Should we let the players decide

Sorry - I seem to be posting quite a bit here. I'm also learning a lot, though!

I had a difficult situation where the law was not easy to understand and apply, and where there was culpability on both sides.

Both sides were willing to accept an assigned score of AVE : AVE, but I still believed it would be possible to play the board and get a result.

Should I have taken the easy route and accepted their "proposal", or stuck to my guns and try to get a result?

I think the technical answer is probably "get a result if you can", but practically?

Ironic followup: After working out what should be done to play the hand, one pair had looked at the hand records so it was AVE : AVE after all.

Jeremy

Comments

  • Perhaps it should have been Ave minus, at least to the side that made the board unplayable by looking at the hand records. And if they had gone against your instructions in doing so, they would merit a PP as well.

  • It can be hard to hand out Ave- and penalties to club players but sometimes it's warranted.

  • If they're both happy with Ave-Ave I'd let it rest at that. One of the most important aspects of making a ruling is that you want to have both sides satisfied with the result. You want them to come back to the club again. You want them to have enjoyed their bridge. A friendly word on the side with the offenders suggesting that looking at the hands was wrong but that you didn't do anything about it this time as it was more of a peccadillo than an offence would have been (IMHO) the best way forward.

  • Thank you all. Wise words as always.

  • @AlanB said:
    If they're both happy with Ave-Ave I'd let it rest at that. One of the most important aspects of making a ruling is that you want to have both sides satisfied with the result. You want them to come back to the club again. You want them to have enjoyed their bridge. A friendly word on the side with the offenders suggesting that looking at the hands was wrong but that you didn't do anything about it this time as it was more of a peccadillo than an offence would have been (IMHO) the best way forward.

    The Laws (84 and 85) require the TD to make a ruling that will allow play to continue. If a relatively inexperienced TD is faced with a difficult ruling (in terms of what he should do to allow play to continue, rather than a difficult judgement ruling where he has time to reflect and consult), then if the players are comfortable with cancelling the board, I wouldn't criticise him for taking that easy option. Better still if he takes the time afterwards (with the aid of this forum, naturally) to work out what he should have done, so he won't have such a problem next time.

Sign In or Register to comment.