[jeffford76]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-15, 15:34, said:

Has anyone had any experience in calling the director on these zero tolerance matters?

I've called the director a couple times for rude behavior (in the Pacific Northwest). I've never seen a zero tolerance penalty assessed, and in fact the most common response has been to completely ignore the complaint and give a generic "Let's just play bridge" talk to the table, as if the unpleasantness is everyone's fault. That said, I don't think our most competent area directors took those calls.

[mycroft]

So, did the rude behaviour stop? If so, it was a successful TD call. After all, unless you're in a KO, any ZT score penalties applied would not affect your score.

If it didn't of course, that's another - very uncomfortable - story.

And yes, I've seen and given ZT penalties that weren't warnings. We may still be giving too much tolerance (I happen to believe that Z is wrong by definition, whenever ZT policies are set up, by the way), and I will cop to my share of that, but you will get called on it.

I have also been in situations where the correct ZT ruling would be a wash; I do try to suggest "let's just play bridge, here, ok?" in those scenarios. I so hate seeing 8-8 VP ties :-)

(Machlin's story from the Bad Old Days (and really, it was; I played at the end of them):
Player: "Did you hear that? He called me an ass!"
TD: "Yes, I did; but you called him a jerk, and that call is forcing for one round." )

[blackshoe]

The problem is this: the ACBL's ZT policy is rigid. It does not allow TD judgment beyond "was there in fact a ZT violation?" If there was, the policy requires the TD to give a penalty. So when a TD doesn't give a penalty, either he saying that there was no ZT violation, or that he doesn't care what the policy is, he's not giving a penalty. TDs not giving penalties for the kinds of things the ZT policy prohibits (which are and have long been against the laws of the game) is why the ZT policy was implemented in the first place. I can only conclude that the ZT policy is an at best incomplete success.

I was once accused of "deliberately hesitating in order to induce me to take the finesse" - which happened to fail to my partner's singleton king. When I opined that I didn't appreciate being accused of cheating, the TD's response was "we're just gonna let that slide". Every time I think about that incident, I wonder whyinhell I haven't given up the game.

[mycroft]

I, too, agree that ZT is at best an incomplete success. ZT as written would definitely be an incomplete success, so I'm glad we aren't implementing it (see above and many other places re: my opinion of ZT in general, not just in duplicate bridge). I think that we still could be Less T than we are; I certainly could. Guess I'm too much of a softie.

[jeffford76]

 mycroft, on 2012-May-15, 18:06, said:

So, did the rude behaviour stop? If so, it was a successful TD call. After all, unless you're in a KO, any ZT score penalties applied would not affect your score.

It taught the other player the lesson that they can be as rude as they want as long as they stop once the director is called. I wouldn't call this a success.

I'm not a fan of zero tolerance policies in general because I think the people in charge lose some of their ability to handle things effectively when the penalties are proscribed and overly harsh. But unenforced zero tolerance policies are even worse.

[mycroft]

Okay, I agree with what you said. But did it stop for the rest of your time with them, even when the TD left? Did it stop when you arrived the next day, or the next month? Maybe what it teaches is that you can be as rude as you want to people who won't call you on it - and an IMP penalty wouldn't make that lesson any better.

If it didn't, of course...that's another issue. But there are other ways to handle this - my only recorder form has been for a "not obviously a violation of the proprieties, but clearly intended to throw off the opponents" issue, for instance.

I also somewhat agree with you about underenforced ZT policies - that's why I hate the Z term, because it leaves only bad options. Because I also know that bullying is just as possible under ZT as without it; I spent years in an environment where others were very very good at knowing what was technically legal but, over time, could lead to a response that wasn't. ZT hasn't made that game any less possible, just different. Then ZT becomes a tool of the bullies - as do the judges; i.e. me. And that is a thing up with which I will not put.