[kb49]

EBU

This is a trivial question but I would still appreciate any comments

I am a Director of a club. Most of the members all live within a short distance of the club. However, I have one member who has to drive over an hour to get to the club. I decided that whenever there was a half table I would arrange for this particular member to sit out last. The decision to do this was mine entirely and it is not a club rule. Several members are up in arms about this and they feel it is wrong or even illegal for me to do it. What do you think? Do I have the authority or not?

I told you it was a trivial question!

[blackshoe]

Yes, you have the authority to do that.

Quote

Law 5A (in part): The Director assigns an initial position to each contestant (individual, pair or team) at the start of a session.

[gordontd]

kb49, on 2015-September-23, 12:05, said:

EBU

This is a trivial question but I would still appreciate any comments

I am a Director of a club. Most of the members all live within a short distance of the club. However, I have one member who has to drive over an hour to get to the club. I decided that whenever there was a half table I would arrange for this particular member to sit out last. The decision to do this was mine entirely and it is not a club rule. Several members are up in arms about this and they feel it is wrong or even illegal for me to do it. What do you think? Do I have the authority or not?

I told you it was a trivial question!

Do they also get up in arms if you assign stationary positions to those who have difficulty moving?

[kb49]

Good question. Fortunately they do not object. In fairness I find bridge players usually very helpful in situations like this. I must confess I was surprised by their reaction.
You are quite right it is Law 5. Thank you for that

[barmar]

So it's legal, but is it right? If he refused to give a stationary table to a player with a clear physical need, I think most would agree that he's being a real jerk (unless, of course, there are too many players with such needs). Law 5 doesn't give any guidance on how the director should decide who sits where -- we usually try to balance the strength of the NS and EW fields, but that's not codified in the Law.

There's more to good directing than just following the Laws. So while giving the same pair the last sitout is legal, it also smacks of favoritism, not a good trait for a director.

[pran]

barmar, on 2015-September-24, 08:58, said:

So it's legal, but is it right? If he refused to give a stationary table to a player with a clear physical need, I think most would agree that he's being a real jerk (unless, of course, there are too many players with such needs). Law 5 doesn't give any guidance on how the director should decide who sits where -- we usually try to balance the strength of the NS and EW fields, but that's not codified in the Law.

There's more to good directing than just following the Laws. So while giving the same pair the last sitout is legal, it also smacks of favoritism, not a good trait for a director.

If there is only one player with a relevant disability I always grant him/her the privilege of being stationary. If there are two, and conditions in the room permit, I allocate two unnumbered tables and shift the table numbers to these tables so that the players in question need not physically move (except of course for the round - if any - in which they shall meet).

"Problems are solved immediately, it is for miracles I need a little time."

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-September-24, 08:58, said:

So it's legal, but is it right? If he refused to give a stationary table to a player with a clear physical need, I think most would agree that he's being a real jerk (unless, of course, there are too many players with such needs). Law 5 doesn't give any guidance on how the director should decide who sits where -- we usually try to balance the strength of the NS and EW fields, but that's not codified in the Law.

There's more to good directing than just following the Laws. So while giving the same pair the last sitout is legal, it also smacks of favoritism, not a good trait for a director.

If most members of the club live within a short walking distance, and one player lives an hour away by car, and you're running an evening game, I see no more favoritism in routinely giving that player the last sit out then I would in routinely giving him a stationary seat if he had difficulty walking.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-24, 16:05, said:

If most members of the club live within a short walking distance, and one player lives an hour away by car, and you're running an evening game, I see no more favoritism in routinely giving that player the last sit out then I would in routinely giving him a stationary seat if he had difficulty walking.

I fully agree with you. Nevertheless, Barmar has a point: What is still normal courtesy and where does favoritism start?

My wife has to go to work at 7AM. I would love to play bridge with her and she would love to play with me. But the bridge runs until 11:45 PM and then you still need to drive home. That doesn't leave much time to sleep, so my wife doesn't play.

Can I ask my bridge club to give us the last sit out? If they would, I am sure that those who have to be at work at 8AM will start protesting.

You need to be careful with things like this.

Rik

[barmar]

pran, on 2015-September-24, 12:41, said:

If there is only one player with a relevant disability I always grant him/her the privilege of being stationary. If there are two, and conditions in the room permit, I allocate two unnumbered tables and shift the table numbers to these tables so that the players in question need not physically move (except of course for the round - if any - in which they shall meet).

Of course you do, because you're not an a-hole. That's my point -- there's nothing in the Laws that says you should do this, yet it would be wrong if you didn't. Not wrong according to the Laws of Bridge, but according to codes of common human decency.

[jeffford76]

kb49, on 2015-September-23, 12:05, said:

I am a Director of a club. Most of the members all live within a short distance of the club. However, I have one member who has to drive over an hour to get to the club. I decided that whenever there was a half table I would arrange for this particular member to sit out last. The decision to do this was mine entirely and it is not a club rule. Several members are up in arms about this and they feel it is wrong or even illegal for me to do it. What do you think? Do I have the authority or not?

This is standard operating procedure at the club I help run. One pair has to take a ferry home, so they get the last sit out. No one has ever complained, though.