blackshoe Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Law 2 contains a specific exception to the general principle. What's that old saying? Oh, yeah. "The exception proves the rule." ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 There are loads of other examples. Here is one which would require a director at each table just to give out the PPs: 46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 To me, "should" means something a TD should not go looking for, and deals with only by a quiet word if called, unless it causes a problem. But if it causes a problem, then a PP is often appropriate. Is it an infraction? Quite possibly, but one that the TD does not worry about per se. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I don't disagree with most of that, David. I was addressing the idea that failure to do what one "should" do is not an infraction of law. The introduction says specifically that it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 There are loads of other examples. Here is one which would require a director at each table just to give out the PPs: 46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card. Yes, I also thought of that one. I'd like to ask Ed whether he ever calls for a "low spade" or a "small spade" from dummy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Yes, I also thought of that one. I'd like to ask Ed whether he ever calls for a "low spade" or a "small spade" from dummy. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 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. I am not so sure. Law 46 deals with an incomplete designation of a card, and 70E gives concerns the lack of a claim statement. There seems to be an implication that these laws are applied when needed, and that the matter is then finished. Now, if someone persistently commits these "infractions", causing annoyance, delay or frequent director calls, or clearly does of one these things in an attempt to gain an advantage thereby, that is another kettle of fish, and not, as far as I can tell, what we are discussing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Oh? What are we discussing, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Oh? What are we discussing, then?Best to check to OP. It is located at the top of the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 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.That was indeed your assertion, but I corrected it with what I consider correct practice. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. You are not entitled to change my words to fit your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Did Trinidad tamper with the text between the quotes? Go back and read post #60. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Go back and read post #60.I think he meant that he offered an alternative wording which he thought was correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Oh, well, I simply assumed that Frances' post in this thread was about the case in this thread. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.