Another Incomplete Designation

[pran]

I wish the forum software had an option to allow users to delete their own posts within N minutes of posting. It allows setting a time limit on editing (but we haven't enabled this), but the deletion permission is all or nothing.

 

Although maybe I should just allow it, since the editing permission means they have unlimited capability to replace the post with "Deleted".

 

IMHO a good idea.

 

I think that both editing and deleting should be time limited (Although I must admit that I have taken the liberty to correct a typo in one of my posts when I discovered it several days later).

[nige1]

Who were these players?

Scottish players, more familiar with basic laws than most.

Few players, in my experience, always name the suit and rank of a card they are playing from dummy.

Currently, irregularities by others irritate my friends; but they, themselves, admit to laxity about complying with current laws about designating cards, using stop cards, making final passes,and so on. Partly due to ignorance -- for example, one thought "small" was a legal designation. And partly because directors condone reported irregularities (arguably, with legal justification). They'd welcome simpler rules and try to comply with them.

And how would insisting on the "correct" designations be enforced?

If the law mandates a designation, then, IMO, it isn't "correct" -- it's just correct :). Anyway, sensible defenders would wait until declarer designated dummy's card correctly because, if they played prematurely they'd break the law.

Would a director stand by each table ready to hand out PPs to players who asked for eg a small diamond?

If players know a rule, understand it, and are confident a director will enforce it, then they tend to comply with it and report infractions. If directors know and understand a rule, then they have a better chance of applying it consistently. Thus, simpler rules that players and directors could understand, would make the game more fun.

 

Compared with other laws, current designation laws are relatively clear and simple, but apparently their interpretation is still contentious enough to engender controversies like this.

[blackshoe]

Scottish players, more familiar with basic laws than most… And partly because directors condone reported irregularities (arguably, with legal justification).

It sounds like your players are more familiar with the laws than your directors are. I find that hard to believe.

 

As for condoning reported irregularities, with legal justification, can you provide examples (other than those covered by Law 46B)?

[nige1]

It sounds like your players are more familiar with the laws than your directors are. I find that hard to believe.

I don't understand Blackshoe's conclusion but he's free to believe it or not as he wishes.

As for condoning reported irregularities, with legal justification, can you provide examples (other than those covered by Law 46B)?

This thread, like another recent Lamford thread, is about Law 46 and commentators believe the director should condone incorrect designations.

 

Blackshoe has a better chance of encountering such incidents, involving other laws, since he has reported that US players are prone to infractions with pass-cards and stop-cards. Presumably, he reports them to the director :)

 

One of my group did make brief mention of a case, where all the players picked up their bidding cards after "....4♠ Pass Pass Double". A defender claimed he would have run, had he noticed that the contract was then redoubled. I know nothing else about the incident except that, for my friend, the lesson was "don't pick up bidding cards prematurely".

 

As implied above, such problems are exacerbated because players learn to stop calling the director, after a few frustrating incidents. My experience is typical:

 

Nowadays, when players trot out the "no agreement" mantra, I'm sometimes tempted to suggest that they "pull the other one" but instead I just grin and bear it. A long time ago, however, I would call the director when experienced opponents claimed "no agreement" about a common situation. The director would patiently explain that opponents are entitled to have no agreement and then politely remind me to avoid harassing them with further questions. On a few occasions, I later overheard opponents discussing the incident, and it became clear that they did have an agreement. A couple of times, I reported this to a director, suggesting that opponents should at least be obliged to admit to their agreement on their convention-card but the director took no action.

[Vampyr]

I don't understand Blackshoe's conclusion but he's free to believe it or not as he wishes. This thread, like another recent Lamford thread, is about Law 46 and commentators believe the director should condone incorrect designations.

 

No, the real issue is that the Laws should broaden the definition of correct t designations.

[blackshoe]

I don't understand Blackshoe's conclusion but he's free to believe it or not as he wishes. This thread, like another recent Lamford thread, is about Law 46 and commentators believe the director should condone incorrect designations.

 

Blackshoe has a better chance of encountering such incidents, involving other laws, since he has reported that US players are prone to infractions with pass-cards and stop-cards. Presumably, he reports them to the director :)

 

One of my group did make brief mention of a case, where all the players picked up their bidding cards after "....4♠ Pass Pass Double". A defender claimed he would have run, had he noticed that the contract was then redoubled. I know nothing else about the incident except that, for my friend, the lesson was "don't pick up bidding cards prematurely".

