[blackshoe]

I think barmar's point is that a player who ignores the law should be penalized, while David is saying that he is disinclined to penalize someone for trying to be helpful.

Law 7 says "no player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may …) during or after play except by permission of the director". The construction indicates that infractions of this law "will incur a procedural penalty more often than not". That indication notwithstanding, it is AFAIK very rare for a director to issue such a PP. In effect, they give blanket after the fact permission to touch other players' cards. Directors certainly have the power to do that, whatever the legal niceties. I'm not so sure it's such a great idea though. In effect, the result is that the situation now seems to be that this particular part of the Law is "non-operative", being ignored by players and directors alike.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-September-28, 06:45, said:

And why would I give you a PP?

Because I violated correct procedure and you caught me. Isn't that what PP's are given for?

Or am I misunderstanding the point you're trying to make with this question?

[bluejak]

When I direct, I give PPs when necessary. I do not give PPs every time someone breaks a rule - if i did then I would wreck the game I was directing, and would be fairly swiftly sacked as a TD. I find it difficult to believe, barmar, that you really play somewhere where you receive a PP every time you do something not according to the rules, and if you do I suggest you find somewhere else to play pretty quickly.

There is an enormous difference between making sure the rules are right and making sure that a player is penalised every single time he breaks one. If you think the purpose of this forum is to try to produce rules that will always lead to as many penalties as possible, I sincerely hope not because that would kill the game. Fortunately, I doubt anyone is that stupid.

The suggestion that I should issue a PP every time a defender touches dummy's card I find beyond belief.

[blackshoe]

We were discussing a proposed change in the laws. I was deliberately over the top in my initial proposal. I was hoping for "that's too much, let's try this instead", but what I seem to have got is "it ain't broke, leave it alone". <shrug> Okay, fair enough.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-September-29, 09:29, said:

The suggestion that I should issue a PP every time a defender touches dummy's card I find beyond belief.

It was a rhetorical statement, not serious advice on how to direct. Kind of like saying "So sue me."

[bluejak]

It did not read that way. Ok, we allow a different approach in this specific forum, but the prime purpose of these four forums overall is to improve and understand the application of Laws, not their theory. So if you ask me whether I would give a PP to a player who touched another players' cards you will get an honest answer because I do not want people out there thinking it is correct to do so, because it isn't. Of course, like so much of a TD's work, it is a matter of judgement: no doubt you could come up with a situation where I believe it is correct to do so.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that in cases where accepted practice deviates from the literal wording of the law, we should say so, and explain why. For example, Law 7 says "no player shall touch any cards other than his own (except that declarer may play dummy's card in accordance with Law 45)". The introduction to the laws indicates that a violation of this law "should draw a procedural penalty more often than not". And yet you say "it is not correct to do so". Fair enough. Please explain why it's not correct. It's a matter of judgement, I get that, but people whose judgement is not as refined as yours need some guidance; I would expect an explanation of the reasons behind the practice (as long as it's more than just "because that's what we do") to provide such guidance.

[bluejak]

I think custom and practice is important. If one player gets a PP from touching another's cards when most people do not, that is unfair and not good for the game.

In general, I do not think PPs are right in clubs unless

• someone suffers, especially if a board is lost, or
  
• someone does something serious and keeps repeating it after warnings, or
  
• someone upsets people a lot

Now, touching dummy's cards is helpful, so none of the above apply.

[qwery_hi]

Vampyr, on 2011-September-26, 09:02, said:

No, I didn't find the lady's naming the cards annoying. I would, however, find it annoying if I had to do it myself, since I normally designate a small card by saying "mmm".

Not that I find it impossible to be annoyed by another person's designation of cards. When a visiting American friend wanted a small card he would instruct me simply to "play". This nearly drove me round the bend.



No. L46 has a fairly exhaustive list of what card is played when the designation is incomplete.

Did I understand you right? You normally designate a small card by saying "mmm" but are annoyed by someone else saying "play" to designate a small card. Perhaps "ppp" would be more to your liking?

[aguahombre]

In an event where I don't know the table numbers for the various strata, I can often judge the quality and experience of the opponent by his/her verbage.

I assume "C" or low "B" when I hear "play", or they say "please" every time a card is designated.
It doesn't annoy me.

[Vampyr]

qwery_hi, on 2011-September-30, 18:06, said:

Did I understand you right? You normally designate a small card by saying "mmm" but are annoyed by someone else saying "play" to designate a small card.

Yes.

Quote

Perhaps "ppp" would be more to your liking?

No.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-30, 18:13, said:

I assume "C" or low "B" when I hear "play", or they say "please" every time a card is designated.
It doesn't annoy me.

I haven't done any kind of analysis to contradict this, but my intuition is that players form habits, and many of them last for life, even as they become better players. This is especially true for inconsequential habits like the manner of desginating cards from dummy, as opposed to bad habits like fiddling with the bidding box before choosing a bid.

[blackshoe]

The first person I can recall using "play" around here is one of the better players. Since then a lot of people, of all levels, have picked up the habit.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-30, 18:13, said:

I assume "C" or low "B" when I hear "play", or they say "please" every time a card is designated.

So your theory is that "B" and "C" players are either ill-mannered or well-mannered, whereas "A" players are just averagely impolite?

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2011-October-03, 02:15, said:

So your theory is that "B" and "C" players are either ill-mannered or well-mannered, whereas "A" players are just averagely impolite?

Pretty much
Actually my theory (observtion, if you will) is that "A" players tend to use more simple designations..."small", "up", or actual card calling. And, I don't think saying "please" after each and every call for a card during play is politeness; more thoughtless habit.