[Vampyr]

 richlp, on 2012-September-24, 10:44, said:

But a ruling with an implication of cheating (and players at ALL levels feel this way (whether they should or not, they do) when ruled against on matters of UI, MI etc) will send a beginner away from the club and back to the kitchen table where nobody notices or cares.

In the clubs where I play, no suggestion of cheating is made when UI and MI rulings are made, and players accept an adverse ruling gracefully, for the most part. If they are very unhappy they will appeal rather than stay away from the club.

Perhaps there is a cultural divide here? The people who are claiming that enforcing the laws reduces attendance seem mostly to come from North America.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2012-September-24, 11:32, said:

Perhaps there is a cultural divide here? The people who are claiming that enforcing the laws reduces attendance seem mostly to come from North America.

This, of all your references to North American faults, is the most accurate yet. I have always thought the British in general were much better at verbal face-to-face communication in potentially confrontational situations than we are over here.

IMO, this difference in attitudes (Bridgewise), is mostly on the TD's and teachers who have the first crack at newcomers ---plus, general upbringing.

[mycroft]

True, but not enforcing those rules (and explaining that it's not *them*, it's just that someone who's trying one on would do the same thing, so the Laws are written so that the pattern is ruled against, not the intent) leads to different frustrations.

It's a hard balancing act. The TDs should be lenient to obviously inexperienced players - not "we won't rule against them", but "the hesitation simply explained that she'd never seen this auction before and didn't know what her bids meant. Therefore..." - especially when called by the obvious SBs (well, not SBs, exactly, but those who use the Law Book as an aide in the intimidation process. We all know who those are). If you just let it go, though,

- the players don't learn that it's not legal, and
- they start relying on it

both of which causes a major problem when they go somewhere where they *are* expected to know the Law.

I remind everyone, especially club TDs, that there's a bridge game out there competing with you, that costs less, and with some work provides better competition. People come to your club for the things they can't and don't get on BBO; they no longer come because they're addicted to bridge and there's nowhere else to play. The good players leave when they get coffeehoused to death and the TD doesn't want to call the coffeehousers on it for fear of them leaving.

It's not easy. Good luck with it. I rule in the club the way I rule in a tournament, perhaps pushing the explanations a little more than I would in Flight A (where they can ask me about it if they want). But that's only partly because it's right; it's mostly because I don't know how to play social games well enough for any other way to improve retention more than that. Being the right thing helps, though!

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2012-September-24, 12:56, said:

People come to your club for the things they can't and don't get on BBO;

I find this statement amusing. I think you grossly overestimate the role of BBO in most bridge players' lives. (And in fact, even among the posters to this forum there are people who have never (or just once or twice) played on BBO. Perhaps quite a few people!

[jillybean]

 richlp, on 2012-September-24, 10:44, said:

The analogy is not exact. Imagine that an extra free-throw is awarded if the referee determines that the infraction was intentional. Then see how many would drop out after being whistled for a couple of intentional fouls each game.

My feeling is that most beginners don't mind so much when a ruling is given for a breach of the mechanical rules of the game. Insufficient Bid, Lead out of turn, Revoke, etc. rulings will not cause somebody to drop out of the club. But a ruling with an implication of cheating (and players at ALL levels feel this way (whether they should or not, they do) when ruled against on matters of UI, MI etc) will send a beginner away from the club and back to the kitchen table where nobody notices or cares.

It is not the beginners causing the problems, im my experience the offenders are long standing members who have been playing several times a week for many years. Often the club manager/director is not going to rule against these players.

[jillybean]

 mycroft, on 2012-September-24, 12:56, said:

It's not easy. Good luck with it. I rule in the club the way I rule in a tournament, perhaps pushing the explanations a little more than I would in Flight A (where they can ask me about it if they want). But that's only partly because it's right; it's mostly because I don't know how to play social games well enough for any other way to improve retention more than that. Being the right thing helps, though!

I want to play in your games

[bluejak]

 richlp, on 2012-September-24, 10:44, said:

The analogy is not exact. Imagine that an extra free-throw is awarded if the referee determines that the infraction was intentional. Then see how many would drop out after being whistled for a couple of intentional fouls each game.

