I think Zero Tolerance has its time and place and I, for one, want to see wrong doers either kept in check or removed from the game. However,
another form of ZT has to do with inept and political committees where lack of experience and expert knowledge and favoritism has tainted both rulings and punishment (or absence of it). I know it is a touchy subject, but some consideration must be given to it as well. I suppose it is known as Go Fight City Hall.

Hi Judy,

Thanks for your input – always appreciated!

You mention that “another form of ZT has to do with inept and political committees”, and I would like to address that, as it would be extremely rare for ZT to ever involve a committee. The “normal” penalties are (i) for a first offense, an immediate deduction of 1/4 of a board from the offender’s score (ii) for a second offense in the same event, expulsion from the event. For a really serious offense, or for a third offense during a tournament, a discipline committee MAY be convened to determine whether the offender(s) should be allowed to play in other events during the tournament, or whether additional sanctions are warranted. To the best of my knowledge, no such discipline committee has ever been convened. Any ZT penalty imposed by a director is final, but may be appealed. The appeals committee however cannot overturn the director’s ruling, but may (i) ask the director to reconsider his decision, or (ii) decide that the penalty was not severe enough, and refer the matter to a discipline committee for further consideration.

Hope this helps!

Hi Paul,

I understand that the well intended objective of your introducing ZERO TOLERANCE was to restrain rude, nasty, abusive players who encroach upon the rights of others; and I further am fully aware of the follow-ups for first, second and third offenses. I was merely adding another distasteful bridge issue to an already existing one .. the composition of appeals committees.

Intolerable situations should not only be targeting playing offenders. Perhaps it should be broadened to more astutely examine the qualifications, experience, motivation and composition of appeals committees as well.

Bobby has been on the scene in this area for well over four decades and upon retiring himself voluntarily, was accorded the honor of being named President Emeritus of the WBF Appeals process. He feels the reason for the downfall of the ACBL’s jurisprudence procedure is because of the lack of training and common sense application of the current appeals members with professionalism in bridge creating bias and poor choices. He feels that zero tolerance should apply against the powers who choose inept appeals committees. A perfect example occurs when a professional player is serving on an AC (and does not recuse one’s self when appropriate). Does the public really expect that individual to be unbiased when ruling against an involved sponsor who, in the future, may be considering hiring him (or her)?

Zero tolerance has many faces!

HBJ
Paul you just don’t get it. My point is this. When a player makes a rude comment two conclusions may be drawn. Firstly , the player maybe a rude and obnoxious individual who is quite simply a mean , anti-social despicable bully……someone who needs to be severely reprimanded and booted out. The second scenario is that player has been frustrated, annoyed and provoked by an opponent’s slow play, unethical behaviour and outrageous cheating. Hitting him with a bit of harsh reality and the cold facts , albeit in an abrasive ( perceived rude ) way is not a sin.
Sure …… Why not call the TD over ?……..but will TDs do anything about it ?
And if ZT policies require cracking down on those who speak their mind then FOR GOD SAKE make sure ZT policies crack down hard on those who constantly hold up the play and are guilty of blatant cheating.
I’ve seen players subject to disciplinariies for speaking out and calling a cheat a cheat, but as yet nothing is done to tackle these two widespread problems that blight this wonderful game.
ZT has got its priorities all wrong.

Don’t know how I could have made my original blog any clearer, but all it asked for was REAL examples of injustices caused by ZT. Not philosophical musings on what ZT is or isn’t, or what it should or shouldn’t include. Maybe something like “At the XYZ Bridge Club last June, Mrs. A, normally a really sweet little old lady, was ejected from the game and barred for a month when she got annoyed by her opponent constantly snapping his cards, and called him an idiot”. I am trying to get a handle on what harm has ACTUALLY been done by ZT, so that it can be weighed against the good.

Well Paul can you give me any instances of ZT policies actually resulting in notorious slow players and blatant soft cheaters being reprimanded along side rude and offensive players.
Again I stress that ZT does no harm but neither does it appear to address the two real problems that blight our game. An analogy I would draw is with ZT policing, which cracks down on litter bugs and parking offenders, while turning a blind eye to sex traffickers and drug pushers.

