Following suit?

[bluejak]

Anyway, my view is simple, though obviously there are other views. What is generally done and tolerated and expected is not to be penalised. The MPC was caused by RHO not bothering to follow the play to the extent of following suit to a card not in dummy. I have zero sympathy for him.

 

No harm, no foul? But no harm is caused to anyone who plays the game properly. The play of a card is a two part action, calling for a card then moving a card, as required by Law. RHO could not be bothered to watch the card moved nor to concentrate on the game. Following suit to a card not in dummy is inexcusable. In fact, what he did was to apply a ruling, and decide without benefit of TD to apply the Law on incomplete designations, and he applied it wrong.

[barmar]

I would argue that what "we" do is wrong. :-)

So how do you think "we" should decide when to issue a PP for "should" laws?

In this case it did cause a problem.

Isn't that what I've been saying all along? This is a case of "yes harm, yes foul", so we could opt to issue a PP. But that doesn't excuse the defender, who was failing to pay attention.

[blackshoe]

So how do you think "we" should decide when to issue a PP for "should" laws?

 

Isn't that what I've been saying all along? This is a case of "yes harm, yes foul", so we could opt to issue a PP. But that doesn't excuse the defender, who was failing to pay attention.

When a player fails to do what he "should" do, the laws tell us is that this is "not often penalized". Yet "not often" is not "never", so there must be some times when we should issue a PP. Law 90 tells we can issue PPs 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." So I would look, on a case by case basis, at these things. "Violates correct procedure" is not enough, or we would not be told to "not often" penalize these offenses. "Unduly delays or obstructs the game" might qualify: was the ruling complex? Did it hold up the game? Did it require a board to be canceled or postponed? Were other contestants inconvenienced (for example, through a delay in starting their next round)? All of these things should point toward the possibility of a PP.

 

David would, I think, lean mostly towards "custom and practice". He said upthread that "what is generally done and tolerated and expected is not to be penalised". I think this is dangerous — it leads to the attitude, common in clubs around here, that PPs should never be issued, and that just plain wrong. Don't penalize violations of 46A. Don't penalize the bad habit of picking up the bidding cards before the auction is officially over. I'm sure we can come up with other infractions that are "generally done and tolerated and expected". I would not routinely penalize such things, but as a director I absolutely reserve my right to do so when I deem it appropriate. That judgment is subject to appeal, but an AC would IMO be wrong to routinely overturn it. OTOH, I think it's incumbent on a TD who issues a PP to explain his reasoning for that to both the contestants involved and to the AC.

 

The suggestion was made that the declarer's infraction of 46A is what led to the defender's infraction, implying that it should be excused. No. I see no basis for that. He wasn't paying attention. That's his fault, not his opponent's. And it's another "should" infraction, so I would apply the same criteria vis à vis a PP as I would to declarer's infraction.

[aguahombre]

In Law 90, I thought "unduly" applied to everything in the series which follows the word. So, merely doing those things wouldn't be cause for a PP to be considered...but unduly (wherever we draw that line) committing an irregularity would.

[Bbradley62]

Isn't there a middle ground of giving declarer a warning, saying that if his habit causes leads to another problem this session, he will face a PP?

[aguahombre]

Isn't there a middle ground of giving declarer a warning, saying that if his habit causes leads to another problem this session, he will face a PP?

I would say that is solid ground, not middle ground. Committing the same violation after having been warned meets "unduly" on my planet.

[barmar]

But these behaviors rarely lead to problems (which is probably why the Laws are poor at saying what to do -- it doesn't come up enough for fixing the laws to be a priority). Once in a session is unlikely, twice is probably unheard of. So players will practically never be penalized if we just issue a warning for the first offense.

[Bbradley62]

... players will practically never be penalized if we just issue a warning for the first offense.

Good. That was my intention.

[blackshoe]

But these behaviors rarely lead to problems (which is probably why the Laws are poor at saying what to do -- it doesn't come up enough for fixing the laws to be a priority). Once in a session is unlikely, twice is probably unheard of. So players will practically never be penalized if we just issue a warning for the first offense.

This is why the impact of warnings should not be limited to the current session. It's perfectly valid to award a MP or IMP PP on the basis that "I told you two weeks ago that if you did this again you would be penalized".

 

If you can't remember that far back, keep a notebook. When you give a warning, write it down. Review your notes before each session.

[bluejak]

I am happy with penalising by giving a warning first time, and a PP if there is a recurrence within six months, not just the same session.

