[jillybean]

 ggwhiz, on 2015-January-01, 13:52, said:

South passes and there will be a forensic audit on further bidding by North. The common interpretation of the 60 second BIT is that south was thinking of bidding something and we don't know what.

Well, east does but why not proceed along the BIT lines?

I don't think it is as simple as a 60 second BIT.
We can all guess what south was thinking of bidding after he tells the director he was about to make an insufficient bid.

[barmar]

 ArtK78, on 2015-January-01, 11:14, said:

That is interesting. I believe you are drawing from your experience rather than what should happen.

When I learned directing many years ago, I was taught that all rulings are supposed to be made out of the law book. A TD is not supposed to make his rulings without the law book.

My experience follows yours, in that I don't recall the last time I saw a TD make a ruling with law book in hand.

As for making clear which law is being applied, I don't see that happening, either, unless someone questions the law being applied.

If a TD has been directing for more than a few years, and they need to consult the lawbook for routine infractions like revokes, LOOT, and IB, I'd say they're not a very competent director. A good TD should be able to recite the 5 options after an OLOOT in their sleep.

[blackshoe]

It's not a question of need. it's a question of ensuring you don't make a mistake. I agree with Art; i was taught the same way.

[gnasher]

I don't care in the slightest whether a TD reads from the book or not, as long as they get the ruling right.

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-02, 03:41, said:

I don't care in the slightest whether a TD reads from the book or not, as long as they get the ruling right.

Sure, and what do you do if he rules from his memory and you have the slightest possible suspicion that he may have overlooked something? Are you still comfortable With his ruling or do you ask him to look it up?

We all occationally make mistakes and believe me it is very embarrassing having to come back and admit a Director's error.

[jillybean]

It is very frustrating when experienced players violate the laws like this and the director does a poor job of handling the call.
Local directors here don't carry law books other than first time directors, perhaps I should start carrying one.

IMO, 3♣ is a very unlikely spot to land in without the UI but a common result after calling about a BIT or an insufficient or incomplete bid.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-02, 03:41, said:

I don't care in the slightest whether a TD reads from the book or not, as long as they get the ruling right.

Fair enough, but I think a TD should be prepared to read from the book if asked. Not having your book with you at the table is very poor practice.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2015-January-02, 03:53, said:

Sure, and what do you do if he rules from his memory and you have the slightest possible suspicion that he may have overlooked something? Are you still comfortable With his ruling or do you ask him to look it up?

We all occationally make mistakes and believe me it is very embarrassing having to come back and admit a Director's error.

If I suspect he forgot something, I'll ask him to double check, probably reminding him of what I think he overlooked.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-02, 02:05, said:

It's not a question of need. it's a question of ensuring you don't make a mistake. I agree with Art; i was taught the same way.

Would you expect a professional chef to use a cookbook for a dish he's been making for years, just to "ensure he doesn't make a mistake"? When a cop pulls you over for speeding, do you think he should look up all the regulations, and instructions for using the radar gun, before writing the ticket? Or a tennis judge, do you think he looks up the rules for a fault every time he calls one?

One of the marks of expertise in an area is that you have internalized most of the routine aspects of the activity. Of course no one is perfect, and there are situations that don't come up very often, so they should have the lawbook nearby to consult in these cases. But if someone has been a TD for years, and they can't handle the top 10 irregularities off the top of their head, they should probably find another line of work.

[ArtK78]

 barmar, on 2015-January-02, 17:57, said:

Would you expect a professional chef to use a cookbook for a dish he's been making for years, just to "ensure he doesn't make a mistake"? When a cop pulls you over for speeding, do you think he should look up all the regulations, and instructions for using the radar gun, before writing the ticket? Or a tennis judge, do you think he looks up the rules for a fault every time he calls one?

One of the marks of expertise in an area is that you have internalized most of the routine aspects of the activity. Of course no one is perfect, and there are situations that don't come up very often, so they should have the lawbook nearby to consult in these cases. But if someone has been a TD for years, and they can't handle the top 10 irregularities off the top of their head, they should probably find another line of work.

You are missing the point.

A professional TD is supposed to make his rulings of law from the rule book. What other professions do is not relevant.

[blackshoe]

What Art said.

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2015-January-02, 03:53, said:

Sure, and what do you do if he rules from his memory and you have the slightest possible suspicion that he may have overlooked something? Are you still comfortable With his ruling or do you ask him to look it up?

We all occationally make mistakes and believe me it is very embarrassing having to come back and admit a Director's error.

I ask him to read out the relevant law, of course. Even if he's right and I'm wrong, he can't reasonably object to that.

[gnasher]

 ArtK78, on 2015-January-02, 21:35, said:

You are missing the point.

A professional TD is supposed to make his rulings of law from the rule book. What other professions do is not relevant.

In what sense is he "supposed to" do this? Are you saying that there is a rule which requires that rulings be read from the book? If so, where is this rule?

[blackshoe]

Andy, were you taught to make your rulings from memory, or from the book?

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-03, 13:24, said:

Andy, were you taught to make your rulings from memory, or from the book?

If Andy has been on the EBU County Directors Course he will remember that the first question on the first day is, "how do we make book rulings?" And the right answer is, "with the book".

