[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2013-July-09, 11:25, said:

to apply 27D (which definitely involves staying for the entire auction and possibly post-hand review), never mind that they are supposed to.

Staying for the entire auction is normal when there has been an irregularity, but I don't think that a playing director, who may already be very behind after a complicated 27B ruling, should be obliged to do that, and of course the review can take place at any time after the board has been played.

It seems that most forum participants have little sympathy for playing directors, but I have a lot, and I don't think that they need to be held to the same standards as paid directors. If nothing else there is the practical consideration that if playing directors' lives are made too difficult, no one will want to volunteer, and the club will no longer be able to hold games.

[mycroft]

I share your concern about both playing TDs and about lower-skill TDs. I have stated my belief that any book ruling that is being considered as a change to a judgement ruling needs to be looked strongly in context of these TDs (especially those that don't have an easy consult available).

But it's why I hate L27D (while still applying it, as it's good Law, in my belief; just very difficult). Waiting until after the game to find the continued auction as well as doing the hand analysis has its own issues, which should be obvious.

I volunteer as "second TD" in a game right now, as the paid TD is always a playing TD (in exchange he sorts cards for my partner). But when I get a complicated ruling, oh well. If it turns out that I have a problem finishing or lose boards because of concentration, it happens.