Hi Paul,

While I feel I am somewhere toward the middle during the discussion of the benefits or not so of ZT, I choose to serve as a hoped for mouthpiece to bridge and thus claify the gap between combatants.

When organizations allow stealthy cheating, by not doing anything to lethally discourage it, when they, for fears of law suits, dive directly away from having much, if anything, to punish it severely, and when TD’s are not adequately educated in how to deal with bridge players (all types of them) and when, as Judy referenced, when appeals committees are not professionalized with trained in not only the laws, but the reasons for the laws, and how we must do everything in the best interests of our game, even if it means getting our hands dirty, then, at least to me, behavior worse than ZT, is being condoned.

Sure bridge is a very competitive game with rewards for winning (usually ego and not monetary) but in order to create a fair playing field we need to punish ones who are not friends of bridge, but only want to win and do so no matter what they need to do.

That includes selecting knowledgeable and fair minded committees, making sure that bias leaves that room and never to be allowed inside. Sure that may mean extra effort, in the form of precedent recorded and passed on, not allowing friends of the selectors to choose who he wants to and above all every effort being made to preserve the tradition of bridge once being a gentlemen and ladies game, played by bridge moralists, who would rather lose than not honor their responsibilities.

Others feel that our task is just to keep bridge alive, regardless if the game turns into just a “high card wins” game, but, if so, I decline to accept that premise and rather never play it again, rather than acquiesce.

If ZT would embrace at least some, and preferably most of the above then, at least to me, it is worth having an opinion about it.

Up to now there is nothing in sight to suggest that any of my desires will be met.

Nothing personal, only business, in order to keep the real game of bridge (greatest ever invented and by a significant margin) at least as a blip in the future.

Hello HBJ,

If nothing else, you are certainly making me understand what trying to swim in quicksand feels like.
And “No”, I can’t give you any examples of “ZT policies actually resulting in notorious slow players and blatant soft cheaters being reprimanded along side rude and offensive players” – because ZT has nothing to do with either slow play or cheating, soft or otherwise. I am only familiar with rules and regulations in Canada and the United States, and there (egregious) slow play is covered by the ACBL Code Of Disciplinary Regulations, Appendix B, Disciplinary Sanctions Guidelines, C7. Cheating is covered in the same appendix, under E18, and sections 3.18 and 4.1.8 of the Code as well.
When we formulated the ZT policy, it was recognized that slow play and cheating were already adequately covered by ACBL rules and regulations, and hence were not included in our ZT policy.
Whether those other regulations are properly enforced is another matter entirely, and has nothing to do with my original blog.

Hi Bobby,

While agreeing that any form of cheating is a cancer on bridge, it is beyond the scope of ZT to address the issue. The reason for this is that cheating is the ultimate serious offense in bridge, where being found guilty can have life-altering consequences. It can only be addressed therefore by the well-defined protocols, rules, and regulations laid down in the “ACBL Code Of Disciplinary Regulations”. The status of ZT is only that of a “policy”, and does not have the effect of a rule or regulation. Whether cheating is adequately addressed by the rules and regulations of the CDR is entirely another matter, and any blame for their not being enforced should not be laid at the feet of ZT.

HBJ
Well it seems to me that ZT should also target. the two deadly sins of slow play and cheating ,because clearly existing rules HAVE NOT eradicated these two evils…..which no doubt plague clubs in Canada as they do in England. Rude behaviour is only one aspect of bad and/or inappropriate behaviour.
As I see it it is easy ( and sometimes wrong ) to target those guilty of rude and offensive remarks while ignoring the sinners so guilty of provocation with their slow play and cheating.
Like I said before club administrators have got their priorities wrong.
My issue has always been having sympathy with those who are brave enough and bold enough to accuse others of misconduct, especially in circumstances where TDs choose to reprimand them for speaking out, while refusing to act against the real sinners.

Hi Paul,

So far no one has provided a concrete example in response to you of where the ZT “police” have harmed innocent players.

Also, I really think there is a difference between cheating and slow play, except maybe at the highest levels.

