According to the laws of bridge, a tournament director can penalise a player for most things that he does that do not conform to the laws.
The two types of penalty are procedural penalties, which are for players who get the procedure wrong for example, playing the wrong board and disciplinary penalties, which are for players who misbehave, for example calling their opponent an idiot.
A tournament director has unlimited powers in this respect but, in practice, few penalties are applied, except at the very top of the game.
Of course, tournament directors do warn players who do things wrong, and some would argue that such a warning is really a penalty; this article concerns penalties awarded that affect the player’s score.
There is a standard procedural penalty, namely 10% of a top.
This means that if a top on a board is 30 matchpoints, a standard procedural penalty would be 3 matchpoints.
For a very bad case, a director might give more, but it is usual to give the standard penalty.
For disciplinary penalties, the standard is 20% of a top 6 matchpoints in the above example.
In teams events, the standards are 3 IMPs and 6 IMPs, and at Swiss 0.5 VP and 1 VP.
In fact, very few penalties are ever given.
Is this the right approach?
Many players seem to think that they can ignore the rules and should not be penalised at all.
People will argue that we want a friendly game and penalties are unfriendly.
Look at the other side: people want a pleasant and well-run game.
Consider how upset they get if the director tells them they cannot play board 23 not because of anything they have done, but because of another table.
Some players are very casual and cause a lot of trouble; should they really be allowed to get away with it because we want a friendly game?
I believe the solution lies in the approach:
Players should readily expect to be penalised if they do something wrong and should accept it with good grace.
I believe that more penalties would help the game.
If they were not so rare, players would be considerably less upset by them and the game would run more smoothly.
Of course, some people will tell you they did not mean to play the wrong board, or whatever.
Of course, they do not intend to.
But, in practice, people try harder to do the right thing if they know they will be penalised for doing the wrong thing.
Does that mean all infractions should be penalised?
No, certainly not.
Many things are just accepted.
There is a growing habit of making the last pass of the auction without using a green card; while technically illegal, no one really minds.
Personally, I get upset when the player on lead puts the contract in the Bridgemate or on his score-card before leading.
While this is rude, I just have to tolerate it.
Whenever someone does something that prevents another table playing a board — such as putting the hands away in the wrong slot — then I believe a penalty should be automatic.
It is so unfair on the other tables.
In general, penalties should be applied when another player is seriously disadvantaged.
Another example is where a player discusses a board so loudly that the next table cannot play it.
In such a case, a penalty should be automatic.
Slow play is a bane of many bridge clubs.
Of course, the director sometimes takes a board away from a table that is late, but he should find out who is at fault to give the right average scores (never the completely illegal “Not played”).
Another point often overlooked is that there is often a pair who is regularly late finishing.
In fact, clubs come to find certain pairs are late week after week: it is very important to issue penalties for repeated lateness.
It has been said that the slow pair may leave the club: what people do not realise is the number of players who abandon clubs because they are sick of the slow players.
In general, the main reason for issuing penalties apart from when a board is lost is when a player or pair commits an infraction repeatedly.
How about disciplinary penalties?
Here, many directors go wrong.
If a player is rude to someone else, they must be penalised no exceptions.
Sometimes someone is rude, and then someone retaliates; in fact, sometimes it descends into a shouting match.
Directors often make the mistake of merely trying to calm things down; they must penalise both sides in such a case it is their responsibility to the rest of the room.
If ever I give up this wonderful game, it will be because I tire of the bad behaviour, not for any other reason.
It is the director’s job to make sure that bad behaviour is eradicated, and disciplinary penalties are his main weapon.
Many years ago, I found a scale of penalties on the notice board of a bridge club.
This might work since, if the penalty is automatic, players will be less likely to argue.
As they are given, players will be more likely to make sure they do the right thing.
Players should accept penalties with good grace, and a further disciplinary penalty should be issued to players who do not.
The basic idea is that players who upset others by their actions should be penalised: they are less likely to keep doing wrong, and the players disadvantaged will feel better.