[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-September-23, 16:20, said:

Maybe we should start a thread in the Changing Laws forum. Wouldn't it be nice and simple if the law said that in the case where declarer says something to this effect, dummy shall play the lowest card in the suit that was led, or in the lowest ranking suit if he cannot follow suit?

I'd rather see "dummy (the player) shall not touch any card in dummy (the hand), other than for purposes of arranging dummy, until the declarer has specified a particular card by naming its rank and denomination (and no other player shall ever touch a card in dummy, for any reason). If dummy touches a card prior to such specification by declarer, that card shall be deemed an established revoke, to be handled by Laws 63 and 64. Furthermore, the TD shall issue a PP of at least 1 IMP at that form of scoring, or at least 10% of a top at matchpoints. If any player other than dummy touches one or more of dummy's cards, that side shall be issued a PP at least twice the aforementioned".

I'd prefer Fiona Glenanne's solution (She asked "Can we shoot them?") but it would probably get me talked about.

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-23, 17:30, said:

If any player other than dummy touches one or more of dummy's cards, that side shall be issued a PP at least twice the aforementioned".

I think that many players would be upset if they couldn't go to the loo or get a drink from the water dispenser whilst dummy; with declarer or a helpful opponent handling the cards. Perhaps in high-level tournaments you might manage that, but not in clubs.

Matt

[blackshoe]

The practice of a defender handling dummy's cards, while widely practiced, is already illegal — and already that infraction is completely ignored by both players and TDs. What would be different under my new law?

In crafting the law, we do not set out to avoid annoying everybody. Not as a primary goal, anyway.

[aguahombre]

mjj29, on 2011-September-24, 04:55, said:

I think that many players would be upset if they couldn't go to the loo or get a drink from the water dispenser whilst dummy.

Let us assume dummy is still at the table, which seems to be Blackshoe's assumption in the OP.

Would be glad to discuss bladder management or uncontrollable thirst on a different thread.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-24, 09:40, said:

Let us assume dummy is still at the table, which seems to be Blackshoe's assumption in the OP.

Would be glad to discuss bladder management or uncontrollable thirst on a different thread.

Well, Blackshoe did write: and no other player shall ever touch a card in dummy, for any reason (my enhancements)

I don't think we can ignore the situations where dummy needs to (temporarily) leave the table for good reason.

And incidentally: The way I read his suggestion it even prohibits declarer from legally handling dummy's cards! (No other player does indeed include declarer.)

[aguahombre]

O.k. Then, let's go all the way with Ed. A kibitzer or caddy or innocent bystander, defined as not being a player and not assuming any dummy rights, will be the only person authorized to follow the instructions of declarer or the TD with regard to dummy's cards.

If no one is available, we can jolly-well wait until the real dummy returns. The excuse for absence had better be legitimate, since his self-interest will probably delay the whole game.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-September-24, 17:31, said:

Well, Blackshoe did write: and no other player shall ever touch a card in dummy, for any reason (my enhancements)

I don't think we can ignore the situations where dummy needs to (temporarily) leave the table for good reason.

And incidentally: The way I read his suggestion it even prohibits declarer from legally handling dummy's cards! (No other player does indeed include declarer.)

Yes. I did that deliberately. I'm not averse to the notion that declarer can handle dummy's cards, but I think there needs to be more than is in the current laws, which do allow that, do not allow defenders to handle them, and are routinely ignored.

aguahombre, on 2011-September-24, 18:16, said:

O.k. Then, let's go all the way with Ed. A kibitzer or caddy or innocent bystander, defined as not being a player and not assuming any dummy rights, will be the only person authorized to follow the instructions of declarer or the TD with regard to dummy's cards.

If no one is available, we can jolly-well wait until the real dummy returns. The excuse for absence had better be legitimate, since his self-interest will probably delay the whole game.

If we're going to allow someone to draft a bystander to turn cards, then we will need a law saying who can do that and in what circumstances.

I don't think there's any need for threats.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-24, 19:44, said:

I don't think there's any need for threats.

What was that supposed to mean?

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-24, 19:57, said:

What was that supposed to mean?

"The excuse for absence had better be legitimate" sounds like a threat to me. If you didn't mean it that way, you should probably have used different wording.

[aguahombre]

You are in a forum on changing laws and regulations. If My recommendation that the excuse should be deemed legimate for leaving the table when dummy...under our proposal for new laws....is threatening to you, I apologize.

[blackshoe]

It wasn't the recommendation, it was the way it was worded. But I already said that, and I'll say no more.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-24, 20:26, said:

It wasn't the recommendation, it was the way it was worded. But I already said that, and I'll say no more.

I will try to words things with an eye toward your approval in the future.

[barmar]

Why was my comment from another thread regarding 46B5 used as the starting point for this thread? That was about how the card is selected, not who physically plays the card.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-September-24, 22:41, said:

Why was my comment from another thread regarding 46B5 used as the starting point for this thread? That was about how the card is selected, not who physically plays the card.

