My personal opinion is that if you are authorized to issue master points, you should be obligated to adhere to the rules of zero toleranace as well as ethics. The ACBL is going to hell in a handbasket! I just heard of a situation where a couple was asked not to return as they dominate the field and the “regulars” resent it. Too damn bad!

It is a sad state of affairs that some of the idiotic club directors are in a position to make decisions like that. In fact it was the same club where Bobby and I stopped playing voluntarily because they allowed and promoted coffeehousing not to make their regulars unhappy. Some administrators!

Things have really gotten out of hand and at the rate we are going
(in many directions), it is on the way down. The obsession for masterpoints is ridiculous especially when they award them for 40% games which is far less than mediocrity.

Bridge used to be a game of beauty and majesty. Of late, to me, it has become a joke with all the politics and self-imposed rulings and decisions.

Judy Kay-Wolff

HBJ : Clearly many of my views are being misinterpreted. I like many others feel the game is being ruined by cheaters , coffee-housers, bullies, unacceptable bad behaviour and over zealous administrators.
Where we differ is that ZT smacks of gross intolerance towards anyone flouting rules laid down by particular administrative bodies , no matter how petty the incidents appear to be. Best behaviour should not be enforced by the ZT police ….just simply encouraged by setting examples, and gentle persuasion. If all that fails then by all means invoke score penalties , and phased restrictions on entry to any future competitions and events.
Zero policing in the USA I recall only ended up with police officers taking the law into their own hands , dishing out beatings to all and sundry . The whole notion of giving enhanced powers to administrators to exercise ZT is , in my view , far worse than allowing instances of bad behaviour to go unchecked and unchallenged.
Every bridge player knows about the frustrations of the game and should expect players to get a bit emotional. Every bridge player needs to develop a thick skin and a few other psychological defences to ward off any foreseeable verbal blows ( so to speak ). Bridge as a sport is not about providing a nanny/nursing service for those with acute sensitivities…..it is about being MENTALLY TOUGH. In a crowded train we all have to live with and accept a little bit of hustle and bustle, and pushing and shoving……it’s the too and fro of life. It’s only when people get nasty and vindictive do we need to step in and take drastic action. The use of zero tolerance whips should be replaced instead by using common sense , education and positive encouragement instead.

HBJ:

I agree with some of what you say, but here in the States many of the players are not as docile as in GB and rebel against the people in charge, not respecting authority. Sometimes stomping upon them with firmness is the only way to get them to rise to the occasion. I play at a club where the directors don’t stand for any nonsense. Many customers (yes — three or four in the last six months) have been thrown out, reprimanded and put on probation until they can improve their manners and show respect for their fellow members and the game. They follow a no-nonsense policy and are respected for it. I suppose it works differently in other countries. The U. S. apparently is quite different and at the higher level games, the younger, newer players are quite brash (as you can see if you read Bridge Winners).

When I started playing there was more serenity and dignity to the game. “Common sense, education and positive encouragement” has not been very efffective here as a cure. The game has changed for the worse as time goes on and I am indeed a living witness to the loss of respect for fellow players, directors and the game itself, much to my chagrin.

Judy

Things aren’t really that much different in the U.K. – here are a couple of excerpts re same:

(i) Barry Capal – English Bridge Union

“I am still receiving a lot of communications from members of all levels on the subject of bad behaviour at the table ranging from North/South pairs not welcoming their visiting opponents to partners arguing with each other while opponents are around. This type of behaviour problem is now so endemic that we really must do something about it as newcomers are being lost to the duplicate game when they experience this type of behaviour. In the June edition of English Bridge you will find an article about BB@B one year on. The article will also list the penalties that will be applied for breaking the best behaviour policy. As happens in other countries with zero tolerance policies, I would very much like to see clubs adopt the policy as well, although in England this is, of course, a matter for each club to consider.

(ii) Ken Latty – East Sussex Bridge Club

“I understand that playing a relatively simple system and few conventions will not suit everyone, but if all clubs will apply a Zero Tolerance policy and apply it without fear or favour, then more players will be attracted to the game of duplicate bridge – and Terry Collier’s grand plan for the EBU will come to fruition much more quickly than if we continue to let a small minority spoil this game for others.”

Dear HBJ,

My apologies if I have misinterpreted any of your views. To avoid same in the future, I will quote your view, and then inquire about it or comment on it.

You say “I, like many others, feel the game is being ruined by cheaters , coffee-housers, bullies, unacceptable bad behaviour and over zealous administrators.”

We are doing our best to eliminate “unacceptable bad behaviour” – what are you doing to eliminate cheaters, coffee-housers, and bullies?

You say “ZT smacks of gross intolerance towards anyone flouting rules laid down by particular administrative bodies , no matter how petty the incidents appear to be.”

Can you be more specific as to what it is exactly that “smacks of gross intolerance”?

Your choice of the word “flouting” is interesting. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “flout” as “to intentionally not obey a rule, law, or custom”.

You say “Every bridge player knows about the frustrations of the game and should expect players to get a bit emotional.”

While there are frustrations in bridge, as in everything else, I do not expect players to “get a bit emotional”. Anyone who can try to master bridge can also try to master their emotions.

