[blackshoe]

You're confusing the issue Rik. I agree that in the general case where the particular infraction in question occurred, the correct word is "might". What I'm saying is that in the specific case at hand, I think a PP is warranted, hence I used, and continue to use, the word "should". If in your judgment it's not warranted, that's fine. If you're saying that I cannot give a PP in this case, you're wrong in law.

[Vampyr]

Why should a person who made an incorrect claim, which is not a terribly uncommon occurrence, receive a PP? How is this case different from other cases that don't deserve a PP?

[Bbradley62]

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. 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.

46B says that calling for "high" or "low" in a suit specifically means that declarer has called for the highest or lowest card in that suit; therefore, the declarer has completely specified the suit and rank of the card he wants played and no infraction has occurred.

[blackshoe]

No. Failure to specify both rank and suit is an infraction of Law 46A. Law 46B doesn't change that, it just tells us how to deal with the infraction.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-20, 16:52, said:

You're confusing the issue Rik. I agree that in the general case where the particular infraction in question occurred, the correct word is "might". What I'm saying is that in the specific case at hand, I think a PP is warranted, hence I used, and continue to use, the word "should". If in your judgment it's not warranted, that's fine. If you're saying that I cannot give a PP in this case, you're wrong in law.

Of course, according to the Laws you can give a PP, which is the reason why I corrected it to "might". I just think that it would be wrong to do so (which you call "judgement"). Therefore "should" does not apply. In my opinion "should not" would be much closer to the truth. But... that would be my judgement.

Rik

[blackshoe]

You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. You are not entitled to change my words to fit your opinion.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-21, 11:54, said:

You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. You are not entitled to change my words to fit your opinion.

Did Trinidad tamper with the text between the quotes?

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-20, 17:51, said:

Why should a person who made an incorrect claim, which is not a terribly uncommon occurrence, receive a PP? How is this case different from other cases that don't deserve a PP?

Speaking personally, I object to the attitude behind the claim (or at least what I perceive as the attitude given the OP).
Claiming with a statement such as "dummy's high" only to have it pointed out that dummy isn't high, or forgetting there's a trump outstanding (a common one), is usually a genuine mistake having lost track of the play in some embarrassing manner.

Claiming without stating a line in a grand slam in a serious event where you don't actually have 13 top tricks is not a genuine misplay/mistake it is IMO rude to your opponents, disrespectful to the TD and (if you are lucky enough to have Sven directing) a good way to avoid having to think about the play, because you can just let the TD assume you will play carefully enough to make the contract - and now you don't have to bother.

I probably wouldn't give a PP because I'd just awarded 7NT-1, but I have no objection to Blackshoe doing so.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-February-21, 11:56, said:

Did Trinidad tamper with the text between the quotes?

Go back and read post #60.

[bluejak]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-21, 14:46, said:

Speaking personally, I object to the attitude behind the claim (or at least what I perceive as the attitude given the OP).
Claiming with a statement such as "dummy's high" only to have it pointed out that dummy isn't high, or forgetting there's a trump outstanding (a common one), is usually a genuine mistake having lost track of the play in some embarrassing manner.

Claiming without stating a line in a grand slam in a serious event where you don't actually have 13 top tricks is not a genuine misplay/mistake it is IMO rude to your opponents, disrespectful to the TD and (if you are lucky enough to have Sven directing) a good way to avoid having to think about the play, because you can just let the TD assume you will play carefully enough to make the contract - and now you don't have to bother.

I probably wouldn't give a PP because I'd just awarded 7NT-1, but I have no objection to Blackshoe doing so.

I do not think this right at all: it is not disrespectful: it is an inability to count. Someone who who claims in 7NT without a statement is in effect saying he has 13 top tricks and the claim shoud be treated as such.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-21, 15:00, said:

Go back and read post #60.

I think he meant that he offered an alternative wording which he thought was correct.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2011-February-21, 15:48, said:

I do not think this right at all: it is not disrespectful: it is an inability to count.

You misunderstood what Frances wrote. She said that, specifically in the case that he had not miscounted, and was perfectly aware there were only 12 top tricks, it would then be disrespectful. Frances' perception from the way the case was described suggested this could well actually be the case. I agree with her.

[bluejak]

Oh, well, I simply assumed that Frances' post in this thread was about the case in this thread.

[Free]

Declarer claims 13 tricks while he has only 12 tricks, and he didn't state the order in which he'll play the suits. However, we're not allowed to let him "play" foolishly. The normal line is to run ♠s and test the ♥. If ♥ don't break, you'll take one of the finesses, or play for a squeeze. Any way you look at it, the contract will be made.

Yes, there's a line that ruins his contract, but it's not the least bit logical. Everyone can play all Aces and ♥K, but it's so foolish that it's not acceptable as an argument. They deserve a procedural penalty imo, but the contract makes.

[WellSpyder]

Free, on 2011-February-25, 09:15, said:

Yes, there's a line that ruins his contract, but it's not the least bit logical. Everyone can play all Aces and ♥K, but it's so foolish that it's not acceptable as an argument.

