Law 45C4(b) again - calling "small" or "play" on lead from dummy

[lamford]

I don't think "small" designates a rank, so it is just an incomplete designation when dummy is leading. It is covered adequately when dummy is following.

[nige1]

The trends begun in the 2007 Revision have been continued - the increased discretion given to Tournament Directors, the attempts to rectify a situation rather than to penalise, and maintaining the position of Regulating Authorities. It is not expected that the Code herein will last indefinitely (indeed right up to the time of publication there were still ongoing discussions on certain laws) but the framework is there, tried and tested, for future editions

The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.

Sven nails a root problem with the laws of Bridge: The WBF confines its responsibility to restoring what it calls "Equity" and then devolves those powers to directors and regulators. Endless cheating scandals are just one consequence of eschewing deterrence..

[blackshoe]

"Just an incomplete designation"? So what do we do with it, according to which law(s)?

[pran]

Sven nails a root problem with the laws of Bridge: The WBF confines its responsibility to restoring what it calls "Equity" and then devolves those powers to directors and regulators. Endless cheating scandals are just one consequence of eschewing deterrence..

With the 2007 laws

Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and

experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the

increased responsibilities given to them.

[Vampyr]

Agree. the problem would rapidly disappear If players called the director for each play infraction by declarer; and the director imposed escalating procedural penalties.

 

Would it be the problem which “rapidly disappeared”, or the players?

[barmar]

Maybe what we need are different levels of laws depending on how "serious" the event is, similar to the way we have different convention charts for different types of competitions.

 

So 46B would be in effect in less formal events like club games, but would not be allowed in major championships.

[sanst]

Maybe what we need are different levels of laws depending on how "serious" the event is, similar to the way we have different convention charts for different types of competitions.

 

So 46B would be in effect in less formal events like club games, but would not be allowed in major championships.

AFAIK no sport has rules that differ dependent on the level of players. Besides, what would be the point where the changes take place? Playing on my club I have a set rules that allow some infractions, but when I meet some of the same players at a regional of national event we have to deal with a prohibition?

Usually at clubs over here all kinds of infractions are made without the director being called. A change of call or play by the declarer is hardly ever a problem, some even ‘solve’ a revoke by changing the played card a few tricks back without anybody protesting. I’ve even encountered players who didn’t think it odd to open the auction with a double “because I’ve no 5 card”. These are the kind of players who consider calling a director as more or less an accusation of cheating. I don’t care, if they have a nice afternoon or evening of a game they call bridge, it’s okay with me, but at my table and at the level I’m usually playing we stick more rigidly to the Laws. It works, so why change it? The players I wrote about would still play the game their way, without director, however simplified the Laws are for their sake.

[pescetom]

AFAIK no sport has rules that differ dependent on the level of players.

I can think of some exceptions, but not many: tennis plays 5 sets in professional grand slams only, cycling specifies different lengths of time trial for different levels, athletics allows women in mass races to run with the men at most levels but not at olympic level, things like that.

 

Usually at clubs over here all kinds of infractions are made without the director being called. A change of call or play by the declarer is hardly ever a problem, some even ‘solve’ a revoke by changing the played card a few tricks back without anybody protesting.

...

These are the kind of players who consider calling a director as more or less an accusation of cheating.

But this is the fault of bridge as a whole. It's far too easy to put the blame on the players and say things cannot be changed. There are mediocre people playing every other sport too, but they still know the rules, expect to pay a price if they break them, and don't feel they are accused of cheating if the opponent points out to the referee that the ball was out or whatever.

[sanst]

I can think of some exceptions, but not many: tennis plays 5 sets in professional grand slams only, cycling specifies different lengths of time trial for different levels, athletics allows women in mass races to run with the men at most levels but not at olympic level, things like that.

In many sports there are changes possible in the way the game or whatever you want to call it is played. Youngsters at football play in a field about a quarter of the size of that of the adults etcetera. But the rules about infractions are the same for all.

[barmar]

AFAIK no sport has rules that differ dependent on the level of players.

I was thinking of something like "mulligans" in golf. But upon research, I see that they're not allowed in the rules, so no formal game would have them. But casual players allow them because they simply ignore this rule for expediency. This would be like kitchen-table bridge versus club and tournament duplicate.

[pescetom]

I was thinking of something like "mulligans" in golf. But upon research, I see that they're not allowed in the rules, so no formal game would have them. But casual players allow them because they simply ignore this rule for expediency. This would be like kitchen-table bridge versus club and tournament duplicate.

Sounds much like the BBO 'undo' function to me B-)