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-03, 13:24, said:

Andy, were you taught to make your rulings from memory, or from the book?

I wasn't taught at all. The last time I directed a bridge event was in 1989, so if I were required to give a ruling on a technical infraction I would probably either quote the relevant law, or read it and then summarise it.

I know, however, that in England this is not a requirement. The relevant EBU regulation reads:
A TD should carry a copy of The Laws with them when called to a table to give a ruling during play.
Whenever a TD gives a ruling based on the direct application of Law, the TD, if requested, should be prepared to read the relevant clause or clauses from The Laws.

You and ArtK78 seem to be saying that in the ACBL a director is required to read his rulings from the book. Am I being unreasonable in asking you to justify this assertion?

[Vampyr]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-02, 04:20, said:

It is very frustrating when experienced players violate the laws like this and the director does a poor job of handling the call.

Local directors here don't carry law books other than first time directors, perhaps I should start carrying one.

East sounds like a real bully. Besides carrying a Lawbook, directors need to learn how not to be intimidated by such players.

Anyway, presumably the Lawbook is on the premises, so you can at leas task the directors to read out the rulings. But it wouldn't hurt for you to carry your own book just in case.

Perhaps you might suggest to the local clubs that they send their directors on a course, since it seems clear that they have not been on one.

[ArtK78]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-03, 15:57, said:

I wasn't taught at all. The last time I directed a bridge event was in 1989, so if I were required to give a ruling on a technical infraction I would probably either quote the relevant law, or read it and then summarise it.

I know, however, that in England this is not a requirement. The relevant EBU regulation reads:
A TD should carry a copy of The Laws with them when called to a table to give a ruling during play.
Whenever a TD gives a ruling based on the direct application of Law, the TD, if requested, should be prepared to read the relevant clause or clauses from The Laws.

You and ArtK78 seem to be saying that in the ACBL a director is required to read his rulings from the book. Am I being unreasonable in asking you to justify this assertion?

This is the way we were taught. To back this up, I provide these quotations from p. 43 and following from The ACBL Club Director's Handbook, which is available on the ACBL website:

How to Make a Good Rulings

Whenever you approach a table to make a ruling, you are representing your club and displaying your own professional abilities and knowledge. It is important that this be done well. Carry a Law Book or Duplicate Decisions with you when you go to make a ruling.

* * *

8. Quote the Law (preferably by reading it) and see that it is properly applied.

After you are able to verify the facts, complete with agreement or disagreement on the facts by all concerned, quote the Law applying to the situation, state the options available and penalties that apply and stand by to see that these are selected and paid.

* * *

12. Be able to make book rulings rapidly.

To be able to make timely rulings, you have to know where in the Laws the various situations are covered. In your spare time at home, leaf through your Law Book or copy of Duplicate Decisions, stopping at various Laws and their places in the book — front, middle, back. Be sure you have read and are familiar with Laws 72–76 (Proprieties), Laws 81–91 (Tournament director) and Laws 92 and 93 (Appeals). Indexing your Law Book or your copy of Duplicate Decisions is one of the most valuable exercises a new director can perform.

Following these procedures is especially important at the club level, where the players are less likely to be familiar with the laws applicable to various common situations.

I also found this in the ACBL Handbook of Rules and Regulations. It is from Chapter 7 - General Tournament Information, under Section THREE - Tournament Procedures:

X. RULINGS AND PENALTIES

All ACBL events are run under the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Chapter X of the Laws discusses the Tournament Director (DIC) responsibilities generally and then specifically in regard to such items as rulings and penalties. A director should have in his or her possession a current copy of the LAWS OF DUPLICATE CONTRACT BRIDGE.

The director should make a ruling at the playing table only when necessary for play to proceed or when the ruling is clearly stated in the Laws. In other cases, the director should defer the ruling in order to consider the facts and consult with other staff. The director should make the decision as soon as possible, but oftentimes it is appropriate to allow participants some “cooling off time”.

The director should inform the participants in contested rulings or rulings which involve an adjusted score of their right to appeal.

It may not be a requirement to quote from the law book, but, as stated above in the Club Director's Handbook, it is the preferred procedure.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-January-03, 15:57, said:

You and ArtK78 seem to be saying that in the ACBL a director is required to read his rulings from the book. Am I being unreasonable in asking you to justify this assertion?

I might try to justify it if I had made it, but I didn't. All I've said is that I was taught to rule that way.

ACBL directors at both tournament and club level seem to pride themselves on their ability to remember the laws. "We don't need no steenkin' law book" comes to mind. Yet they are wrong often enough, in my experience, to suggest that the attitude itself is wrong, and I prefer the English approach which at least has the TD prepared to read the law from the book when asked.

[gordontd]

In the EBU we teach TDs that in general "book" rulings should be read from the book. The main exception to this is for opening leads out of turn, where the various aspects are so spread out around the book that directors are expected to know the five options and be able to recite them without looking in the book. Revokes too are often handled without reference to the law book, but for almost everything else the TD should have the book and refer to it so as to ensure that no aspect of it (eg lead penalties) has been forgotten. Like pran, I always read bids out of turn from the book because there are so many possibilities that it's easy to go wrong.