[blackshoe]

On your comment #2, Mike, I recognize that it would be rare, and not only in the EBU, to award a PP in these cases, but how does one reconcile that reluctance with the law's admonition that a PP should be issued "more often than not"? It seems to me those who won't issue a PP are ignoring the law.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-11, 12:15, said:

On your comment #2, Mike, I recognize that it would be rare, and not only in the EBU, to award a PP in these cases, but how does one reconcile that reluctance with the law's admonition that a PP should be issued "more often than not"? It seems to me those who won't issue a PP are ignoring the law.

I agree with the sentiment 100%. A PP of 10% of a top seems gentle and not punitive and would get the attention of the lower level players you are trying to educate much more effectively. That said, I stated that I would give a stern reminder of declarers obligations in my first post as sadly this is the max I have ever seen being handed out.

[Zelandakh]

mamos, on 2013-November-11, 11:48, said:

I'd need to ask South why he chose 3NT rather than say 4♠.

As I understand the Baron 2NT convention, South's 3NT rebid is pretty automatic here. North's 3♠ rebid shows 5+ spades and denies another 4 card suit. South's 3NT now shows 2 spades and North is expected to continue with 6+ spades. I am not sure why 4♠ should be considered a LA unless North-South are playing a system that does not open 1♠ on 5332 hands. Even then, 4♣ would surely be a better bid with a max and a hole in hearts.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-11, 12:15, said:

On your comment #2, Mike, I recognize that it would be rare, and not only in the EBU, to award a PP in these cases, but how does one reconcile that reluctance with the law's admonition that a PP should be issued "more often than not"? It seems to me those who won't issue a PP are ignoring the law.

I think there are two reasons: 1) Most directors probably don't realize that the Law says they should ussue a PP, rather than just may do so; 2) many of the rest ignore it because they consider this part of the law to be an ass.

Even if we improve education of the first group, they'll probably mostly migrate into the second group. There's not much incentive for improvement -- leagues aren't interested in enforcing this, so they're not going to pull club sanctions because directors aren't applying the Laws in complete accordance with the book.

[blackshoe]

I guess the question is "why do people consider this part of the law to be an ass?"

I've never raised kids, but even I know that without some form of punishment when they do wrong, they'll never learn to do right.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-12, 17:05, said:

I guess the question is "why do people consider this part of the law to be an ass?"

I've never raised kids, but even I know that without some form of punishment when they do wrong, they'll never learn to do right.

I will tell you a secret:
You will not learn to do right by getting punished when you do wrong. You will not teach a kid that 3x3 = 9 by spanking him every time he guesses the wrong answer. Learning by punishment doesn't work and is absurd (as the 3x3 example shows). That doesn't mean that there is no place for punishment, but it doesn't belong in learning.

Encouragement when they (try to) do right is far more effective than punishment when they do wrong.

That means that if a player is trying to be ethical, but overlooks one aspect, it is far more effective to praise him for the parts that he did right and show him how he could have done even better than to punish him for the mistake he made.

Generalizing somewhat, one can say that:

• For learning: encouragement works and punishment doesn't work at all (and is even counter productive).
  
• Punishment only works for people who already know what's right, but decide to do wrong anyway.

Since most players don't know much about the laws, you will usually find yourself in a learning situation and punishment will not work. Only in some simple cases, such as correcting your partner's wrong explanation at the right moment, punishment in the form of a PP can be effective for those people who know, but can't be bothered.

Rik

[blackshoe]

We seem to be on the same page, Rik, even though you thought you were correcting me.

In particular, I've seen an awful lot of "don't do that" infinitely repeated. That ain't the way to learn 'em.

It would probably be safe to say "most players don't know much about the laws, because when you tell them about the laws, it goes in one ear and out the other". At some point they need an incentive to actually listen and learn.

[Zelandakh]

Talking about teaching kinds, perhaps we can take it a stage further and include a "naughty table" in the corner of every bridge room. The standard one minute per year of age should do the trick.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-13, 04:36, said:

Talking about teaching kinds, perhaps we can take it a stage further and include a "naughty table" in the corner of every bridge room. The standard one minute per year of age should do the trick.

Oooh! Good one!

[barmar]

More specifically, I suspect punishment works OK when you're trying to teach people not to do something. But punishing someone when they fail to do something is probably not very effective at inducing them to do it -- the causal link is not as strong.

Look at it this way. Suppose you're playing with a dog and throw a stick. If you hit the dog every time he retrieves the stick, he'll learn to stop retrieving it. But if you hit him every time he doesn't retrieve the stick, he won't know that he should have retrieved it -- there are too many other things he didn't do at the same time, so there's no way to know specifically what he should have done.

Of course, there's a big difference. With people you can tell them why you're punishing them. But I suspect there's still an emotional connection that's not as strong, so the lesson doesn't sink in as well.