Chirping in about slow play, there are always extenuating circumstances (sometimes — a question who is late .. the NS not being ready; or the EW late in arriving). I don’t think you can consider tardiness as incivility (which to me is how I define ZT). To me, they are at different ends of the spectrum. Also, at the club level, with the economy not being a positive influence on card fees, the last thing an owner wants to do is alienate the patrons which may dictate a further decline in attendance. ZT cannot be ignored, but unless individuals are continual offenders and good manners goes down the tubes, affirmative action must be taken against the chronic bad guys (or gals).

And, you cannot speak of slow play and cheating in the same breath. If you associate slow play with cheating (via helping your partner) .. that is abominable and must be stopped at all costs. However, sometimes better players consider options that would never occur to weaker players who pull the card nearest their thumb. There are many reasons for tardiness .. three of the most obvious are ‘aging’ (not being as sharp and speedy as in one’s youth), playing with different partners who employ different systems and uncertainty as far as methods .. and the affect of medication on the agility of one’s brain. Justice must be tempered with mercy.

All decisions are not the proverbial ‘piece of cake’ as some people assume. Zero Tolerance has its place .. but let’s not carry it to extremes .. and far out of proportion!

Strikes me that two separate issues are being addressed here:

1. Are there examples of ZT having been applied?
2. Is it OK for someone to violate ZT because they have been provoked, by slow or unethical play by the opponents?

Wrt 1., I think abusive actions toward opponents and partners have diminished through the years, and I think ZT has played a role. I am aware of one or two specific actions where a player was haranguing his partner and, when notified of such, the director actually addressed and resolved the problem.

Wrt 2., I observe tons of unpunished episodes of taking advantage of Unauthorized Information and am of the strong belief that club directors are often totally unwilling to deal with the problem. Furthermore, I don’t think that their dealing with the issue need drive away players, even the perpetrators. If the situations are dealt with as opportunities for education and not as accusations of cheating, I think that future violations would diminish and no substantial “hard feelings” would be produced.

That having been opined, the existence of unpunished actions as a result of UI transmission does not give the opponents the right to violate ZT.

Hi Jeff,

While I agree to your understanding of how UI, ZT, and general bridge behavior are entwined, I do not necessarily agree with your steadfast patience with being able to ignore authority figures (TDs and Club Owners) ignoring discipline under the guise of not wanting to lose steady customers.

Bridge is the game we are all there to play, and it abjectly ceases to be, when either UI, unethical tactics or intolerable unnecessary slowness enters the room.

It is the strict job of those in charge to deal with it on the spot and when they don’t, it sometimes suggests vigilante actions to rise into action. Sure, we all applaud patience, but when time and time again, no proper discipline sprites forth, all of us will suffer the consequences.

And, if so, I think ZT should be overlooked, or, at the very least, excuse a possible perpetrator and classify him (or her) as noble and therefore more plus than minus.

However, when the great scorer comes to mark besides his name, it is not whether he won or lost, but how he wanted the game to be played. Grantland, (and Jeff) please excuse.

Enjoyment of the game is one issue. Respecting its dignity and beauty is another.

When you play party bridge at a friend’s home, you can do whatever you damn please .. gossip, take a coffee break, have a drink, discuss your neighbor’s extramarital affairs, our government’s economic problems, politics in general .. whatever floats your boat. However, when the competition is under the auspices of the ACBL and you are garnering Master Points (deeming you are worthy even with under average scores), you must abide by the rules and the laws (and the directors are responsible to study and understand them and have them down pat .. with no ands, ifs or buts).

Cheating, IMO, is not up for discussion as the punishment is an irrefutable slam dunk. ‘Insidious’ is an understated description and I feel that deliberate, preconceived cheating be reason enough to bar the perpetrator/s for life. However, everyone (including the ACBL) have always lived in fear of potential lawsuits .. as juries have no expertise in the field of bridge. To me, that is not a good enough reason to allow cheaters to destroy the game and ploy their evil trade. Had we taken stronger action way back in the sixties when it came into focus both in national and international competition, it might not still be an ongoing problem.

To me, though both cheating and poor manners are unacceptable, you cannot discuss them in the same breath.

Bobby’s humorous, deliberate misquote carried me back to summer camp in the 1940s where the owner was gung ho on teaching the children the value of integrity in life .. not only in camp games’ competition. He cited the motto “For when the One Great Scorer comes to mark against you name, He writes not that you won or lost — but how you played the Game.” Funny .. when I wake up in the morning, I may not be certain what day it is, but I never forgot Grantland Rice’s oft-quoted masterpiece which Bobby brought to mind.