Sure, it's foolish if you are trying to find a way of making an extra trick, but I don't really see any order of cashing 13 tricks as foolish except one that blocks a suit when there are no other entries available.

[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.

Trinidad, on 2011-February-20, 15:17, said:

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

Rik

blackshoe, on 2011-February-21, 11:54, said:

You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. You are not entitled to change my words to fit your opinion.

I would think that I made it pretty clear what your statement was and what my opinion was. I have full confidence in the reading capabilities of the forum members. They will be able to see that you wrote that if a player did not do what he should do, he should get a PP. Meanwhile I state that if a player doesn't do what he should, he might get a PP.

I apologise if that offended you.

To be sure that everyone really understands what you wrote and what I meant, I summarised it as follows:

Failing to do what must be done: Should lead to PP (Rik)
Failing to do what should be done: Should lead to PP (Blackshoe)
Failing to do what should be done: Might lead to PP (Rik)

Rik

[blackshoe]

No. Failing to do what should be done, in this particular case, should lead to a PP.

[Bridge Cop]

IMO Law 70A should frame this discussion.

Quote

In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides…

In this case, declarer believes (falsely) that his thirteenth trick will come from hearts, and not (as has been insinuated in this forum) that he is cheating (a troublesome accusation). The question is: How would declarer likely have played this hand?

A Director, far better than I, has been quoted as saying:

Quote

Some cards are inherently high due to their rank. Lesser cards may gain status by virtue of being the last remaining in the suit. The important point to recognize is: There is a difference between a card being good because of its rank, and one being good by virtue of being the last remaining.

Most Declarers (even bad ones) recognize this difference, and treat these cards, and the situations involving them, differently. Declarers seek to establish long suits, not to cash random honors before those suits have been established. To do otherwise, goes beyond that which is “careless or inferior”. It would be irrational for declarer to adopt a line of play which requires him to cash two aces before attempting to establish hearts.

Quote

L70E
The Director shall not accept any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

Since, on this deal, Declarer can only go astray by first cashing both aces and then the K and A of Hearts, there are no doubtful points to be resolved in favor of the non-claiming side. The Director should assign the result of “7NT just in” (just barely in).

I suppose that one might attempt to abuse this, allowing the Director’s judgment to rule on the tougher deals. I’ll set aside the foolishness of such a ploy, and say that if a Director suspects such an action, it is a case not for a procedural penalty, but for a Conduct Committee.

[Bridge Cop]

I find the subject of issuing procedural penalties for honest mistakes, really quite troubling. Procedural penalties should be reserved for serious and wanton disregard of law or regulation, or willful disregard of the Director’s instructions.

Quote

Scope of the Laws
The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.

I have difficulty reconciling the above quote with many of the opinions voiced in this forum regarding procedural penalties. In particular, I object to the concept that one should penalize a contestant for perceived damage. This claim is such a case. The opponents were neither inconvenienced nor damaged. The claimer did not willfully deviate from correct procedure. He thought he counted 13 tricks, and claimed. He made an error that any one of us could have made, an irregularity which the Laws of Duplicate Bridge address.

Of even greater concern to me, is the misinterpretation of Law 46. Law 46A does require a contestant to state both suit and rank, and then attempts to define common vernacular which may be used to do so (46B). It is not an irregularity if a contestant calls “low” or words of like meaning. All laws, not merely those which govern Bridge, are modified by the common usage of the communities they are intended to govern. Every Bridge Player on the planet understands the meaning of “low” or “high”. Use of these terms is not subject to penalty because it is not a deviation from correct procedure.

Finally, before issuing a procedural penalty, I strongly urge Directors to take into account that these penalties are subject to appeal. There seems little point to issuing a penalty which has little or no chance of being upheld by a committee. Issuing frivolous penalties diminishes a Director’s credibility with participants, committee members, and colleagues alike.

[blackshoe]

People frequently deviate from correct procedure when claiming, in that they fail to comply with 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 defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

Do they deviate in this way "willfully"? Well, the word means "intentionally" or "deliberately". I submit that while perhaps the first few times they don't do it "willfully", once they've got away with it those times, it is deliberate to continue doing it. And I wouldn't call issuing a PP for it "frivolous" — unless you're of the school of thought of some of the directors around here, one of whom has said on more than one occasion that she would never issue a PP, for any reason. Frankly, I think she's blowing smoke, and if somebody pissed her off enough, she'd issue a PP, whether a committee might overturn it or not, whether others might consider it frivolous or not, and damn the consequences. And notwithstanding that being pissed off is the wrong reason for issuing a PP.

The guidance the laws give for issuance of PPs boils down to {1} when the law says "must do", this is "a serious matter indeed" and ought, IMO, to incur a PP almost for almost every infraction, when the law says "shall do" a PP should be issued "more often than not", and when it says "should" do, PPs should not be issued often, but there is no guidance that says "never", {2} a PP may be issued for any violation of correct procedure, {3} whether to issue a PP is completely a matter for the TD's discretion.

I note that "primarily designed" does not preclude "punishment".

Now if the general rule is to be "screw what the law says, if 'everybody' does it, we're not going to say anything", then why do we have a law book at all?