Home EBU TDs

Sit outs

A pet hate of mine is when sit outs take out the cards of the boards they aren't playing and discuss the hands. I've even known some enter their "contracts" on the travellers. If their discussions are overheard or they put their cards back into the wrong pockets, I know the director can issue penalties - although sorting out who did what and who played which wrongly pocketed boards is not always straightforward. But what authority does the director have to stop them taking out the cards in the first place?

  1. Does Law 7B3 - "no player shall touch any cards other than his own" - effectively outlaw the practice?
  2. If not, can the director invoke Law 81C1 to ban the practice?
  3. If neither of these, can the Tournament Organizer - the club committee for a club drive - decide that sit outs must leave cards in the unplayed boards in their pockets?

Comments

  • My opinion is that the practice is harmless provided that the sitting out pair do not foul the board and are careful to keep discussions quiet enough not to transmit unauthorised information. I would certainly penalise a pair who caused either of these problems.

    But if it causes a problem, then I think the answers to your questions are as follows:
    1. Arguably - the board is not due to be played.
    2. I wouldn't say that this law is relevant.
    3. Certainly - I see no conflict with the Laws.

    In general, if there is something that is causing a problem I think it is better for the club committee to address the issue that for individual directors each to do their own thing.

  • My take is that while 81C1 will be difficult to apply, 7B3 certainly could work. The pair in question are not scheduled to play the board, therefore the cards are not theirs in the meaning of 7B3. (The slight difficulty is that 7B3 refers to during and after play, and there is no play.) The white book doesn't seem to add anything to this.

    Whether or not this is the best way to deal with it is another matter.

    Incidentally, if players do look, do you ensure they count the cards?

  • @JeremyChild said:
    My take is that while 81C1 will be difficult to apply, 7B3 certainly could work. The pair in question are not scheduled to play the board, therefore the cards are not theirs in the meaning of 7B3. (The slight difficulty is that 7B3 refers to during and after play, and there is no play.) The white book doesn't seem to add anything to this.

    Whether or not this is the best way to deal with it is another matter.

    Incidentally, if players do look, do you ensure they count the cards?

    Telling them to count the cards would sound as though I was endorsing them looking at them, which I wouldn't want to do.

  • Well, I rather share David's view on the practice, as someone who's had to deal with a few fouled boards anything that increases the odds is a bad idea :). It is usually fairly harmless though, and I tend to limit myself to asking them to please be careful not to foul the board rather than an outright ban.

    From a legal perspective, I agree with Jeremy that 7B3 more or less sums it up, they're not due to play that board, they shouldn't really be touching the cards.

  • Is the 'pet hate' of yours because boards get fouled as a consequence, or do you just not like it for some other reason? As long as people are careful, I don't see the problem and if it adds to their enjoyment of the evening, why not?

    There have been other threads on making robot players available for the sitting-out boards.

  • I try always to warn players about putting the cards back carefully.
    If you really don't want them to look take the boards away. This is easy for a Mitchell with NS missing or other carefully managed movements with shared boards.

    Alan

  • @16248 said:
    I try always to warn players about putting the cards back carefully.
    If you really don't want them to look take the boards away. This is easy for a Mitchell with NS missing or other carefully managed movements with shared boards.

    Provided you remember to put them back in time! Obviously since in our club the playing TD sits at 1 South (to observe the room and see whence came the director calls) then he has control of the boards going onto and off the half table (which is most likely a 'share' in an even-table Mitchell).

    With Howells, it makes sense to have the relay boards NOT placed on the half table. It also makes sense to ensure that the half-table is fixed - again in 3/4 Howells the TD can position themselves so they are stationary and has control of the boards going to and/ or from the half table, as it can be set to be the next table .

    5 tables Sit 5NS, 4NS sitout
    6 tables Sit 1NS, 2NS sitout
    7 tables Sit 1NS, 7NS sitout
    8 Tables Sit 8 NS, 7NS sitout
    9 Tables Sit 1NS, 9NS sitout
    10 Tables Sit 10NS 9NS sitout

    At our club 11 would be a hesitation Mitchell and 12 or more a normal Mitchell or share & relay. (Usually maximum tables is 14)

  • edited April 2019

    Off topic, but surely if you have a sitout in a share and relay Mitchell, you make it N/S at one of the sharing tables to avoid the share, so there aren't any boards on the sitout table for people to discuss loudly or foul. :)

Sign In or Register to comment.