Two comments to make …

1. In the circles of bridge in which I play — which are much different from the circles of bridge in which Bobby plays — I honestly don’t think that “cheating” is the appropriate descriptor of actions taken by opponents after receiving Unauthorized Information and acting upon that UI. I do think the receivers of UI are influenced by the UI, (and that the directors, to my chagrin, consistently refuse to foist Logical Alternative bids upon the receiver and educate the offending pair). But I think the influence is not conscious, thus not intentional and not “cheating”. Against bridge laws, yes, but cheating, no.

2. I certainly get upset at the directors not protecting the innocent — and not educating the guilty — but my beef is with the directors and not the players. I think of ZT as influencing behavior toward other players and so I have no argument with the players.

Believe me — and I am sure my partners will affirm this view — I could significantly improve my table behavior. But I don’t see what good happens from yelling at opponents who take advantage of UI. I would rather complain about the directors not doing their job to educate the offenders.

Jeff:

I probably started playing before you were born. There were some sensational players in those days who were not, shall we say .. ‘kosher’ and yet their names have gone down in the record books as heroes and legends. They got away with much more then — than is allowed today.

Thank heavens today the rules, breaks in tempo and innuendos are clearly and better defined and punished though some consider it a fine line between taking advantage and actual cheating. Call it what you want. Whether breaks in tempo are conscious or unintentional, it matters not. Bobby has always championed that ‘you must always bend over backwards not to take advantage of unauthorized information.’

And, yes, directors have to assume much of the blame .. but club policy should dictate that it is WRONG to be influenced by partner’s long hesitation and either pass or bid based ON YOUR OWN HOLDING — not extraneous, illegal and unauthorized information (particularly in a non-forcing auction).

Yelling at opponents, partners or the janitor doesn’t solve the problem. However, explaining why it is improper will go a long way toward stopping the growth of the cancer and restoring the health of the game

One last word: You say: “But I think the influence is not conscious, thus not intentional and not “cheating”. Against bridge laws, yes, but cheating, no.” You can label it what you want, but I beg to differ. The inequitable result is still the same. These offenders must get their acts in shape and there is no better time than the present.

Hi Jeff & Judy,

To ward off the evil spirits of misunderstanding it should be noted (possibly even in stronger terms) that through the years and in bridge the two terms, unethical behavior and cheating, are two different offenses with the first including taking advantage of UI, peaking, uncalled for intonations, playing illegal conventions, intimidation, not reporting unfavorable score corrections, not disclosing partnership tendencies when either asked about or even when not, but likely at a credible time, and most of all, convention disruption CD (the unclear use of any and all sometimes controversial conventions). To further describe CD, it is the abuse of one or both of the partnership playing a convention to which at least one of them has not learned to such a degree that by so not learning, others at the table, on any given hand, will be severely disadvantaged on that particular hand making that partnership’s decision to play that convention an action worthy of a severe penalty for so doing. “Learn it or not play it” should be cast in stone with the penalty for not doing a relatively a severe one.

The meaning of cheating however is usually reserved to the giving and receiving of stealthy unauthorized information by use of illegal definite signals and any and everything directly applied to such a tactic, proving beyond doubt a hatred for the game which is played by those who do cheat, therefore, IMO demanding from any and all juries to that proven crime, an immediate lifetime banishment from the game, if for not other reason than to make the game even barely playable for all those who do not either feel that way or, even consider doing such a thing.

The above could be written with more clarity, but whichever way it is sliced, the above needs to be clearly understood.

HBJ : Just a final observation of why I place cheats and slow players as far greater sinners than those who resort to rudeness in chastising them. A CHEAT INFLICTS DAMAGE ON THE WHOLE FIELD , the event and the game’s reputation. Rudeness only targets and harms just the one individual, who more often than not is thick skinned.
A SLOW PLAYER WILL UPSET AND ANNOY PLAYERS at each and every table, stealing valuable time which condemns the others to rush. Moreover, movements can sometimes be held up with some tables starting late. These slow players are extremely inconsiderate and selfish…….two particular character traits I loath more than rudeness.

