Players making their own ruling.
Five years of hardly playing, and not directing at all, ended recently when I found myself directing a two section session with Nine High and Open sections. I was impressed by the resoucefulness of players in finding different ways of trying to upset my control of the event. In the Nine High I spotted players putting their cards back in the wrong pockets. The board had been turned 90 degrees to give declarer more room. Then the same thing happened at the same table on the first board of the next round. After I had corrected them slight confusion ensued, and they started to bid the same board again, not realising till dummy went down. Their slightly guilty demeanour caused me to dive in just as they were again returning their cards with the board 90 degrees out. Later, in the Open section my attention was drawn to a score of a small slam making an overtrick on the lead of an ace, which was not ruffed. Inquiry at the relevant table brought the explanation that a defender had revoked, not winning the revoke trick nor any subsequent trick "so we transfered an extra trick to ourselves". When I asked why they had not called me, the answer was "We didn't want to bother you. We know the rules." "You don't know them well enough" said I, and corrected the score. In the Nine High I had contented myself with gentle chiding, followed by less gentle chiding. However the players who had awarded themselves an overtrick were experienced enough to know perfectly well that they should have called me.So my question is what penalty would have been appropriate, and should there have been two penalties, one for not calling the director, and one for entering an incorrect score in their own favour?
Comments
Throw the book at them! In matchpoints, the standard penalty is 25% of a top. So you could fine them between 25% & 50%.
Law 9B. After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity
1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.
I generally make an announcement: "If you think you know the law well enough to sort a problem out yourself, you don't".
If anyone queries it (and they do), I refer them to Law 81C: _The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for
rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. _
It is not clear how long the guilty had been playing, but in my view any bridge teaching course such as 'year 2' should contain elements of ethics, best behaviour at bridge, and generally how you behave at a bridge table. If we don't teach people these things as well as how to declarer a contract or bid, then it would be no surprise if they go wrong ? Any capable teacher should be able to make it a fun and enjoyable part of learning.
As it happens, we teach this as we go (when to alert, what to announce, when to call the director etc) and we have a lesson specifically on the laws and BB@B. However, with learners, there is no reason to think that they will remember the laws any better than they remember how to finesse, transfer or even open 1NT correctly.