[mycroft]

I for one am happy with "you did something wrong. 99% of the time, it doesn't matter, and 99% of the rest of the time, the solution is trivial. But when you do cause a problem, you still did something wrong and should be punished for it". I am not happy with "adjustment or PP", however, because now the PP looks like "we aren't allowed to adjust, but we're going to 'back door' in the adjustment" (if that is the case, it is in violation of the Laws).

The difference is subtle, I know.

[bluejak]

But when that is just untrue? I have told you the reason I think a PP is correct when there is no adjustment. That is the reason and there is no secret of it as far as I am concerned. Nothing to do with a backdoor approach.

[mycroft]

It is not "just untrue", at least in history, at least in the ACBL. Especially when the size of the PP approximates what the adjustment would have done as opposed to a "standard adjustment" (funny that). Where it is untrue (and had I not read the other thread, I wouldn't have noticed), fine. However, unlike some, I'm quite happy with adjustment and PP, especially for a repeated offence.

I also am happy with "look, we've told you repeatedly You Can't Do That. You still do it, so this one is going to cost you X. In this case, there happens to be no damage, so we are not also adjusting the score, but you will keep getting "cost you X" every time we hear it happens again until it stops. And rectify the irregularity if rectification is necessary."

I am also more likely to give warnings as procedural penalties, if I think that that will be sufficient.

[blackshoe]

Seems a reasonable approach — although I'm disinclined to give repeated warnings. Warn once, and then penalize.

[mycroft]

Probably a good idea. However, I am coming from a "team directing" standpoint, where (of course) we talk about the rulings, but maybe not in time. I remember being told "so <this> happened", and I asked "so who was South?" (because I had an idea...) and was told. I filled the other TD in on that particular person's peculiar ideas about Law 16, and he said "oh. If I had known that, I would have given him a penalty." So, when next *I* get this ruling at this person's table, "we've repeatedly told you, at the table and away from it, that this is not legal bridge. Enjoy your 1/4 board."

[ICEmachine]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-February-16, 07:47, said:

The appeal committee decided

a. to overturn the ruling because action was evident whether there was an alert or not
b. to fine the offending side 3 imps for their failure to alert

I agree with a. If South is a professional player he is probably aware if he wants to bid depending on the meaning of 3H, so he can easily ask. I always thought that is south is good enough to understand he mighe be in a "double shot" position, the TD should not allow him to make that double shot. Isnt that exactly what South is doing here? Not that it matters much anyways as a professional player would bid here no matter the meaning of 3H as long as it shows heart support.




but I dont understand or agree with b.

Does this mean that everytime a pair forgets to alert I can summon TD and ask him to hand out 3 imps penalty for their failure to alert?

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Does this mean that everytime a pair forgets to alert I can summon TD and ask him to hand out 3 imps penalty for their failure to alert?

You can call the director and it is his decision as to whether to issue a procedural penalty for the failure to alert. In England this is fairly unusual. Inexperienced pairs, for example, are rarely fined. In this particular case the director did not fine the pair but the referee judged to.

[blackshoe]

You can call the TD (politely, please) and report the facts to him. It is not appropriate to suggest how he should rule.

[ICEmachine]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-30, 16:28, said:

You can call the TD (politely, please) and report the facts to him. It is not appropriate to suggest how he should rule.

Ofcourse I didnt mean that you should tell him to hand out 3 imps, but to summon the TD with the intention to have him give 3 imps penalty to your opponents.

I at least dont like the randomness of this procedural penalty and the logic that its only given when cases go to AC.
Shouldnt we try and have a system or rules that at least tries to be fair and either penalises all or none in the same way?

[bluejak]

That tends to be completely impractical so it is not generally the right approach. Take speeding on the roads: it is not practical to prosecute everyone who speeds, but as a reason not to prosecute anyone I am afraid that is not valid.