Bridge Cop

It is wrong to use excerpts from the introduction to justify ones position without considering the context and overall tenor of the text. The introduction begins by quoting the Scope of the Laws as an indication of the Commission’s intent, and then provides further guidance for the interpretation of Law. This guidance offered for the interpretation of “must”, “should’, “may” and “does, is given in context of the text which precedes it. It is not intended to supersede or contradict the Scope of the Laws, but rather to clarify the Commission’s intended meaning. If the Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged (and it’s clear they are), it then follows: Assigning procedural penalties for violations of procedure which are do to error, inexperience, or (to a lesser extent) carelessness, and which do not require an adjusted score for any contestant, is a practice inconsistent with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Assigning procedural penalties for any violation of procedure which uses the words “must“ or "shall" would be an irresponsible practice, based on an obtuse interpretation of the Laws. If we were to adhere to this practice, Directors would assign PPs for violations of Laws such as L44C That position is Bananas!! Violation of this procedure is addressed by Laws 61-64. Or L50D1 Any failure to comply is subject to rectification under L52B. Again assigning a PP for violation such as this is indefensible. Many violations of the Proprieties should be considered serious enough to merit a PP, but (yes it deserves to be said again) it is inconsistent with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge to assign PPs for violations of procedure, which are do to error, inexperience, or carelessness, and which do not require an adjusted score for any contestant. It has been noted that the Scope of the Laws does not preclude the assignment of procedural penalties. That is indeed true; but it should also be noted that there is nothing in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge which should preclude the use of common sense.

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. 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.

IMO Law 70A should frame this discussion. 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: 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. 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 Directors judgment to rule on the tougher deals. Ill 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.