[tgphelps]

I'd call myself a "lower intermediate" player. I played 20 years ago, and am coming back again. I am teaching my wife the game so we can play together. She is coming along slowly but surely. We have played in the local club (Lexington KY) "teaching game" a few times, but (1) it's a slow pace (18 boards in 3 hours), and (2) they aren't strict about the ethical rules, and (3) one can ask the director for advice on a bid. My wife sometimes gets really slow at declarer play, and is very unsure of herself.

I'd like to graduate into a "real game", and even go to a sectional or regional tournament, but I'm afraid that (1) we will be too slow and they director and opponents will yell (not literally) at us, and (2) we will fail to alert and announce bids 100% of the time and get in trouble for that.

So, my question is: Can we "just go" and try to play at a reasonable pace, or will we cause so much stress for ourselves, opponents, and director that we shouldn't do this for a while? I don't want people to dislike playing against us, even when we're giving them good scores.

[jillybean]

I would encourage you to find a Novice/Intermediate tournament and go and play.

The Vancouver BC Unit runs a "Future Stars Sectional"
Stratification: 0-50, 50-150,150-500 (no player may be above the 500 limit or a life master)


Other Units will run similar Sectionals or have games in their open Sectionals geared towards newcomers.

Good luck, have fun.

[DavidKok]

I would recommend jumping into the deep end as soon as you feel the urge to, though this is something you'd have to discuss with your wife and make sure she is comfortable. Both the slow play and the disclosure issues are obstacles you can overcome, especially since you have prior experience with the game. I don't know what your local bridge circuit is like, but over here people go out of their way to help new and improving players with their disclosure, time management and general bridge skills. This also offers the opportunity for discussing the hands and deals after the session, learning from stronger players and finding out how they handled the problems you faced.

Personally I feel like the disclosure aspect in particular should not be much of a problem. You should disclose your agreements and conventions, but as a returning player and a beginner you likely don't have all that many of those. The two main questions I have are whether the field is friendly towards new players, and whether or not you and your wife are likely to have fun. I would give it a try!

[jillybean]

David, you say jump in the deep end, do you mean the Open Pairs?

[DavidKok]

I mean any level where you feel welcome, the higher the better. I see quite a few people stagnate at lower levels when I think they could very well move up to stronger fields and improve more rapidly in fiercer competition. When you move to a new field the immediate goal or expectation is not to win, but rather to get accustomed to a higher level of play.

That being said I think having fun is the main objective, and this trumps all other concerns. Personally I've found that people are more welcoming and passionate about the game in stronger fields, and I enjoy it more. But this almost certainly differs from person to person.

[jillybean]

I agree with that completely and once I had played in the Open, I've never been back to 0-750

However, I am glad that I played my first Sectionals in the N/I section. Unless you have been playing club bridge for a while there is a lot to get used to.
I knocked my bidding box to the floor and didn't know how to put it back together. I didn't know what to announce or alert, my tempo was awful but when there are several other pairs with the same struggles it's not so overwhelming. I also agree that open players can be more passionate and welcoming but here in North America we also have open players who are Ogres, including some 'professionals'. (what happened to zero tolerance?) Unless you are a newbie with a thick skin, I doubt that you would find this enjoyable.

[mycroft]

The I/N games will play 24 boards in about 3h20. So yeah, you'll need to up your pace a little. But most of it will likely be:

• waiting for the round to be called all the times you weren't the slow pair,
  
• waiting for the director to come over for advice,
  
• waiting for the opponents who would also need to speed up "just a bit",...

All of that is "wasted time", and when it goes away, you almost don't notice (until you go back to 10 minutes a board again...)

You will, almost certainly, be told by the director that you are a bit behind. *Everybody* gets that, sometimes. I'm a fast player, and I get it, sometimes. Don't take it personally, just go with it.

Oh, one thing that may have to go away is the post-mortems after every hand. You'll find a) you don't miss it much (especially if it's always one person telling the other what they should have done - don't do that, unless you're being paid or "paid" to mentor), and b) as you get more comfortable with the 8-minute pace, there will be time for a comment or two again.

I would strongly recommend reading McBruce's Hurry Up and Think! article. There will probably be stuff in there you don't understand or don't notice right now; that's okay, read it anyway. Then play more for a bit - and you'll probably find that you start noticing some of the things you didn't, or understand what you didn't understand, because it's now in your head to look for it.

