Hypothetical dr situation
U as dr are called to a table where Player X alleges that Player Y has said nasty things to him. Player Y denies this, and says the opposite is in fact true. U think "Wouldn't it be good to have a recording going whenever these 2 encounter one another". Just as u finish thinking that Player Y pipes up with "I have recorded the entire conversation, which I am entitled to as it is part of our common law". U think, "That's good, this will make the decision easy and establish who has been cute with the truth". Player X, an avid reader, then interrupts saying u can't record under the NZ Bridge Code of Conduct. U put on a puzzled expression because last time u read the NZB Manual in ~2013 there was no Code of Conduct, let along anything to do with recording. Player X helpfully points you to A48 of the 2016 Manual where there is such a thing and in particular has a Clause 4 which indeed says recording without prior approval is a naughty thing to do and can be reported to higher authorities to dish out punishment. This puts u in a quandary:
a) do u say "thank you" to Player Y for his initiative and listen to the tape so that justice is done; and/or
b) say to Player Y "somehow you were supposed to know that recording was a naughty, even though I had no idea, so I am sending u off to higher authorities for punishment, and am going to make a decision on the table incident without availing myself of all possible information"; and/or
c) wonder why NZB is imposing such restrictions which are helpful for making just dr decisions.
Latest Posts on this Thread
- 09 Aug 2016 at 04:33PM
I preferred it in my youth when a director was likely to tell both X and Y to pull their heads in, just pretend to be adults if they cannot manage it otherwsie, and get on with playing cards.
- BARRY JONES09 Aug 2016 at 08:02PM
Hi Graeme,
I'd go for A .
Not everything that Scott preferred in his youth has improved the world.
You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Click here to log in.