[blackshoe]

Maybe so. But the status quo isn't helpful. What do you suggest we do? Throw out the rulebook? "These are the rules, but if you don't follow them, nothing will happen to you"? "If you don't like a rule, just ignore it"?

My preference would be "look, you have to call the director (or whatever) in these cases. It's important enough that the laws very nearly require me to penalize you. I'm not going to do that this time, because I don't think you really understood the law, but now you know, so expect a penalty if you do it again." And then, next time they do it (and they will, partly because in their experience when a director says that, he doesn't mean it), I give them a penalty in matchpoints. The alternatives, for me, are either to ignore the law or to quit directing. As I believe ignoring the law is, particularly for a director, unethical and unprofessional, that doesn't leave me much choice.

[StevenG]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-13, 10:47, said:

And then, next time they do it (and they will, partly because in their experience when a director says that, he doesn't mean it), I give them a penalty in matchpoints.

So, that's not the way they want the game to be played and they go elsewhere. And when your club is down to a couple of tables, what then?

Most people at a club aren't playing a mind sport, just an organized parlour game with a competitive element. Giving them that, and keeping it social, is not, perhaps, what serious players want, but the only way to keep many, probably nearly all, clubs viable.

[Zelandakh]

StevenG, on 2013-November-13, 11:30, said:

So, that's not the way they want the game to be played and they go elsewhere. And when your club is down to a couple of tables, what then?

That was the situation in the previous club that I played in, typically 2.5 tables per night. After a (imho) particularly bad TD ruling my partner and I stopped going there too. So ruling according to the Laws has pros as well as cons. At least players know where they stand if the Laws are followed.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-13, 10:47, said:

Maybe so. But the status quo isn't helpful. What do you suggest we do? Throw out the rulebook? "These are the rules, but if you don't follow them, nothing will happen to you"? "If you don't like a rule, just ignore it"?

My preference would be "look, you have to call the director (or whatever) in these cases. It's important enough that the laws very nearly require me to penalize you. I'm not going to do that this time, because I don't think you really understood the law, but now you know, so expect a penalty if you do it again." And then, next time they do it (and they will, partly because in their experience when a director says that, he doesn't mean it), I give them a penalty in matchpoints. The alternatives, for me, are either to ignore the law or to quit directing. As I believe ignoring the law is, particularly for a director, unethical and unprofessional, that doesn't leave me much choice.

Give penalties for things that players should know:
- Not calling the TD when they clearly should
- Not correcting a wrong explanation from partner
- Playing the wrong boards
- Not counting cards
- Taking cards out

Do not give penalties for things that are open for debate or that are complex to understand. Examples of these are:
- UI cases where it is not completely obvious what the LAs are and what is suggested
- "Wake up" UI cases due to MI. It can be very complicated to explain the auction using your true agreements (as partner has correctly explained them) and continue bidding using the agreements you originally thought were in place and then when there are LAs consistently chose those that are not suggested by the UI.

When I see a heated debate on BBF about a UI case that automatically means that you cannot give a PP. If we on the BBF-IBLF cannot say how we would rule, we cannot ask of a player that he would make all the right decisions at the table.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-13, 12:07, said:

Give penalties for things that players should know:
<snip>
- Taking cards out <snip>

Law 7B requires the removal of the hand from the player's compass position, so this does not merit a PP. If there is a "not" missing, then I agree with you. 1NT sans voir is expressly forbidden.

If you mean taking out the wrong hand, then I think it depends on who put the board on the table. I recall a Spring Fours match being decided by a PP against North, even though East had taken out the wrong cards! Yes, it is hard to believe, but true, and the EBU changed the regulation shortly after. If you mean detaching a card before your turn to play, then that is a breach of 74B which begins "As a matter of courtesy", so a PP is too harsh for a first offence. If you mean deliberately removing one or more cards from the premises, then that appears not to breach any Law, but I guess you could punish him under 74A2 for an action that spoils the enjoyment of the other players.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-13, 12:07, said:

Do not give penalties for things that are open for debate or that are complex to understand. Examples of these are:
- UI cases where it is not completely obvious what the LAs are and what is suggested
- "Wake up" UI cases due to MI. It can be very complicated to explain the auction using your true agreements (as partner has correctly explained them) and continue bidding using the agreements you originally thought were in place and then when there are LAs consistently chose those that are not suggested by the UI.

I don't think I've ever even considered giving a PP in a UI case.

[blackshoe]

By my count there are more than 60 "must" laws on the books. That's not counting other uses of the word which are not requirements on a player, or "must not" laws. Then there's "shall" "shall not" and "may not".

Seems like it ought to be a requirement that the TD read the law from the book, unless he's got a perfect memory.

In 2001 I pointed out on blml that the use of "must" in "the director must be called [after someone draws attention to an irregularity]" in 1997 law 9 implied that a PP should be issued "more often than not" when the director is not called. In the 2007/2008 laws this "must" has been changed to "should". I wonder if the drafting committee examined all the other uses of "must" to see if they should be changed?