(Okay, having just reread it, if you are ever in a game with travellers, absolutely follow the instructions. There's a reason I repeatedly say that switching to the bridgemates - and turning "previous scores" OFF - sped up the game by 10-15 minutes. But you never will, so you can stop reading after the "If North reaches for her scorecard before the BridgeMate..." bit.)

(Yes, pescetom, I see you. I'm sorry.)

[ASC87]

tgphelps, on 2024-January-16, 09:36, said:

I'd call myself a "lower intermediate" player. I played 20 years ago, and am coming back again. I am teaching my wife the game so we can play together. She is coming along slowly but surely. We have played in the local club (Lexington KY) "teaching game" a few times, but (1) it's a slow pace (18 boards in 3 hours), and (2) they aren't strict about the ethical rules, and (3) one can ask the director for advice on a bid. My wife sometimes gets really slow at declarer play, and is very unsure of herself.

I'd like to graduate into a "real game", and even go to a sectional or regional tournament, but I'm afraid that (1) we will be too slow and they director and opponents will yell (not literally) at us, and (2) we will fail to alert and announce bids 100% of the time and get in trouble for that.

So, my question is: Can we "just go" and try to play at a reasonable pace, or will we cause so much stress for ourselves, opponents, and director that we shouldn't do this for a while? I don't want people to dislike playing against us, even when we're giving them good scores.

Please play
Please play
Please play

[blackshoe]

Regarding Zero Tolerance in the ACBL, here's a thought: The ZT regulation requires the TD, at the beginning of every session where the policy is in effect, to announce that ZT is in effect and will be enforced.^* So, when the TD makes whatever announcements he makes but does not make this ZT announcement, immediately call him and ask if the ZT policy is in effect. If he says yes, ask him why he did not make the required announcement and ask him to make it. If he says no, ask him if the Tournament Chair is in the room, and if so at which table and whether he's stationary. Later, go find the TC and ask him why no ZT.

If the ZT policy is in effect, call the TD whenever there may have been a ZT violation. If the ZT policy is not in effect, well, ZT violations are almost always violations of Law 74A2^**, so call the TD whenever that law may have been breached.

^*1. At the start of each event, the director shall make an announcement that the tournament will be observing ZERO TOLERANCE for unacceptable behavior. It is requested that the director be called whenever behavior is not consistent with the guidelines outlined above^***. -- From the ZT policy on the ACBL web site.

^**Law 74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

^***The following are some examples of behavior which will not be tolerated:

Badgering, rudeness, insinuations, intimidation, profanity, threats, or violence.
Negative comments concerning opponents' or partner's play or bidding.
Constant and gratuitous lessons and analyses at the table.
Loud and disruptive arguing with a director's ruling.

On that last one might just comment "I'm not enjoying this". Repeatedly if necessary.

I note that the ZT policy contains a reference to NABCs. ("The ultimate purpose of the Z-T policy is to create a much more pleasant atmosphere in our NABCs.") This makes it unclear whether implementation of the ZT policy is intended at other tournaments (Regionals and Sectionals). In practice I think it's left up to the Tournament Organizer whether to implement it, which is one reason I suggest talking to the TC if ZT is not implemented in a particular tournament.

I recognize that players new to tournaments are likely to be reluctant to dive into this for a lot of reasons, but if we want ZT to work, we players are going to have to make it work.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2024-January-17, 23:23, said:

The following are some examples of behavior which will not be tolerated:

Badgering, rudeness, insinuations, intimidation, profanity, threats, or violence.
Negative comments concerning opponents' or partner's play or bidding.
Constant and gratuitous lessons and analyses at the table.
Loud and disruptive arguing with a director's ruling.

By instinct I am opposed to extreme measures that do not allow TD to evaluate what is actually happening at the table.
I would have though that all of these can be dealt with applying the Laws and common sense, without draconian Regulations.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-January-17, 09:12, said:

You will, almost certainly, be told by the director that you are a bit behind. *Everybody* gets that, sometimes. I'm a fast player, and I get it, sometimes. Don't take it personally, just go with it.

Oh, one thing that may have to go away is the post-mortems after every hand. You'll find a) you don't miss it much (especially if it's always one person telling the other what they should have done - don't do that, unless you're being paid or "paid" to mentor), and b) as you get more comfortable with the 8-minute pace, there will be time for a comment or two again.

