sheep do not ordinarily look like characters out of Star Trek. Yes, you might allow players to pause to think in tempo-sensitive situations without penalty. On the other hand, practical experience tells us this is a bad idea and opens the door to all sorts of unethical behaviour.

[mycroft]

Unfortunately, in most places in the ACBL, we get the "don't nitpick the stage 1s" so hard that they get to "clearly stage 3" without ever seeing that there are issues. And then when we rule against them they take it really hard (the C word frequently comes out).

Yes, "your ethical requirements" is going to be a quiet draw, and will almost certainly show the Dunning-Kruger effect in action - 80% of the people at the discussion wouldn't need to be there, and 80% of those who needed to be there wouldn't think their behaviour is even an issue. But it could be one class out of a "run of classes", near the end - if, of course, the teachers are capable of teaching it themselves.

But since I had a GLM pull a "next table over knew you used UI" stunt just yesterday, I don't see all that much hope. Luckily he guessed wrong.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-22, 01:41, said:

The idea of such a "class" for newer players was mentioned before, on these fora. And, indeed it was not a big draw here.

I received exactly one PM request from a BBF'r when I offered to share an entire eleven-installment email class produced by one of our local teachers. It was in the form of a weekly "Email the Director" series and was quite well received by the target group being brought into ACBL from party Bridge. They even practice most of what was presented ---but, more importantly they try to practice the frame of mind about rules and rulings which the teacher instilled.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying such a class or course is a good idea, or a bad one?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 14:13, said:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying such a class or course is a good idea, or a bad one?

And English is my only language. I guess I don't even have that.

1) It is a good idea.
2) I have on my computer 11 installments of just such a class on laws and proprieties for inexperienced players.
3) It was produced and well received by the students of a local teacher.
4) I have mentioned it before, and only Jilly was interested in my sending them to her.
5) It is free of charge, and might be used by teachers/directors elsewhere...either intact or as a source of ideas.
6) Sending them to enmasse players via email has a by-product of not singling out people at the playing site.

[Vampyr]

I never saw your previous offer -- I would be pleased if you would send your class to me.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-22, 14:22, said:

4) I have mentioned it before, and only Jilly was interested in my sending them to her.
5) It is free of charge, and might be used by teachers/directors elsewhere...either intact or as a source of ideas.

Vampyr, on 2012-October-22, 14:42, said:

I never saw your previous offer -- I would be pleased if you would send your class to me.

What she said.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 14:52, said:

What she said.

Anyone who wants it ---pls email me direct aguahombre2@yahoo.com so that I can create a contact list and send them all as eleven forwarded emails.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-22, 08:42, said:

This reminds me of a joke. An English mathematician, physicist and engineer were travelling together to Wales for the very first time on the train. The engineer the notices a sheep out of the window - it is black. From this he concludes: "All sheep in Wales are black." "Perhaps" says the physicist, "but all we can really say is that there is at least one black sheep in Wales." "Nonsense" says the mathematician. "We can only see half of ths sheep. Correct is to say that there is at least one sheep with at least one black side in Wales." The point is that sometimes it is enough to call a sheep black and let it stand for the matter at hand rather than creating artificial silliness. Oh yes, and the correct answer to your question is that a sheep has between 0 and 4 legs.
[...]

Ian Stewart in The Concepts of Modern Mathematics:
[...]In Scotland there is at least one field on which there is at least one sheep that is black on at least one side!

(My quotation is from Simon Singh: Fermat's last theorem)