[pescetom]

A friend of mine is a skilled bridge player but has Aphasia. He is fine using a Bidding Box or playing the cards, but has difficulty in verbal communication. This is no issue in friendly social games, but can cause problems during a competitive tournament - he has difficulty in making an explanation when this is requested by the opponents and of course this can lead to misunderstandings and Director calls.

The ideal from a practical point of view would be to allow his partner to make explanations on his behalf - perhaps in writing if that helps reduce UI. With some partners he has a written convention card, but many opponents see that as another problem and it won't always be sufficient anyway.

I wonder if anyone else has faced the same situation, or knows how it has been faced anywhere? In particular if any related regulations have been formulated, at national or club level. Or if some Director has ideas about what can be done here.

[Note: the focus of this post is upon practical mechanisms to facilitate competition and how to reconcile them with Laws and Regulations - not discussion about Aphasia or how it does or does not affect ability to bid or play cards]

[barmar]

I don't know if there are any explicit regulations about this, but in general we try to be accomodating to any disabilities, to the extent that it's practical. E.g. when playing with visually-impaired players we allow spoken bidding and announce the cards that are played. If a player has manual dexterity problems that make it difficult for them to sort their cards, we ask the player at the previous table to sort their cards, even though this contradicts the law that says that cards should be shuffled before returning them to the board.

I suspect that aphasia not frequent enough among duplicate bridge players that there would be much precedent to refer to. I'm guessing that some forms of it would just make it too difficult to play the game and they'd give it up.

[FelicityR]

As a former nurse may I congratulate your partner for continuing to play this wonderful game with his disability. I take it that as well as having verbal problems due to the stroke (aphasia), it's difficult for him to write explanations too. My suggestion - for what it's worth - is to have a separate 'explanation box' with his bidding box. It won't cover every eventuality at the bridge table, but I am just guessing here to be honest, many of the straightforward and most-used explanations could be covered by a set number of cards.

I certainly do not wish to make the game more complicated for your partner, however I do believe that all bridge players should take into account his disability and make allowances at the table whether he is playing in a friendly game or competitively. Players who try to use his disability to take advantage should be reported to their respective bridge federation: it is just discrimination.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-June-06, 09:21, said:

I don't know if there are any explicit regulations about this, but in general we try to be accomodating to any disabilities, to the extent that it's practical. E.g. when playing with visually-impaired players we allow spoken bidding and announce the cards that are played. If a player has manual dexterity problems that make it difficult for them to sort their cards, we ask the player at the previous table to sort their cards, even though this contradicts the law that says that cards should be shuffled before returning them to the board.

I suspect that aphasia not frequent enough among duplicate bridge players that there would be much precedent to refer to. I'm guessing that some forms of it would just make it too difficult to play the game and they'd give it up.

Here too we try to be accomodating to disabilities and it is explicit in the national regulations that organisers should do everything reasonably possible to allow anyone to play. In our club we have a blind player and another with dexterity problems so people are accustomed to making small changes in procedure.

I would be surprised if aphasia was all that infrequent among duplicate bridge players. Some estimates say 2 million US citizens are affected, mainly elderly, so that is going to be a small but significant percentage of players. There is significant variability in how severely it affects speech, but it doesn't affect intelligence or previously acquired bridge skills, so playing casually in the local club where people and conventions are well known is no problem: but real competition against opponents from other clubs is. Maybe not many have the courage to insist with real competition.

One idea I was thinking of is to have a clear printed note explaining the situation and how to proceed. This would sit on the table to be read by first-time opponents and to be tapped if necessary to draw attention. The question is what it could say
Ideally it would be something like this:
"The player sitting in north has difficulty in verbal communication. Please speak slowly and clearly while at the table. If you require an explanation that would normally come from North then please refer to the Convention Card instead or ask South to make the explanation, in writing should you so wish. If you have doubts please call the Director."

[pran]

We do not have relevant bridge regulations for such cases, but we do indeed have Norwegian laws giving disabled persons the right to enjoying life like other people as well as (reasonably) possible.

I particularly remember a Norwegian championship for pairs some years ago when a blind player had qualified from the regional events to the final in which some 80+ pairs met in a full round robin barometer event.
No problem.