 

As implied above, such problems are exacerbated because players learn to stop calling the director, after a few frustrating incidents. My experience is typical:

 

Nowadays, when players trot out the "no agreement" mantra, I'm sometimes tempted to suggest that they "pull the other one" but instead I just grin and bear it. A long time ago, however, I would call the director when experienced opponents claimed "no agreement" about a common situation. The director would patiently explain that opponents are entitled to have no agreement and then politely remind me to avoid harassing them with further questions. On a few occasions, I later overheard opponents discussing the incident, and it became clear that they did have an agreement. A couple of times, I reported this to a director, suggesting that opponents should at least be obliged to admit to their agreement on their convention-card but the director took no action.

You said that Scottish players are "more familiar with basic laws than most" and then went on to talk about directors who apparently don't know the laws. Do your directors in fact know and understand the laws better than your players do?

 

This commentator believes that in making rulings the director should follow the laws, and in most cases Law 46B covers what the director should do in cases of violation of Law 46A. That's not "condoning" the incomplete or incorrect designation, in my book.

 

Yes, it's frustrating to call an incompetent director and get an incompetent ruling - or no ruling. Keep in mind though that often (at least in my experience) players don't have all the facts.

 

A director who receives a report such as you describe and then takes no action is incompetent. OTOH, a director might very well take some action - and not tell the person who reported the problem. That may be incompetence, it may not.

[blackshoe]

No, the real issue is that the Laws should broaden the definition of correct t designations.

Or perhaps make 46A less stringent ("does" instead of "should do").

[nige1]

No, the real issue is that the Laws should broaden the definition of correct t designations.

A flat contradiction :) but for some, including the op, an issue was whether a director should condone a usually harmless irregularity when it has a rare unfortunate consequence.

[nige1]

You said that Scottish players are "more familiar with basic laws than most" and then went on to talk about directors who apparently don't know the laws. Do your directors in fact know and understand the laws better than your players do?

• Vampyr and I were referring to a small group of players, with whom I was discussing some aspects of law -- not to Scottish players as a whole.
• Directors everywhere (not just in Scotland) tend to know more about Bridge rules than the average player.
• In on-line discussion, however, directors often demonstrate that they don't know the law and can't agree on its interpretation.

This commentator believes that in making rulings the director should follow the laws, and in most cases Law 46B covers what the director should do in cases of violation of Law 46A. That's not "condoning" the incomplete or incorrect designation, in my book.

Yes, it's frustrating to call an incompetent director and get an incompetent ruling - or no ruling. Keep in mind though that often (at least in my experience) players don't have all the facts.

A director who receives a report such as you describe and then takes no action is incompetent. OTOH, a director might very well take some action - and not tell the person who reported the problem. That may be incompetence, it may not.

My conclusion is different: On the whole, directors do the best they can. The fault is in fragmented, over-subjective, and over-sophisticated Bridge rules, which nobody seems to understand -- not even the law-makers themselves. They result in inconsistent rulings that are insufficiently deterrent.

 

BTW, Blackshoe, you haven't told us whether you call the director about bidding-box (e.g. pass and stop-card) irregularities in the US and what, if anything, the director does about them :) Judging by previous comments, they're widely condoned :( but I wouldn't conclude that necessarily means that US directors are "incompetent" :)

[blackshoe]

BTW, Blackshoe, you haven't told us whether you call the director about bidding-box (e.g. pass and stop-card) irregularities in the US and what, if anything, the director does about them :)

No, I haven't. B-)

[barmar]

One of my group did make brief mention of a case, where all the players picked up their bidding cards after "....4♠ Pass Pass Double". A defender claimed he would have run, had he noticed that the contract was then redoubled. I know nothing else about the incident except that, for my friend, the lesson was "don't pick up bidding cards prematurely".

In my experience, when the players start picking up their bidding cards prematurely, but one of the players actually plans to reopen the bidding, he usually says something like "Wait, I haven't passed yet." They put their cards back down, the next two players pass, he redoubles, and everything proceeds normally.

 

It's only in Lamford's hypotheticals that things get messy, because his world is full of SBs who are just looking for a way to take advantage of any legal technicality. In the real world, we have reasonable ways of straightening things out.

[blackshoe]

Frankly if a player learns not to pick up the bidding cards prematurely, IMO that's a good thing.