[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-August-10, 12:30, said:

Let me be clear, this is not an ACBL sanctioned club. It is a weekly game run at a Senior/Recreation Centre.

During summer the table count is 16-18 tables, regular season 20 tables and we are looking at adding 4 more tables.
The games cost about $2-$3, no master points, no free coffee.

The players are from a very wide demographic. Seniors who have played duplicate (past ACBL players) or social bridge for decades, seniors who have progressed from the learn to play lesson at the same facility. 40-55 year olds who are taking up bridge “seriously”, a few club players who drop in from time to time and even one younger, aspiring tournament player who attends most tournaments, nationals. The players want multiple games a week and some have ventured on to local club games and sectionals.

My co-director and I try to run the game in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and encourage the players to call the Diretor. We now have a dealing machine, we are going to have some fun trying 20+ table web movements. It will probably be more fun and important to us than for the players. Our only concern is the popularity and growth, we may have to turn players away.

It sounds positive and it looks to me like you have more margin to grow than to decline if you try to run the game in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The majority of players (in my experience) are more than happy to follow the rules if they are explained and they can be confident that they will be applied. In any case, it is evident you have margin to choose: the players to privilege are the 40-55 year olds who are taking up bridge "seriously", the aspiring young player who attends the nationals, the few "played for decades" seniors who always attempted to follow the Laws or at least are willing to give it a try if you are serious. I would have no compunction about losing a few of the others while attracting and satisfying newcomers, nor would I dream of confusing the issue by playing as Director.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2024-August-10, 14:44, said:

If the best player in my club (if I had a club) were to tell a newbie not to call the director, and I found out about it, I would give her a disciplinary penalty of at least 50% of a top. If that causes her to quit playing, fine with me. If that causes the club to close down for lack of players, well, I would be saddened, but so be it.

A club belongs to the members, at least over here, and the director cannot and should not act against the wishes of the members or endanger it's existence.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2024-August-11, 02:13, said:

A club belongs to the members, at least over here, and the director cannot and should not act against the wishes of the members or endanger it's existence.

The Director has every right to ignore the wishes of a player and their threat to quit the club if they have to follow the Laws and Regulations. If whoever runs the club (in our case there is an elected Council and a President) is unhappy about this or other aspects of direction then a frank discussion will of course follow once the tournament is finished. If the positions are irreconcilable, then the way it works here is that the President might cease nominating the Director (although he would probably be asked to reconsider by the RA) or the Director might change club or cease/suspend being a Director (he can't refuse to be nominated otherwise).

Hasn't happened yet, although we came close. We did lose a few unlawful players for this or other reasons (they were also sore about elimination of money prizes) but promptly gained a whole bunch of new and more lawful players.

[mycroft]

If it's your club - as in, you own it - do what you will. I'd prefer if it had some relationship to the Laws, but my option is to find another club or open my own.

If it's not your club - especially if you're the newbie on "staff", double-especially if you're trying (and being allowed to) make changes in long-term patterns that "aren't best" - then you take these issues to the owners of the club (club management, however it works). Then you follow *their decision*. Sometimes, their decision is "leave it. WE'LL handle this." - and you hope they do it to your satisfaction. If they consistently don't, then you decide if you're willing to have your reputation attached to this club, and if not, you can find another club or open your own.

Most of the things I have recommended, or done myself as an example on my directing days, or offered as an opinion when asked, at the club in Mexico, they've gone with. Some they haven't - or they haven't on some director's games and have on others. Some they won't do if I'm not there because the danger of getting it wrong is rare, but so great. Some - the club's philosophy isn't mine. Some of those - "yet, maybe in time". It's enough that I am comfortable being a "face" of the club, and shutting up and soldiering when it's not my way. Sometimes they're even right :-).

In this particular case (and I think I know the club. I think I used to have family that played there) many of the 20 tables in a non-ACBL-sanctioned club are there because they were driven out of the ACBL game by "pettifogging nitpicking" or "bridge lawyering" or even "these weird systems that are just played because they confuse". Baby steps might be fine. Expecting them to be the Life Master Pairs tomorrow will just squeeze them out to somewhere else. Maybe out of bridge altogether, maybe just into their kitchens, maybe another game at the club that is run they way they like, by a game runner that just "lets people play bridge".

I like a good, strong, extremely ethical and high-ethics-expected game. I'd love to have one in my club (and pre-pandemic, we had that opportunity one day a week where we had 7ish in A and 7ish in the <750. 4ish and 4ish is a different world). But I'd rather have 12 tables of loose-ish (but not full-on "TD rules in favour of the pair that might not come back" or "we don't call the director for this sort of thing here") bridge 3 times a week than that 5-table "good, strong, impeccably ethical" game once.

And I'm happy to play the "happy fun glass-of-wine online team game, 20 boards in 110 minutes, care about the score, but not that much" game once or twice a week too, even if I wouldn't like that all the time, nor would I want to run that kind of game.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2024-August-11, 07:11, said:

The Director has every right to ignore the wishes of a player and their threat to quit the club if they have to follow the Laws and Regulations. If whoever runs the club (in our case there is an elected Council and a President) is unhappy about this or other aspects of direction then a frank discussion will of course follow once the tournament is finished. If the positions are irreconcilable, then the way it works here is that the President might cease nominating the Director (although he would probably be asked to reconsider by the RA) or the Director might change club or cease/suspend being a Director (he can't refuse to be nominated otherwise).

Hasn't happened yet, although we came close. We did lose a few unlawful players for this or other reasons (they were also sore about elimination of money prizes) but promptly gained a whole bunch of new and more lawful players.

I've had a few problems with club presidents about my decisions and their interfering with my directing. With my partner I left one of these club, in the other case the technical staff supported me and my decision and the president and council had to back down. So, I'm not afraid to direct, but I know that I can't enforce the laws, which are for the greater part unknown to the players.
Yes, I too would love to play in a strong club where the laws are followed and calling a director is not frowned upon, but sadly enough I can't. So it's my choice to play at a not so strong club, enjoy the game and the company as it is.

[blackshoe]

sanst, on 2024-August-11, 02:13, said:

A club belongs to the members, at least over here, and the director cannot and should not act against the wishes of the members or endanger it's existence.

The Netherlands is not the United States. Here, very few clubs belong to the members. Most, IME, are sole proprietorships.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2024-August-11, 13:24, said:

I've had a few problems with club presidents about my decisions and their interfering with my directing. With my partner I left one of these club, in the other case the technical staff supported me and my decision and the president and council had to back down. So, I'm not afraid to direct, but I know that I can't enforce the laws, which are for the greater part unknown to the players.
Yes, I too would love to play in a strong club where the laws are followed and calling a director is not frowned upon, but sadly enough I can't. So it's my choice to play at a not so strong club, enjoy the game and the company as it is.

I upvoted you for your courage in leaving the club, not for your conviction that it is impossible to enforce the Laws or that it is inevitable they are unknown to the players: all it takes is a club that endorses enforcement and embraces education.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2024-August-11, 18:32, said:

The Netherlands is not the United States. Here, very few clubs belong to the members. Most, IME, are sole proprietorships.

That would make the decision easier on both sides.