Law 31 - Too Strict?

[barmar]

That's actually an interesting example.

 

Suppose your agreement is that after the double, 2♦ shows a 5-card diamond suit (in addition to denying a 4-card major). In order to avoid barring partner, opener has to bid 2♦ even if he doesn't actually have diamonds. Should he be allowed to "psyche" this (we've had a similar discussion about correcting IBs)?

 

I suppose it should be OK, since the incorrect information is going to mislead partner (the original BOOT is UI to him), while the opponents know that it's not necessarily true.

[semeai]

That's actually an interesting example.

 

Suppose your agreement is that after the double, 2♦ shows a 5-card diamond suit (in addition to denying a 4-card major). In order to avoid barring partner, opener has to bid 2♦ even if he doesn't actually have diamonds. Should he be allowed to "psyche" this (we've had a similar discussion about correcting IBs)?

 

I suppose it should be OK, since the incorrect information is going to mislead partner (the original BOOT is UI to him), while the opponents know that it's not necessarily true.

 

In my suggestion, pass and 2♦ are allowed without barring partner, so this is less of an issue.

 

There will be cases like this, though, just as there are with the current bid out of turn law. I think you just treat them as UI.

[bluejak]

"fit the crime" doesn't refer to how easy it is to obey the rules, it refers to the consequences of the failure. If a BOOT doesn't damage the opponents significantly, why should it get such a harsh punishment? And I seriously doubt that a BOOT really spoils the opponents' enjoyment of the game.

I disagree strongly. Whether it spoils the auction or should be irrelevant. But players do not like the TD at the table, they like the game to follow the rules. There is no doubt whatever that a BOOT severely interferes with opponents' enjoyment of the game.

 

Exactly. We know from real life that punishment only has a small deterrent effect on intentional violations of laws; it follows that it probably has even less influence on inadvertent ones.

I do not agree: we know that it does have a deterrent effect. If people get greater punishment then there will be some greater degree of care.

[semeai]

I disagree strongly. Whether it spoils the auction or should be irrelevant. But players do not like the TD at the table, they like the game to follow the rules. There is no doubt whatever that a BOOT severely interferes with opponents' enjoyment of the game.

 

They also like to play bridge. The benefit of not being punitive in these situations when possible is that you allow the table to keep playing bridge on the hand.

 

Situation 1: The offender has no possible bids that don't bar partner. The offender makes some random guess. The non-offending side get the pleasure of having punished someone, but lack the pleasure of actually getting to have something reasonable happen at the table. Also, if you believe it matters, there's the effect on the field.

 

Situation 2: The offender has some bids that don't bar partner (since they convey no extra information as per the proposed rule) and makes one. The auction proceeds as normal, with no UI or possibly very little, as outlined a few posts above by barmar. The table gets to play bridge this hand.

 

Which is better?

 

I say if you really want to impose a penalty on a pair for such an infraction, then impose some set procedural penalty. Then let them continue to play bridge on the hand when possible.

[bluejak]

They also like to play bridge. The benefit of not being punitive in these situations when possible is that you allow the table to keep playing bridge on the hand.

 

Situation 1: The offender has no possible bids that don't bar partner. The offender makes some random guess. The non-offending side get the pleasure of having punished someone, but lack the pleasure of actually getting to have something reasonable happen at the table. Also, if you believe it matters, there's the effect on the field.

 

Situation 2: The offender has some bids that don't bar partner (since they convey no extra information as per the proposed rule) and makes one. The auction proceeds as normal, with no UI or possibly very little, as outlined a few posts above by barmar. The table gets to play bridge this hand.

 

Which is better?

 

I say if you really want to impose a penalty on a pair for such an infraction, then impose some set procedural penalty. Then let them continue to play bridge on the hand when possible.

Neither is better. Better is if it does not happen. Players do not want TDs at their table. You have missed the point. No punishment means more calls out of turn because people care less.

 

I believe we should worry on behalf of those who follow the Laws. You [and several others] think we should worry on behalf of those who break the Laws. Speaking as a player I find your approach very strange indeed.

[semeai]

Neither is better. Better is if it does not happen. Players do not want TDs at their table. You have missed the point. No punishment means more calls out of turn because people care less.

 

We disagree on this point as a factual matter.

 

I believe we should worry on behalf of those who follow the Laws. You [and several others] think we should worry on behalf of those who break the Laws. Speaking as a player I find your approach very strange indeed.

 

I'd worry on behalf of everyone, and when the reasonable interests of the NOS and the OS are in conflict, of course rule with the NOS. I see no need to give the NOS a windfall when the OS make a procedural error that is easily correctable. This harms all: fewer hands of real bridge are played, the field is impacted, etc.

 

***

 

I'm willing to be wrong on the factual matter mentioned above, but if I am, why not just give out procedural penalties and continue to play bridge as normal (when possible) instead of warping the auction into a random guessing game?

[bluejak]

Yes, that might work. But we have already seen with the dreadful Law 27 how to make life completely impossible for club TDs and intermediate TDs, and I do not want to see the same thing happen to calls out of turn.

[semeai]

Yes, that might work. But we have already seen with the dreadful Law 27 how to make life completely impossible for club TDs and intermediate TDs, and I do not want to see the same thing happen to calls out of turn.

 

Fair enough, you know better about how this plays out in practice.

 

I do want to reiterate that the problem with law 27 of the "meaning of an insufficient bid" being unclear is not there for law 31, so if that's where the headache is coming from, it wouldn't be there for bids out of turn.

