[phil_20686]

paulg, on 2012-February-07, 04:26, said:

Unbelievable that someone who has played at two of the Edinburgh clubs could write this. I think you meant:

Club bridge has everything riding on it. It is entirely about beating certain other people. There are few friendly rivalries and plenty to be unpleasant about. You want everyone to go home. You hope that the number of people who resign from the club due to unpleasantness is in single figures at the end of the year.

I am pleased to say that the Borders is a much friendlier place.

Well, one of those clubs anyway. A certain English junior of our acquaintance, managed to get himself banned from one of those clubs, for failing to pay subs that he was told he didn't have to pay. They were pleased to have a youngster, until he started winning....

Lets say that is what I think club bridge should be about.

[nige1]

Jeremy69A, on 2012-February-07, 04:11, said:

Yes but it is also a game defined by social behaviour. It may be we should always abide by every law but in reality at the club when the octagenarian drops a card from a shaking hand it would be a hard man or woman to insist on it being a penalty card. You have to adapt and one problem is the difference in expectations and rows such as the one Gordon talks about above are caused by inconsistency. A man complained recently in a letter to English Bridge that his partner had followed suit, the opponents noticed and allowed him then to complete his revoke and then take a trick later to beat the contract. I pointed out that a. he was allowed to say "no spades partner" b. his opponents had no duty to point it out to him but to him that was not playing the game. I disagree but it does show that there are different standards and whilst they might be resolved by all playing to the defined rules most would not be happy doing that certainly at club level.

When we get ill or old our senses deteriorate and we're more clumsy. Many considerate opponents refrain from drawing attention to infractions or ask the director to waive relevant penalties. Current law is to be commended for allowing this. Nevertheless, even the old and infirm may prefer to play with rules enforced, rather than be patronised. In any case, players shouldn't expect tit-for-tat. .In my experience, gordontd is right that when a club allows players to bend the rules, the game becomes more and more acrimonious.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2012-February-07, 06:57, said:

In my experience, gordontd is right that when a club allows players to bend the rules, the game becomes more and more acrimonious.

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't think that the bending of the rules was particularly "allowed" by the YC. The players obviously made their own arrangements without the assistance of the director.

[bluejak]

The important thing is not expecting tit for tat because that leads to arguments. I allow other players to get away with things but I do not expect them to reciprocate.

[mycroft]

Yeah, that's another one like the line I learned in driver training: "You never have the right of way. You can only yield the right of way." In that case, it's a "you're technically right within the Law, but try telling that to Professor Physics and the other 18 wheels in the collision." In the bridge game, if you choose to waive a penalty, that's because you choose to waive that penalty. If you believe that changes your opponents' obligations, that's your problem.

Having said that, you are perfectly within your rights to *stop* waiving things for those opponents...

I have also found that *at my tables*, a friendlier game is generated by playing reasonably strictly to the Laws. Even if it means that I have to get penalties applied to my side when the opponents didn't think there was a problem - partly because I'm going to expect the same penalties applied when they do it.