My feeling is that most beginners don't mind so much when a ruling is given for a breach of the mechanical rules of the game. Insufficient Bid, Lead out of turn, Revoke, etc. rulings will not cause somebody to drop out of the club. But a ruling with an implication of cheating (and players at ALL levels feel this way (whether they should or not, they do) when ruled against on matters of UI, MI etc) will send a beginner away from the club and back to the kitchen table where nobody notices or cares.

We are not talking about beginners. Of course no-one but a pillock tries to get MI and UI rulings against beginners.

But 98% of club players are not beginners, and the approach to upset the ones in the right so as not to upset those in the wrong is flawed in my view.

Furthermore, these things do not happen quickly. But if a club slowly pushes for the rules to be followed it will finish up a friendlier club. Failure to follow the rules means more bad feeling.

[mycroft]

 Vampyr, on 2012-September-24, 13:23, said:

I find this statement amusing. I think you grossly overestimate the role of BBO in most bridge players' lives. (And in fact, even among the posters to this forum there are people who have never (or just once or twice) played on BBO. Perhaps quite a few people!

Oh certainly. However, the bridge club Back East I played in had this issue - the TD ruled in favour of the pair that he thought wouldn't come back if he ruled against them. The other pair was "addicted", and would be back, ruling or no.

I left when I left (and very happy to leave, frankly; should have done it earlier), which was about when BBO was getting into real swing; a couple of years later, I ran into a couple of people I knew from before. They told me that all the good, clean players had left, and just played online. Plus a couple of the good, not quite so clean players :-). Not really surprised.

Of course, this was the same club owner that was so concerned that half his tables would leave if he raised the game price (to $5) that people had to walk away with the ♠A in their purse to get the cheap paper decks changed more than once a year. Sometimes, you could even tell the difference between the dirt and the ink on the ♠A.

And yet, years later, there are still TDs that think that the only people they have to worry about are the ones that will go back to kitchen bridge...

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2012-September-24, 18:08, said:

I left when I left (and very happy to leave, frankly; should have done it earlier), which was about when BBO was getting into real swing; a couple of years later, I ran into a couple of people I knew from before. They told me that all the good, clean players had left, and just played online. Plus a couple of the good, not quite so clean players :-). Not really surprised.

Did you ever try to get together a few people and start a bridge club? (not a full-time one with premises, but a once or twice a week club in a hired venue?)

[mycroft]

 Vampyr, on 2012-September-24, 19:33, said:

Did you ever try to get together a few people and start a bridge club? (not a full-time one with premises, but a once or twice a week club in a hired venue?)

Well, at the time, there were other reasons why that would not have worked. Also, the "city" I was in could support two evening games and a couple of afternoon games, and that's what was there :-)

But as for now, Oh HELL NO.

I like playing. I like directing. I like to think I'm pretty good at both of those. Administration? Hate it, absolutely hate it; won't do the 10 minutes a month it takes, and I'm horrible at it when I do push myself into it.

That doesn't say I wouldn't be up for a bit of "Oh, they asked me to direct, and I happened to be free, so..."

In answer to your actual question, though, mostly it was "all the bridge that was available was already being played; and the good players went online or into their kitchens." Bringing them back would have been difficult. For it to be me that led that revolt would have taken a fair bit more experience and less being 20 years younger than anyone else to pull off - even without the "don't wanna" and "can't" above.

[CSGibson]

 richlp, on 2012-September-24, 10:44, said:

The analogy is not exact. Imagine that an extra free-throw is awarded if the referee determines that the infraction was intentional. Then see how many would drop out after being whistled for a couple of intentional fouls each game.

My feeling is that most beginners don't mind so much when a ruling is given for a breach of the mechanical rules of the game. Insufficient Bid, Lead out of turn, Revoke, etc. rulings will not cause somebody to drop out of the club. But a ruling with an implication of cheating (and players at ALL levels feel this way (whether they should or not, they do) when ruled against on matters of UI, MI etc) will send a beginner away from the club and back to the kitchen table where nobody notices or cares.

Here's the problem. If you have a culture of not enforcing the rules, then of course the first few people for whom you enforce the rules will feel aggrieved - they are being singled out, they would feel as though their behavior must me particularly egregious. On the other hand, if you announce that the club/game will try and follow the rules, including the rules on UI, and then perhaps do a seminar or serious of lessons on what is and is not UI open to everyone, then perhaps this problem goes away. Or, if you just start following the rules consistently and fairly, those who got ruled against early on will realize they have not been singled out, that they are being treated the same as everyone else.