[pescetom]

FelicityR, on 2018-June-06, 09:50, said:

As a former nurse may I congratulate your partner for continuing to play this wonderful game with his disability. I take it that as well as having verbal problems due to the stroke (aphasia), it's difficult for him to write explanations too.

Yes, he finds written explanations even more difficult. His speech is partly limited by stress - when the situation is not threatening, he is more articulate and supplement with more facial gestures. Unfortunately bridge competition is stressful and adds an additional mental block.

FelicityR, on 2018-June-06, 09:50, said:

My suggestion - for what it's worth - is to have a separate 'explanation box' with his bidding box. It won't cover every eventuality at the bridge table, but I am just guessing here to be honest, many of the straightforward and most-used explanations could be covered by a set number of cards.

Thanks, this is a very good idea. As you say there are several frequent and straightforwards explanations.

FelicityR, on 2018-June-06, 09:50, said:

I certainly do not wish to make the game more complicated for your partner, however I do believe that all bridge players should take into account his disability and make allowances at the table whether he is playing in a friendly game or competitively. Players who try to use his disability to take advantage should be reported to their respective bridge federation: it is just discrimination.

At the moment, players from other clubs don't realise he has this disability until he tries to speak, and often even then they mistake it for desperation or an attempt at deceipt. He's a good looking and clearly intelligent guy so the last thing people expect is a speech affecting disability. Of course competitive bridge brings out the worst in even the nicest of opponents and an inadequate explanation is like waving a red flag to a bull.

[pescetom]

pran, on 2018-June-06, 10:26, said:

We do not have relevant bridge regulations for such cases, but we do indeed have Norwegian laws giving disabled persons the right to enjoying life like other people as well as (reasonably) possible.

I particularly remember a Norwegian championship for pairs some years ago when a blind player had qualified from the regional events to the final in which some 80+ pairs met in a full round robin barometer event.
No problem.

I was thoroughly beaten by a blind player in a tournament last night. He amazes me not for his ability to play without "seeing" the cards but for his ability to recall every hand (and distribution) he played not just that night but during the past few weeks.

But you're one person who could help with the central dilemma here. In the name of social equality, how far can we go in asking opponents to accept that South explains his own calls, when necessary? Would putting the self-explanation in writing be useful to mitigate the impact on the Laws?

[pran]

pescetom, on 2018-June-06, 10:58, said:

I was thoroughly beaten by a blind player in a tournament last night. He amazes me not for his ability to play without "seeing" the cards but for his ability to recall every hand (and distribution) he played not just that night but during the past few weeks.

But you're one person who could help with the central dilemma here. In the name of social equality, how far can we go in asking opponents to accept that South explains his own calls, when necessary? Would putting the self-explanation in writing be useful to mitigate the impact on the Laws?

I cannot remember any case of objections when applying common sense rather than strictly enforcing rules to the letter in special situations like this.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-June-06, 14:11, said:

I cannot remember any case of objections when applying common sense rather than strictly enforcing rules to the letter in special situations like this.

In fact, the Laws allow for this. 20F1 says:

Quote

Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question.

So all you have to do is explain the situation to the TD, I think it would be incredibly unreasonable for them to refuse to allow this variation in procedure.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-June-07, 08:05, said:

In fact, the Laws allow for this. 20F1 says:

So all you have to do is explain the situation to the TD, I think it would be incredibly unreasonable for them to refuse to allow this variation in procedure.

That's excellent, I wasn't aware of it: will discuss with TD next time.

Thanks to all who helped here.

[axman]

pescetom, on 2018-June-07, 08:43, said:

That's excellent, I wasn't aware of it: will discuss with TD next time.

Thanks to all who helped here.

I think that it is one thing to willingly invite the opponents to break the rules in the name of accommodation and quite something else to be coerced to do so. As for the entire field joining in the willingness……?

Look at it this way: A duplicate contest is a matter of duplicated conditions from which comparisons arise. Inserting a pair that is unable to perform the required tasks imposes a requirement that the conditions of play are not duplicated.

