[kb49]

English Bridge Union

In the EBU White Book there is the following directive:

7.2.6.4 Relative

The L & EC considered a hand where a TD had gone to a table to give a ruling where a blood relative was involved. It was understood there were times when this could not be avoided(e.g. the TD was the only one present). A different TD should attend the table whenever it is practical to do so.

I am TD in our local club. I do not partner my wife on these occasions. We had a dispute recently (very friendly) when I was called to make a ruling at her table. My wife insisted that she was not a BLOOD relative and therefore I could make a ruling.

What is the usual procedure in these situations?

[campboy]

While this isn't the same as the case the L&EC considered, I would think it clear that there is at least as great a conflict of interest. That passage is just an example of a situation where a different TD should attend (if practical); it is not attempting to be exhaustive.

[RMB1]

 kb49, on 2015-June-03, 09:09, said:

What is the usual procedure in these situations?

The procedure is to avoid the appearance of bias where ever possible. If it is a book ruling it should be possible to read the law from the book and it not be relevant that the TD is related to one of the players at the table. Otherwise, there are a number of options:

• get someone else to act as TD for this ruling
  
• consult with another TD before giving the ruling (perhaps at the end of the session)
  
• rule against the player you are related to (advising them of their right to appeal)

[aguahombre]

This could be a problem in Arkansas.

[barmar]

It sure seems strange that the regulation would be so specific if they didn't mean it. Why not just say "close relative" if they didn't intend to exclude relatives by marriage? But it also seems strange that they would think there's less conflict of interest with a relative by marriage (although in the case of in-laws, the bias might be in the opposite direction).

[mycroft]

My guess is this is case law - "the L&E C considered a hand where..." that is put into the White Book as a lot of it is Just That - interpretations, direct and by implication from case law.

I would assume that most people would look at this and say "this is what they decided in the blood relative case, the relative-by-marriage (or the regular partner, or the sometimes-client, or...) would almost certainly be decided the same way" and go from there. Perhaps it may be a good idea to go through the White Book when doing the reviews, and explicitly point out where these case law interpretations lead as a general rule; perhaps not. But I can't see this as exclusive - it's "one hand" after all.

I know that I make it clear to my partners (in life as well as in bridge, as appropriate) that all reasonable judgements are going to go against you, if I'm the only director. Any reasonably obvious judgement calls stay obvious of course, and I make an especial point to consult in these cases; especially if it looks like I have to rule in favour of my bias, it needs to be clear that it's not just my opinion.

There are other issues with playing with a director, even when they aren't directing - those "little things" that "most people" get away with won't fly, because "you know better, or I'm going to teach you to know better because *I* know better", for instance. And yes, it makes playing with "most people" really irritating when you notice how bad, and how clueless about how bad, they are (at disclosure for instance).

[jeffford76]

We once had a case at the local club where a husband ruled in favor of his wife on a completely obvious UI case from a non-alerted Drury bid (after doing all of the appropriate consultation). The offending side wanted an appeal, and suggested that to make things even his wife should be on the committee.

[FrancesHinden]

What mycroft said.

The White Book has a number of specific examples of cases that the L&EC thought were of more general interest. We didn't want to turn this into a regulation ("you may not rule if a relative is involved") because the alternatives may be even less satisfactory. In the original case, it was the TD's daughter (which probably identifies the TD to some readers, not that it matters).

It doesn't even have to be a relative: I believe in the past RMB1 has tried to avoid responding to a TD call to my table because we know each other well (and he is even older friends with my partner). I trust him, but that of course isn't the point.

[RMB1]

 FrancesHinden, on 2015-June-05, 14:54, said:

In the original case, it was the TD's daughter (which probably identifies the TD to some readers, not that it matters).

... and I thought the original case was a mother ruling at her son's table (shows what I know)

[Vampyr]

I have never seen this regulation. My partner and I rule at each other's table when called, even though there are always several qualified directors present. Frankly speaking, I find the suggestion that we could not rule without bias insulting. In judgment cases one always consults anyway.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2015-June-06, 19:00, said:

I have never seen this regulation. My partner and I rule at each other's table when called, even though there are always several qualified directors present. Frankly speaking, I find the suggestion that we could not rule without bias insulting. In judgment cases one always consults anyway.

I will try that when I am sitting at a different table from my partner.

[FrancesHinden]

 RMB1, on 2015-June-06, 18:14, said:

... and I thought the original case was a mother ruling at her son's table (shows what I know)

Jallerton has corrected me to a father ruling at his son's table, with which I concur.

[FrancesHinden]

 Vampyr, on 2015-June-06, 19:00, said:

I have never seen this regulation. My partner and I rule at each other's table when called, even though there are always several qualified directors present. Frankly speaking, I find the suggestion that we could not rule without bias insulting. In judgment cases one always consults anyway.

You are missing the point. The question is not whether you are capable of ruling without bias. The problem (on a possibly contentious ruling) is that both
(i) the opponents might suspect bias and be unhappy as a consequence; even if unjustified
(ii) it is not fair on your relative as most TDs in this position will tend (consciously or not) to be biased against their relative in an effect to be certain they are not biased in their favour

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2015-June-06, 19:12, said:

I will try that when I am sitting at a different table from my partner.

"partner" has a different meaning IRL than in bridge.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2015-June-07, 19:39, said:

"partner" has a different meaning IRL than in bridge.

Again, I failed to provide a smiley-face. Oh, well. I keep forgetting subtlety is not obvious.

Did I need to add an emoticon to the previous sentence, also?