 

I still think there is a difference between minor infractions that cause trouble per se and those where trouble is only caused by opponents who do something wrong themselves. Picking up the bidding cards is likely to cause difficulties when the player is not last to bid and I would penalise for it regularly. I would always penalise if partner has yet to call. It also annoys some opponents - me, for example. But calling for cards in a shortened form causes no such difficulty so long as opponents look at the card, and I have never known anyone who seems annoyed by it.

 

To be honest, I am not too terribly worried about fining declarer: it just seems unfair when "everyone" else does the same thing without penalty or warning. I am far more worried about the defender who followed suit to a card not in dummy and any suggestion his card is not an MPC is abhorrent.

[mycroft]

I am concerned with this one; it is unusual in my experience that, short of a "claiming soon", if changing suits, someone will just call the rank becuase it's unique on the dummy. It's technically the same as all our other ways of shortcutting, but this one (again, short of a "claiming soon", and especially with more than about 5 cards on dummy) is likely enough to confuse that I would infer active disinterest in avoiding "advantage play" - not just "I'm sorry to have confused, it's the only one on the board, I thought it was obvious", but "there's a chance they'll misthink and play a club, and that's Just Too Bad, isn't it?" - in a way that the other shortcuts don't usually have.

[barmar]

In my experience, calling a rank because it's unique in dummy is the least used of all the shortcuts, unless there are just a few cards left on the table. On the occasions when it's used, declarer will notice dummy trying to find the card, and clarify "Uhh, club 10".

 

Although that clarification also occurs when calling a card by rank from the same suit as the previous trick, because some novice players don't know the rule that it automatically defaults to the same suit and look confused when declarer just names a card.

[Vampyr]

In my experience, calling a rank because it's unique in dummy is the least used of all the shortcuts, unless there are just a few cards left on the table. On the occasions when it's used, declarer will notice dummy trying to find the card, and clarify "Uhh, club 10".

 

In my experience it is much more common for declarer to simply wait until dummy finds the card.

[bluejak]

Since this came up I have been noticing it. It seems to happen about once or twice a night which is more than I expected and no-one seems to react with any surprise.

[Mbodell]

Yeah, my opponents did this twice tonight. Usually (and both times tonight) it is a honor being named. "Play the Q" or "Play the A" or even "Play the T" under the expectation most people know which of these cards it is.

[jallerton]

I am happy with penalising by giving a warning first time, and a PP if there is a recurrence within six months, not just the same session.

 

I still think there is a difference between minor infractions that cause trouble per se and those where trouble is only caused by opponents who do something wrong themselves. Picking up the bidding cards is likely to cause difficulties when the player is not last to bid and I would penalise for it regularly. I would always penalise if partner has yet to call. It also annoys some opponents - me, for example. But calling for cards in a shortened form causes no such difficulty so long as opponents look at the card, and I have never known anyone who seems annoyed by it.

 

I find this practice annoying, when I am dummy and my hand is on lead. I am sometimes dozing, trying to use up as little mental energy as possible, so if partner calls for "ten" when dummy is on lead I have to work out which ten he means.

 

Of course, when dummy is following suit, it's totally normal to call for just the rank, and I can't see why this would even merit a warning. Indeed in practice, there is sometimes an advantage in not naming every single card: with tables at some clubs and tournaments being quite close together, the less information that can be heard from neighbouring tables, the better.

[aguahombre]

I find this practice annoying, when I am dummy and my hand is on lead. I am sometimes dozing, trying to use up as little mental energy as possible, so if partner calls for "ten" when dummy is on lead I have to work out which ten he means.

Yes, when I declare, disturbing Terry's nap should be ZT.

[barmar]

I guess it makes sense that people would be tolerant of this when it's a unique honor. When viewing a hand, players take most notice of honors, and they also look distinctive, so it's not hard to find the only ace or queen in dummy. Spot cards tend to blend together, so finding "the 5" would be harder. And declarer noticing that a 5 is the only one on the board is also less likely.

[bluejak]

I suppose it is true the practice can annoy dummy. But next hand should be able to work out which ten with very little effort since the card is on the table in front of him. :rolleyes:

[WellSpyder]

One of my partners does this a lot. I think he sees it as a fairly light-hearted way of keeping me on my toes....

[richlp]

One of my partners does this a lot. I think he sees it as a fairly light-hearted way of keeping me on my toes....

 

I do it once every two or three sessions. I see it as a fairly light-hearted way of enjoying the game. I can't

remember ever doing it for something other than an Ace or King but my memory could be flawed.

 

I don't play above the club level any more but I think I would do it in a more serious event as well (I like to

have fun regardless of the level of event - especially when I'm playing up and getting killed). If it caused

any problems for my opponents (even careless ones as was the case here) I would apologize and waive any penalty.