You say ” Every bridge player needs to develop a thick skin and a few other psychological defences to ward off any foreseeable verbal blows ( so to speak )”.

Bridge players should not have to develop thick skins, or any other psychological defences, to ward off anything – it’s the small group of bad behavers who have to develop and change, not the large group who already know what good manners are.

You say ” Bridge as a sport is not about providing a nanny/nursing service for those with acute sensitivities…..it is about being MENTALLY TOUGH”.

Why does expecting good manners from people mean that one has “acute sensitivities” ? When I pay to go to see a movie, I expect that those attending know how to behave at a movie – that they will turn off their phones, not talk loudly, etc. If they violate those norms, they are given a warning, and told that if there is a further occurrence they will removed from the theatre. There is no “gentle persuasion”, just as there wouldn’t be if you acted inappropriately in church. Why should I accept less when I pay to attend a bridge tournament?

You say “it (bridge) is about being MENTALLY TOUGH”.

This may be so, but I think the kind of mental toughness needed is the kind that helps us keep our focus, and helps us solve tough bidding and play problems – NOT the kind that would allow us to accept rudeness and bad behaviour.

You say ” In a crowded train we all have to live with and accept a little bit of hustle and bustle, and pushing and shoving……it’s the too and fro of life.”

A bridge tournament is not a crowded train, and many players actually attend to escape for a while from the “hustle and bustle, and pushing and shoving”.

You say “It’s only when people get nasty and vindictive do we need to step in and take drastic action.”

I say “No”, we have to step in before people get nasty and vindictive. And we do think we are using ” common sense , education and positive encouragement” in doing so. There is nothing draconian about subtracting 1/4 of a board from a misbehaver’s session score, and if that’s not enough for them to modify their behaviour, then eviction from the event will follow. If it’s what we expect when we attend a movie, why should we accept less when we attend a bridge tournament?

Hi Paul,

My take on the honest differences of opinions between you and JHG (aka HBJ) are centered around interpretations of what ZT should encompass. First, ZT should never be used as a power play by either TD’s nor club owners, to show who is boss, but rather to make bridge a better experience for all who play it.

Having said that, let me suggest a short description of what I think it should be as opposed to many others who may feel differently.

For example, while I do not think partners who argue at the table, nor as cordial as we all would like them and ourselves to be most of the time, are not in any way, violators of ZT. However I believe that club owners and TD’s who haven’t studied the laws and the reasons for them are violating ZT. Also the ACBL, in their basically despicable and not accountable way they handled the Peter Pender generous bequest 20+ years, were also serious violators of ZT.

Capsulizing, instead of just rambling, my belief is that in bygone years, although not that long ago, when cheaters were caught, not forever banning them, and then instead giving them very light sentences do nothing to make our game better, but to those who witnessed such goings on, only might leave them with the thought, that why not try it themselves since the worst they can get is a slap on the hand, even if they are caught, and I can assure you that the ACBL’s investigative division is not equipped (even though they spend time and money on taping) to properly process a possible cheating case from the beginning to the end.

The reason for the above is not just incompetence or inexperience, but rather a combination of fear of lawsuits and dealing with difficult confrontation with intelligent, but nevertheless evil minded individuals.

Without beating this or any other horse to death, of course, if an individual is making bridge life difficult for his opponents or a whole bridge group he should be excluded from being able to play, that should go without saying, but first there has to be a specific agreement by the authorities what constitutes cause.

Cause is not one or even two unpleasant encounters (that is many times, just life, especially by players who have never been thought of as Mary Poppins like) but rather ugly acting, negative and always wanting some kind of bridge advantage to which they are not entitled. People own clubs where directors direct and players play and all three groups have responsibilities to perform and if any of those groups do not live up to what they are required, all may be subject to the discipline necessary (via ZT) to make our game the best it can be.

The best it can be always follows the ethics of the game (written and also implied) which includes what we all know about not conveying unauthorized information (but, if so requiring partner to do the opposite of what the UI suggests), not playing “home brew” conventions without making their opponents totally aware of what they are doing and, of course, complying to all ACBL requirements. Also bridge is a timed game, and selfish undue slow play needs to be penalized out of existence. Players owe responsibilities to other players but it is also the bridge owners or their appointees duty to enforce those laws and should be held accountable to the ACBL if they do not perform what is expected of them.

Bridge club ownership is a business, but never should an owner show favoritism toward their best customers to the detriment of casual ones. All of the recent above talk is closer to enforcing ZT than is strongly policing occasional spats between competitors at the table.

Enough said, but hopefully enough to understand what I and my best guess, JHG, intended to emphasize. Easy?, NO, but necessary?, YES!

Hi Bobby,

THanks for your comments – much appreciated!

More acute than the difference of opinion I have with JHG/HBJ re ZT is the disappointment I feel over his mockingly satirical attitude towards the efforts of those involved with ZT who are trying to make duplicate bridge a more enjoyable experience for all.

I do realize that he likes to write humourous blogs, but humour achieved at the expense of those just trying to do their best to help is, IMHO, deplorable.