Because you suggested starting a thread here, and it seems to me the subject of this thread follows from what you said that I quoted in the first post.

The "how the card is selected" bit in my proposed law change is simply that all of Law 46B be scrapped — the only legal designation by declarer of a card in dummy would be by naming the rank and denomination of the card. The "who plays the card" bit was just me trying not to forget anything. Actually, it occurs to me now that Law 45 could stand rewording to clarify precisely when dummy's card is actually to be considered "played" (IMO, as soon as declarer names it; dummy's movement of the card to the played position is purely administrative).

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-24, 07:23, said:

The practice of a defender handling dummy's cards, while widely practiced, is already illegal

I never knew that. I'll remember it next time I'm defending and declarer expects us to play dummy's cards for him. "Sorry, we're not allowed to touch dummy's cards" sounds rather better than "Play them yourself."

I notice that the other common practice of declarer playing dummy's cards silently is also a breach of procedure. He has to name it before picking it up.

[gnasher]

blackshoe said:

until the declarer has specified a particular card by naming its rank and denomination

If the law really required players to name a card in it's entirety, not only would it annoy everybody, it would also just be ignored (or "interpreted") by everyone.

Quote

the TD shall issue a PP of at least

I think it very wrong to specify a minimum procedural penalty. The Laws don't do that for any other infractions, and for good reason - any minimum penalty might be excessive. Suppose that a defender playing in his first duplicate innocently moved one of dummy's cards. Would it really be appropriate to fine him 10% of a top?

Another reason not to have a minimum penalty is that it places the non-offenders in an unreasonable position. They know that if they call the director their opponent will be penalised, but they may consider that the minimum penalty is excessive in a specific case. If so, they have a choice between having an excessive penalty applied and leaving the offence unpunished. The result of that will be that some players don't call the director when they should, some players suffer embarrasment or opprobium for getting an opponent fined, and some complete waplayers intimidate their opponents by saying "I'm not going to call the director, but if I did you'd get fined for that."

Quote

In crafting the law, we do not set out to avoid annoying everybody. Not as a primary goal, anyway.

The primary goal is to make a game that people want to play, isn't it?

I don't understand what problem you're trying to solve. The example in the other thread was quite exceptional. What other problems have you encountered that result from an incomplete or erroneous designation of a card?

[blackshoe]

The current law (46A) already requires declarer to "name a card in it's (sic) entirety". And 46B exists because people ignore it, and the lawmakers decided, as they have in other areas, to make an illegal thing that players do legal (in effect). Personally, I think that's foolish — sooner or later we're going to end up with a 10,000 page law book that says, in effect "do whatever you like".

Yes, setting a specific PP is harsh. I meant to be harsh. I was thinking perhaps if the laws were harsh, people would be less inclined to ignore them. Perhaps I was wrong about that.*

Even today, it's not up to the NOS to decide whether the OS "deserves" whatever penalty the TD might impose. Nor should it be. And I didn't say anything about deleting the law that allows the NOS to ask the TD to waive rectification (81C5).

If some players are intimidating others by their comments, that's a punishable offense itself. If some players are criticizing others for calling the TD, that's also a punishable offense (if it's done in the playing area).

It was suggested that a thread be started on this topic. I started one. I suggested a particular change in the law, in order to get discussion started. A different approach would continue the discussion. You seem to think it ain't broke, so there's no need to fix it. Maybe you're right. If so, this thread will die a natural death.

*Actually, now that I think about it, I am wrong about that, as the "implementation" of the ACBL's Zero Tolerance policy in clubs around here shows. The ZT policy is, I'm told by various club owners/directors, in effect. Yet, when a ZT infraction occurs, the policy requires a PP of 25% of a top (at MPs) for each offense. It doesn't happen. Instead, we get things like 'we're just going to let that slide'.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-25, 09:15, said:

And I didn't say anything about deleting the law that allows the NOS to ask the TD to waive rectification (81C5).

We're not talking about rectification, are we? As I understand it, you were suggesting a mandatory procedural penalty. If the TD is allowed to substitute a lesser penalty or a warning, or waive the penalty entirely, the clause you suggest has no effect.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough. I would like to see some way of ensuring players obey the laws. Any suggestions?

[barmar]

The Laws already allow TDs to assess PP's against players who disobey the laws. Why should this particular offense be singled out with a mandatory minimum sentence?

There's a thread going on in the Water Cooler forum that started off about the online poker criminal cases, but has morphed into a discussion about prohibiting versus legalizing/regulating/taxing vices. The general concensus is that it's a waste of time legislating against something most people (or even a large segment of the population) do. Accept it and deal with it.

Which is what the law does regarding incomplete designations, and what ACBL TD's do regarding the Stop card violations. If we tried to stamp these things out with harsh penalties, we'll just annoy huge numbers of bridge players. Maybe, just maybe, it will eventually result in better behavior, but there will be an awful lot of pain along the way. Is this really necessary?