[semeai]

How about this for a bolder, and hopefully easier to implement, suggestion:

 

Revise laws 27 and 31 so that any action may be taken without barring partner. That partner, however, is constrained by the UI laws. Also, slap on some standard PP.

[blackshoe]

Also, slap on some standard PP.

Whatever we do, no PP should ever be automatic.

[semeai]

Whatever we do, no PP should ever be automatic.

 

I'm happy to leave this out, have it be optional, strongly recommended, almost mandatory, whatever. Your co-moderator was not happy with letting violators of these rules get away scot free lest they then end up doing it more frequently; this is intended as a concession.

 

Really, though, why must a PP never be automatic? If you have the view that these (insufficient bids, bids out of turn, revokes) procedural errors themselves harm the game and that penalizing them will decrease their prevalence, having a standard PP seems an eminently fair way to go about things. If you instead make the offenders make some random guess much of the time, you'll often be penalizing them, but also often not. Sometimes their random guesses will even be a boon for them.

[blackshoe]

The Introduction to the Laws speaks of the purpose in using different words (should, shall, must) in the laws. That purpose is to indicate the severity of an infraction. If one violates a law that uses "should", one should rarely get a PP. If one violates a law that uses "must", one should rarely not get a PP. That is already part of the laws, and is routinely ignored. If you include a mandatory PP requirement in some law, it too will be routinely ignored, so all you will do is foster even more disdain for and ignoring of the laws. That cannot be good for the game.

[semeai]

The Introduction to the Laws speaks of the purpose in using different words (should, shall, must) in the laws. That purpose is to indicate the severity of an infraction. If one violates a law that uses "should", one should rarely get a PP. If one violates a law that uses "must", one should rarely not get a PP. That is already part of the laws, and is routinely ignored. If you include a mandatory PP requirement in some law, it too will be routinely ignored, so all you will do is foster even more disdain for and ignoring of the laws. That cannot be good for the game.

 

Strangely I can't find in the laws any comment that one should, shall, or must make sufficient bids and bids in turn. Law 17 just states that the players make bids in succession, with the dealer making the first call (no use of these words there). Law 18 describes what proper form is for bids and describes what sufficient and insufficient mean (again no use, and not even a comment that players do make sufficient bids or some such). Law 27 describes what you must do when an insufficient call is made. Similarly for Law 31 and bids out of turn. No comment on the making of it, actually, as far as I can see.

 

In any case, I'll revise my suggestion:

 

Revise laws 27 and 31 so that any action may be taken without barring partner. That partner, however, is constrained by the UI laws. Include language in Law 18 that one must make sufficient bids, and language in Law 17 that one must call in rotation. (Alternatively, use shall.)

 

Then, potentially, have a second campaign to make it standard to give a PP when the law says "must." Perhaps add a note to each law with the word "must" in it to remind one of this, in addition. I think it would be easier to have automatic PP's feel okay if the OS is not otherwise randomly penalized or not by the rule itself. Also, as long as you leave doubt about the PP, it's not going to be given out except in extreme cases because people don't like feeling mean.

[blackshoe]

Funny, I don't know a TD worth his salt for whom issuing a PP would make him feel mean.

[semeai]

Funny, I don't know a TD worth his salt for whom issuing a PP would make him feel mean.

 

Great. This seems a topic for another thread, but to continue with it: why aren't very many given out then?

 

Also, I'm just trying to give honest proposals here. If they're hopeless, because you don't think they're practical, or because nobody cares, let me know and so be it.

[blackshoe]

I'm not objecting to your efforts to clean up the laws, only to the concept of "mandatory PPs". And who knows, maybe TPTB will agree with you. Here in the ACBL we do have one situation in which (in theory anyway) PPs are mandatory: zero tolerance violations. OTOH, I well remember a club game in which I called the TD for a ZT violation (the ACBL has told me that *anyone* can do that, at any time, even if attention has not formally been drawn to the violation), he got within about ten feet of the table, saw that I was dummy, and said "Ed, you know dummy is not allowed to call the TD", and walked away. I called him back. "I don't know any such thing, because it isn't true". He still refused to deal with the problem. That has nothing to do with not wanting to feel mean, it's pure incompetence.

[barmar]

Strangely I can't find in the laws any comment that one should, shall, or must make sufficient bids and bids in turn. Law 17 just states that the players make bids in succession, with the dealer making the first call (no use of these words there). Law 18 describes what proper form is for bids and describes what sufficient and insufficient mean (again no use, and not even a comment that players do make sufficient bids or some such). Law 27 describes what you must do when an insufficient call is made. Similarly for Law 31 and bids out of turn. No comment on the making of it, actually, as far as I can see.

Law 17 describes correct procedure. The definition of "irregularity" is "A deviation from correct procedure". So a BOOT is an irregularity.

 

Law 18 isn't quite as clear. It describes both sufficient and insufficient bids, never actually indicating that one is correct and other is not. I think what we're supposed to understand is that the Laws are intended to be read by people who know the game. We don't actually need the laws to tell us that bids must be made in turn and must be sufficient -- if you don't know this, you don't know how to play bridge in the first place. Laws like 18E, which states the order of the denominations, are in there for completeness, but we would have no problem applying the Laws if they were omitted.

 

What this means is that you can't learn how to play bridge from the Laws. That's OK, that's not what they're for. They're mostly for describing details that are not part of everyone's basic knowledge of the game, and for describing how we deal with deviations from correct procedures. The fact that insufficient bids are deviations is general bridge knowledge, regardless of whether it's stated explicitly in the Laws.