[blackshoe]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-February-16, 08:15, said:

7NT down 1. I couldn't find a line(but thanks to DBurn for trying)for more than one down. Reason for one down: Declarer did not state a line. He showed no appreciation that a squeeze might be on. At least he did not try to draw trumps in 7NT which is good.
I would not give him a PP becuasewe 68A says "A contestant also claims when he suggest play be curtalied or when he shows his cards....." He did this so where is the breach? When he fails to state any line he is putting himself in the lap of the gods. Given the comments here some gods are preferable to find oneself in the lap of than others.

The breach was of Law 68C:

Quote

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

Now, of "should" the laws say

Quote

failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized

and many will point to that last clause as justification for refusing to issue a PP. I think that's the wrong approach. When the law says a player "should" do something, one should be less inclined, perhaps, to issue a PP, but that doesn't mean one should never do it. This is a well known and ubiquitous offense, one which players can be expected to continue to make unless they are given some clear disincentive. IME, an adverse ruling and score adjustment is not sufficient to deter future infractions, hence (again, my opinion) a PP may well be warranted, and is in this case.

[richlp]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-16, 18:19, said:

The breach was of Law 68C:

Now, of "should" the laws say and many will point to that last clause as justification for refusing to issue a PP. I think that's the wrong approach. When the law says a player "should" do something, one should be less inclined, perhaps, to issue a PP, but that doesn't mean one should never do it. This is a well known and ubiquitous offense, one which players can be expected to continue to make unless they are given some clear disincentive. IME, an adverse ruling and score adjustment is not sufficient to deter future infractions, hence (again, my opinion) a PP may well be warranted, and is in this case.

I think it's absurd to give a PP for not providing a claim statement.

For example:
Declarer is playing NT and is in hand with the following

♠AQ32
♥A
♦ -
♣ -


♠KJ
♥x
♦xx
♣ -

Against anybody except a total novice I would simply face my cards and say "I've got the rest." I expect a quick glance from the opponents and then the board will be scored. I would certainly at the level of competition in the OP's hand.

Had I claimed in the actual hand then when the opponents objected I'd give an "OH #$%^" and accept down 1. But a PP for mis-counting my tricks??????

I believe that tournament bridge is a serious game - but there are limits and a minor violation of procedure hardly warrants that kind of penalty.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-16, 18:19, said:

The breach was of Law 68C:

Now, of "should" the laws say and many will point to that last clause as justification for refusing to issue a PP. I think that's the wrong approach. When the law says a player "should" do something, one should be less inclined, perhaps, to issue a PP, but that doesn't mean one should never do it. This is a well known and ubiquitous offense, one which players can be expected to continue to make unless they are given some clear disincentive. IME, an adverse ruling and score adjustment is not sufficient to deter future infractions, hence (again, my opinion) a PP may well be warranted, and is in this case.

Why do you need to deter future infractions? The penalty for a faulty claim, especially if Burn is directing, is Draconian. I agree a PP is inappropriate.

[blackshoe]

To me, refusing to ever give a PP in these cases is tantamount to saying "we don't care if you breach the law requiring you to make a claim statement". If that's the case, why is the law there at all?

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-17, 17:15, said:

To me, refusing to ever give a PP in these cases is tantamount to saying "we don't care if you breach the law requiring you to make a claim statement". If that's the case, why is the law there at all?

Have you ever watched top-level bridge? Almost noone ever states a line.

[blackshoe]

So? They think perhaps that they're above the rules?

Look, if it doesn't cause any problems - and at that level perhaps it doesn't, or does so rarely — then fine. I would never suggest a TD go witch hunting. But when it causes problems, it is certainly within the purview of the TD to issue PPs, and I don't think anyone should tell him he should, as a matter of policy, not do so just because "everybody" commits the offense.

[Vampyr]

cherdano, on 2011-February-17, 18:24, said:

Have you ever watched top-level bridge? Almost noone ever states a line.

