Claim in a grand slam

[Trinidad]

Rik, when I asked "where's the line?" earlier, I meant "where do we draw the line between giving or not giving a PP in cases where a player has not done something he 'should' do?" I gather the answer is "when, after a first offense for which the player received a warning, he commits the same offense again". :unsure:

:lol: LOL

 

This was an honest misunderstanding. I thought you meant to ask: "Where's the line of play?". :(

 

I will try to answer your question "Where is the line between giving a PP and not giving a PP?". In general, I will only warn players when they don't do "what they should do". However, there are several reasons why I would give a PP. One is for a repeat offender for cases where the infraction actually had consequences. Usually calling for "a small trump" doesn't have any consequences, but if it does (e.g. because dummy wakes you up that you are actually playing a NT contract) you should get a clear warning. If the TD gets called for the same (or a similar) offense within a reasonable time period (i.e. as long as the TD can remember ;)), he will issue a PP.

 

Rik

[RMB1]

Sorry, the director's ruling was +2210.

 

 

That looks illegal for 7NT. 99.5% of 7NT=, 0.5% of 7NT-1. :)

[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

 

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible.

 

That position is Bananas!! Violation of this procedure is addressed by Laws 61-64.

 

Or L50D1

 

A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity.

 

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.

[Finch]

I suppose I ought not to be troubled by the line of reasoning that awards a PP only when the alleged offender is not getting an adverse ruling, but it troubles me nonetheless.

 

Either an act is an offence against correct procedure so heinous as to be worthy of a penalty, or it isn't. If the former, then the PP should be applied regardless of the adjustment; if not, there is no PP to apply.

 

And yet, I would say that 99% of Directors and ACs have at some point given a ruling like this: "no adjustment, but North-South to be fined 3 IMPs for not alerting / not having properly completed CCs / giving MI / not accompanying a claim with a well-formed statement / wearing brown shoes with black trousers [delete whichever does not apply]." If on the other hand the ruling had been "score adjusted from NS +2210 to NS -100", then there is never any thought of deducting an additional 3 IMPs from their score for whichever of the above list does apply.

 

This is illogical, inequitable, arbitrary and wrong. Perhaps that is why it seems to be so firmly entrenched in the administration of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

 

I agree with this.

I've certainly given adjustment + PP. Usually in cases of blatant disregard for the laws by someone who should know better. I do agree that PPs are more often given when there is no adjustment, which is wrong.

[bluejak]

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.

The Laws are primarily designed ...

 

In other words, not solely. They include penalties, notably under Law 90, and a TD who judges to give a PP under Law 90 has no reason not to because the Scope says something or other. He should follow the Laws.