I’ve directed or co-directed about 60 sessions of club bridge over the last two years. At no point have I ever been called to the table to address bad behavior. The bad behavior I have seen while playing has been almost entirely between partners, not between opponents.

So it’s hard to say what impact ZT policy is having – maybe people are nicer because of the threat, and maybe they’re just nice to begin with.

As for UI my impression is that the local directors that don’t make appropriate rulings are untrained and don’t know how to make appropriate rulings. Mostly I avoid their games.

Out of curiosity, Jeff, where have you been fortunate enough to direct?

And, as far as training of directors, I heartily agree. Not enough attention is being devoted to that aspect of the game… even at the higher levels.

Judy, I am in the Seattle area.

Hi Jeff,

When we moved to Summerlin (a suburb of Vegas) about nine years ago, we tried two nearby clubs for a bit .. but settled happily for our present Club (LVBW) where we play twice weekly although it is much farther from our residence than the others. Its original location was changed as well as ownership (due to both leasing problems and the sad death of the popular long-time owner, Loretta Brown) and the overall improvement is quite noticeable (and admirable) as the new owners have made a concerted effort to make the atmosphere much more enjoyable and have developed a no-nonsense policy (in a very cordial manner). To some, probably their biggest drawback is the upscale quality of many of their players (and partnerships). To me .. that is a feather in their collective caps!! They are moving in the right direction and sounds similar to the reference to your Seattle location.

Director training is another issue which is too lengthy to address here. No doubt, there is room for much improvement .. but a monumental challenge!

Cheers,

Judy

As there have been no examples given of the alleged harm done by Zero Tolerance, we can now give a well-deserved funeral to the ZT ogre myth. Many of the comments that were made remind me of the guy who gets caught speeding and says to the cop “Why aren’t you out catching real criminals instead of bothering ordinary people like me?”. Well, the cop’s job for that day is watching for speeders, and ZT’s job is eliminating rude and inappropriate behaviour at the table – not cheating, not slow play – rude and inappropriate behaviour. Hopefully we can all now get firmly behind ZT, and direct suggestions about cheating and slow play where they belong – to the ACBL.

HI Paul,

Thanks for clarifying (which is what I always suspected since the letters first rang in my ears). It is a necessary evil and as long as club owners abide by the principle, enjoyment will be increased and unnecessary insults will abate. However, you must have the cooperation of the owners and local directors to enforce the civility of the participants.

Cheating and Slow Play are a breed apart (from both ZT and each other).
Cheating (especially pre-ordained by a pair) is inexcusable. Hesitations (and advantage taking) are sometimes unintentional although they encroach upon the honor of the game and the participants (if abused).

Slow play is indeed disruptive, but often there are reasons to give special thought to what others think is a no-brainer. Different strokes for different folks — depending upon whom the folks are! However, I see you are re-directing the solutions for the latter two issues back to the ACBL. LOL!!!

Paul: You have done a great job with ZT and our hats are off to you and whomever worked with you to effect the concept.

Hi Paul,

Here is a real event.

Playing in a club up in Muskoka, in an admittedly uneven field, I claimed the balance of the tricks with 5 tricks to go with the stated line of: “I will ruff my losing club in dummy and then my hand is good”. The opponents seemed somewhat mystified and told me that they were real novices, so they couldn’t follow the claim. I slowly showed them what I had meant, the claim was accepted, and the evening went on uneventfully.

The following day, I received an email from the club’s director saying that my claim was, and I quote, ” a clear attempt to gain unfair advantage by intimidating and browbeating novices”. As such, I was informed that this was against the club’s almighty Zero Tolerence policy, and that as penalty, I was banned from the club until such time that I publicly apologized to everyone for my “intimidation tactics”. Needless to say, I stopped playing there permanently.

What does ZT have to say about that kind of behaviour from the director?

I know you didn’t want a philosophical debate, but being a Philosophy major, I’m going to give you one anyway.

I think that while well intentioned, ZT has the capacity to allow small minded martinets abusing their power under the banner of zero tolerance.

For some reason, the last part of my post didn’t show above. It should have concluded with:

As such, I have very little tolerence for ZT in its present form.