Maybe because almost no-one claims without the remainder of the tricks.

[jh51]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-17, 17:15, said:

To me, refusing to ever give a PP in these cases is tantamount to saying "we don't care if you breach the law requiring you to make a claim statement". If that's the case, why is the law there at all?

If a prior poster's quote of the law is accurate, the rule uses the word "should" and not "must". The word "must" indicates that an action is mandatory. The use of the word "should" suggests that it in some cases optional. Unless the law prescribes the cases where an emplanation must be provided, and this is one of those cases, it would seem to me that this is not in the strictest sense a breach of the law.

[blackshoe]

Yes, the rule uses "should". I believe I was the one who posted that. However, your understanding of the law in this area is flawed. What it actually says is

Quote

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (es- tablishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a vio4lation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”

So failure to do something you "should" do is an infraction of law, and failure to do something you "must" do should incur a PP at least as often as "more often than not", but not necessarily always. Put it another way: something you "should" do is mandatory, as is something you "must" do, but failure to do the latter is a much more serious infraction than failure to do the former.

[Vampyr]

The first time the word "should" is used in the body of the Laws is Law 2:

No board that fails to conform to these conditions should be used. If such board is used, however, the conditions marked on it apply for that session.

So no, "should" is not mandatory.

[blackshoe]

Law 2 contains a specific exception to the general principle. What's that old saying? Oh, yeah. "The exception proves the rule."

[Vampyr]

There are loads of other examples. Here is one which would require a director at each table just to give out the PPs:

46A:

When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

[bluejak]

To me, "should" means something a TD should not go looking for, and deals with only by a quiet word if called, unless it causes a problem. But if it causes a problem, then a PP is often appropriate. Is it an infraction? Quite possibly, but one that the TD does not worry about per se.

[blackshoe]

I don't disagree with most of that, David. I was addressing the idea that failure to do what one "should" do is not an infraction of law. The introduction says specifically that it is.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-19, 07:26, said:

There are loads of other examples. Here is one which would require a director at each table just to give out the PPs:

46A:

When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

Yes, I also thought of that one. I'd like to ask Ed whether he ever calls for a "low spade" or a "small spade" from dummy.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2011-February-19, 12:45, said:

Yes, I also thought of that one. I'd like to ask Ed whether he ever calls for a "low spade" or a "small spade" from dummy.

Rarely. And Law 46B tells us how to rectify an infraction of Law 46A. Nothing in the law says that calling for "low spade" or whatever is not an infraction. And since it is an infraction, the TD can issue a PP for it. Law 90A: "The director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table".

What started this was my assertion that in one particular case where a player did not do what he "should" do, he should get a PP. That is a judgment call. You may disagree with that judgment, but don't try to tell me the TD can't give a PP for it, or that it is not an infraction of law.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-19, 16:09, said:

Rarely. And Law 46B tells us how to rectify an infraction of Law 46A. Nothing in the law says that calling for "low spade" or whatever is not an infraction. And since it is an infraction, the TD can issue a PP for it.

I am not so sure. Law 46 deals with an incomplete designation of a card, and 70E gives concerns the lack of a claim statement. There seems to be an implication that these laws are applied when needed, and that the matter is then finished.

Now, if someone persistently commits these "infractions", causing annoyance, delay or frequent director calls, or clearly does of one these things in an attempt to gain an advantage thereby, that is another kettle of fish, and not, as far as I can tell, what we are discussing here.

[blackshoe]

Oh? What are we discussing, then?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-20, 03:44, said:

Oh? What are we discussing, then?

Best to check to OP. It is located at the top of the thread.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-19, 16:09, said:

What started this was my assertion that in one particular case where a player did not do what he "should" do, he should might get a PP. That is a judgment call. You may disagree with that judgment, but don't try to tell me the TD can't give a PP for it, or that it is not an infraction of law.

That was indeed your assertion, but I corrected it with what I consider correct practice.

Rik