Join Bridge Winners
Procedures for directors call --- Collecting information.

When a director is being called at the table the main part of his job is to collect information. I love reading appeal and ruling discussions but 99% of the times my first impression is that there is not enough facts. Too often very important facts are missing or not precise enough. I guess that either directors are ill prepared in the collecting of informations or they are on a tight time constraint I dont know. 

Here are my suggested procedure for high-level events. Im assuming time is not that important, Im  mostly winging it so testing, suggestions and corrections are required,


My basic idea is that the information should mostly be collected one-on-one, yes it will take more time but hopefully you will regain this time by avoiding appeal, other process or endless non-productive quarelling between director and players. If a director make a bad ruling but is at least thorough it will still save time in the end, cutting corner rarely save time when you deal with people.

This will seem a bit "Law and Order" but my goal to give some chances for unethical players to trips themselves,  when all the questions are done in the open its too easy for them to adjust their stories or bend the truth at no risk.

1-It start with a director call. Dont complain & call the director, call the director first.

2- All player should stay silent until they are asked a question by the director, no exceptions, any whining any comments whatsoever should cost you 1/2 imps automatically. Quarelling & remarks between players before the director arrive only increase tension wich make director job harder and make people less ethical & more prone to lie. Players should use this moment of silence to good use and repeat the bidding or open their played cards openface if the hand is over and its a obviously a card play matter. 

3- The director glance at the table and asked the player who call the director to step away from the table and ask him to explain his case one on one without letting the others players hear whats its all about.

4- The director can interview any player one by one away from the table if he desire, he should be able to add some minutes on the clock.

It make me cringe when director ask "did your partner hesitate" and turn 180 degree and ask "did you hesitate ?" What do they think will happen... ?    Isolating "witness/suspects" is the smart thing to do most of the times. When players talk or comments over the table it give them a chance to "synchronize" their stories.  Also there is often a counterbalance bias (If a person seems to get away too easily some people will lie, bend the truth or omit certain fact to "correct" what they see as an unfair situation).  Even when people have good intentions counterbalanced bias exist. When its group discussion with participant having opposite interest its even worse, its simply never lead to the truth of the matter.

5- IMO any discussion should be recorded and the recordings should be available to the AC.

6- There should be predetermined set of questions for critical bid so that director never forget to ask a possibly relevant question. For example

a- What is your interpretation of this bid- what did you explain or write down to your screenmate.

b- Was it done in tempo if not how long was the BIT.

c- What was the alternative you were considering instead of this bid and why did you prefer this bid rather than the alternatives.

The last one is a very important question that is so often neglected by directors.  In the 6D hand for example Klukowsky vonlunteered the answer he said something like "I was thinking of 4D or 4NT" but he could easily have said "I was thinking of 4NT but finally choose 4D first planning 4Nt later because...".  Anyway if Klukowsky didnt said anything it wouldnt have surprised me if the director wouldnt even bother to ask the question.

Imagine your in Gawrys shoes and director ask you did you consider another bid rather than 4NT ? Why did you choose 4NT instead ? The director could also asked Klukowsky "What if your partner bid 4S instead of 4NT would you have bid on ?" It may seems irrelevant but im pretty sure that under pressure a fair % of players will trip themselves and say something "incriminating" rather than self-serving, they may also simply say the truths and it will be incriminating, its also possible that some self serving statement will be too far off. Over-exaggerated self-serving statement are a good way to expose players with low ethics and to make us laugh a little bit. In general when someone is caught in a tough spot you learn a lot about them by how far they lies their ass off. Imagine how great it would have been to have a Fisher interview shortly after the initial accusations.


Some may think its distasteful to be a sneaky detective but for me there is no 5th amendments here and directors simply have to significantly increase the amount of questions they ask for 3 reasons

1- To have more facts

2- that the facts are double checked and more precise

3- to get some players to leak away important clues about what is really happening. 

Anyway I hope some of this make sense.

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top