As an example in the instant case. Apparently a person 'is disconcerted by his own stuttering'. The dictionary suggests the proximate cause is brain damage. What accommodation ought to be made? It seems to me that the price of admission- burden of accommodation- ought to fall primarily upon the person. But in what form? I would think that a well formulated convention card is mandatory with the prescription that it be supplied to both opponents who are 'required to use it in place of asking questions'.

A note regarding L20F1. The provision is targeted for the instance where the proper player to respond has forgotten his method; that the law does not limit the discretion leaves open opportunities for being creative.

[pran]

axman, on 2018-June-07, 12:12, said:

I think that it is one thing to willingly invite the opponents to break the rules in the name of accommodation and quite something else to be coerced to do so. As for the entire field joining in the willingness……?

Look at it this way: A duplicate contest is a matter of duplicated conditions from which comparisons arise. Inserting a pair that is unable to perform the required tasks imposes a requirement that the conditions of play are not duplicated.

As an example in the instant case. Apparently a person 'is disconcerted by his own stuttering'. The dictionary suggests the proximate cause is brain damage. What accommodation ought to be made? It seems to me that the price of admission- burden of accommodation- ought to fall primarily upon the person. But in what form? I would think that a well formulated convention card is mandatory with the prescription that it be supplied to both opponents who are 'required to use it in place of asking questions'.

A note regarding L20F1. The provision is targeted for the instance where the proper player to respond has forgotten his method; that the law does not limit the discretion leaves open opportunities for being creative.

We no longer live in the 19th or early 20th centuries.
Our target now is to include disabled persons as much as possible, not exclude them.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2018-June-07, 12:12, said:

A note regarding L20F1. The provision is targeted for the instance where the proper player to respond has forgotten his method; that the law does not limit the discretion leaves open opportunities for being creative.

How do you know this?

[pescetom]

axman, on 2018-June-07, 12:12, said:

I think that it is one thing to willingly invite the opponents to break the rules in the name of accommodation and quite something else to be coerced to do so. As for the entire field joining in the willingness……?

Look at it this way: A duplicate contest is a matter of duplicated conditions from which comparisons arise. Inserting a pair that is unable to perform the required tasks imposes a requirement that the conditions of play are not duplicated.

As an example in the instant case. Apparently a person 'is disconcerted by his own stuttering'. The dictionary suggests the proximate cause is brain damage. What accommodation ought to be made? It seems to me that the price of admission- burden of accommodation- ought to fall primarily upon the person.

I fully agree about the need to preserve fairness of competition in a duplicated contest. My post was indeed about to what extent we can reconcile that with the need to include people with disabilities, in practical terms.
The cause of his problem is brain damage due to a stroke. I didn't and wouldn't say he 'is disconcerted by his own stuttering', but he has a problem translating his thought into words, and this gets worse under the stress of competition. Allow me to repeat that his intelligence is unaffected and he is very competent at bidding and card play, which are the essence of bridge. The same is true for the blind player in our club, whose presence requires significant accomodation - brail cards for all, a separate room, announcement of all calls and plays, the right for a recap of dummy's hand, etc. Luckily the entire field seems willing to accept this, and applauds when he wins. The accomodation required for aphasia is quite modest in comparison.

axman, on 2018-June-07, 12:12, said:

But in what form? I would think that a well formulated convention card is mandatory with the prescription that it be supplied to both opponents who are 'required to use it in place of asking questions'.

He has a well formulated convention card, depending upon partner. But most opponents are not used to referring to one and the timescales imposed by regulations are not very consistent with the idea of looking up each alerted call. This is of course neither his fault nor an inherent problem of bridge.

axman, on 2018-June-07, 12:12, said:

A note regarding L20F1. The provision is targeted for the instance where the proper player to respond has forgotten his method; that the law does not limit the discretion leaves open opportunities for being creative.

I read it and it applies to the instance when opponents require an explanation of the auction so far, not of a single alerted call. The typical reason may well be the one you indicate but it seems evident that there is no inherent problem in allowing the other player to respond to such a request. But I agree that it does not seem to automatically apply to the situation where an explanation is requested of a single alerted call.