I would strongly recommend reading McBruce's Hurry Up and Think! article. There will probably be stuff in there you don't understand or don't notice right now; that's okay, read it anyway. Then play more for a bit - and you'll probably find that you start noticing some of the things you didn't, or understand what you didn't understand, because it's now in your head to look for it.

(Okay, having just reread it, if you are ever in a game with travellers, absolutely follow the instructions. There's a reason I repeatedly say that switching to the bridgemates - and turning "previous scores" OFF - sped up the game by 10-15 minutes. But you never will, so you can stop reading after the "If North reaches for her scorecard before the BridgeMate..." bit.)

(Yes, pescetom, I see you. I'm sorry.)

No offence, and thanks for the excellent article. I'm not sure exactly why you apologize, but I imagine you are right

I'm a fast player and I too get told we are behind, sometimes rightly (we all have multiple partners and stuff happens).

Thinking about why I might be expected to take offence, I imagine it is the issue of "previous scores" and (more important) "current classification".
As a TD I'm with you to hide all this and get on with play; as a player I can see why many pairs love the idea of seeing what they did wrong/right on the current hand and why the best pairs are keen to see if they should or not take risks at the end.
Two choices that to some extent determine the nature of the competition, and as such should not be left to the TD.

[mycroft]

More that you "were forced" to keep scores on than anything you did or I did to you. You didn't get the opportunity when switching to electronic scoring to gain the time that removing travellers gave to many other directors - so you have to get it in other ways.

As for the educational opportunities - they're all right there after the game (at least here with ACBL Live/Live4Clubs). Full travellers, sometimes complete with (usually accurate) opening leads.

You know my opinion on "reacting to score history as a bridge skill worth rewarding", of course :-).

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2024-January-18, 16:20, said:

By instinct I am opposed to extreme measures that do not allow TD to evaluate what is actually happening at the table.
I would have though that all of these can be dealt with applying the Laws and common sense, without draconian Regulations.

Oh, I agree 100 percent. ZT measures in general, not just in bridge, don't work. In bridge in particular, ZT came about because directors weren't enforcing Law 74A. They don't enforce ZT either. :-(

[jillybean]

I had to read 74A again, I had no idea what it said.

LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE A. Proper Attitude
1. A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.
2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.
3. Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.


Will this nonsense of having Laws that the Directors and Players simply ignore ever end?



Last week we played a board and upon scoring up, found it had been fouled at the previous table. The players had the cards out of the board after the play and did not return them to the correct slots.

"Director Please". explanation given , reply "Just mark it as Skipped"
"Shouldn;t we both get A+ for this board?" reply "We don't do that at this club"
I now remember when I bid and make a slam at this club, that I should mix the cards before passing the board onto the next table.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-March-10, 00:08, said:

I had to read 74A again, I had no idea what it said.

LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE A. Proper Attitude
1. A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.
2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.
3. Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.


Will this nonsense of having Laws that the Directors and Players simply ignore ever end?

I don't ignore any point of this obvious Law as a Director and as a Player will call the Director if anyone violates point 3.
How on earth is it nonsense?

jillybean, on 2024-March-10, 00:08, said:

Last week we played a board and upon scoring up, found it had been fouled at the previous table. The players had the cards out of the board after the play and did not return them to the correct slots.

"Director Please". explanation given , reply "Just mark it as Skipped"
"Shouldn;t we both get A+ for this board?" reply "We don't do that at this club"
I now remember when I bid and make a slam at this club, that I should mix the cards before passing the board onto the next table.

This is just an imcompetent Director and should not be passively accepted.
I know you are just joking, but deliberately fouling a board to hide a slam is a serious matter indeed.

[mycroft]

As an "old" bridge player, I am amused. I was around before ZT was an idea.

ZT - as written - was a mistake, and unenforceable (and there is massive history with other ZT regulations, in schools mostly, that show this. Imagine what your "favourite example", you know the one, who already make it clear that if you're new, that's your problem - could do with ZT if it really was "required zero". And how it would help your 12 table game become 5). It did succeed in getting the worst out of the game, and there is definitely now a line we can say was crossed and get penalties (far beyond "zero", somewhat beyond "where it should be", but a LONG way before where it used to be). As enforced, it's a positive in the game, except when people who have clearly never jaywalked or sped in their lives and are shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that anyone else does and doesn't get ticketed for it, complain that the words don't match what is done. (My side is "change the -ing words, please, so that it does match". But I'm about as likely to get my way as they are).

Really, things are MUCH better than back then, and I am grateful for it. Let's try to get it better yet.

[jillybean]

.. forum bug

pescetom, on 2024-March-10, 17:07, said:

I don't ignore any point of this obvious Law as a Director and as a Player will call the Director if anyone violates point 3.
How on earth is it nonsense?

LAW 46 – INCOMPLETE OR INVALID DESIGNATION OF A CARD FROM DUMMY A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

I invite you to come and play in North America. Things have become a lot more relaxed since this Law was written and perhaps players have developed much thinker skins since
Laws 74 1 and 2 were conceived.

pescetom, on 2024-March-10, 17:07, said:

This is just an imcompetent Director and should not be passively accepted.
I know you are just joking, but deliberately fouling a board to hide a slam is a serious matter indeed.

No, a club policy, a sanctioned game.

[mycroft]

Ah, but I have a uniform procedure for ... playing. And it can't be "not correct" if there's a Law saying what my phrase means, can it?

No, I don't call cards from dummy "suit and rank" - frankly, almost ever. If I suddenly did for a hand, that in itself would be violating 74A3, wouldn't it? Of course, what use I could get out of it besides riling up the opponents who (this time) are the "we expect you to let our lapses slide, but heaven help you if you make one wrong step" pair?

I don't have my historical law books in this country, but I am pretty certain something equivalent to Law 46 has been on the books since Goren, if not Simon or Vanderbilt. Because that's what people did, and the Laws had to deal with the fact that they weren't going to change on this one. And trust me, the attitude in the clubs (especially as to what is acceptable to say at the table, in particular to the newer players) is skyrocketingly better than it was in Goren's day. For a view into that world (before my time, even), see if you can find Machlin's book - but note that a lot of the "jokes" in it would not be considered such today. There's also a few "jokes" in there that weren't jokes then either (like the "buy your entire entry for the week-long KO for 4 days fee" or the "seeding all the 'suspicious' players into their own section" ones).

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-March-11, 00:31, said:

LAW 46 – INCOMPLETE OR INVALID DESIGNATION OF A CARD FROM DUMMY A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

I invite you to come and play in North America. Things have become a lot more relaxed since this Law was written and perhaps players have developed much thinker skins since
Laws 74 1 and 2 were conceived.

So you were thinking about the way people do not follow uniform procedure in calling, which is one point of 74A.
Fair enough, although I worry more about uniform procedure in playing, which is a serious issue anywhere, not just in North America.

From a technical point of view I guess your thick skinned players have twisted the Laws to their side, as 46B goes on to explain proper ways to violate Proper Form for Designating And 46 presumably supercedes 74A3 as it is more specific. A vulnus of the Laws in any case.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2024-March-11, 10:34, said:

Ah, but I have a uniform procedure for ... playing. And it can't be "not correct" if there's a Law saying what my phrase means, can it?

No, I don't call cards from dummy "suit and rank" - frankly, almost ever. If I suddenly did for a hand, that in itself would be violating 74A3, wouldn't it? Of course, what use I could get out of it besides riling up the opponents who (this time) are the "we expect you to let our lapses slide, but heaven help you if you make one wrong step" pair?

I don't have my historical law books in this country, but I am pretty certain something equivalent to Law 46 has been on the books since Goren, if not Simon or Vanderbilt. Because that's what people did, and the Laws had to deal with the fact that they weren't going to change on this one. And trust me, the attitude in the clubs (especially as to what is acceptable to say at the table, in particular to the newer players) is skyrocketingly better than it was in Goren's day. For a view into that world (before my time, even), see if you can find Machlin's book - but note that a lot of the "jokes" in it would not be considered such today. There's also a few "jokes" in there that weren't jokes then either (like the "buy your entire entry for the week-long KO for 4 days fee" or the "seeding all the 'suspicious' players into their own section" ones).

I'm not really sure what you are saying but I think I agree with you
The law says this is the proper procedure then goes on to say if 46A is not followed do 46B. It doesn't actually say a nod or a grunt is ok, but that's become quite common. Shouldn't this Law be simplified?