[Cascade]

skaeran, on Feb 19 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

Both sides are equally responsible for calling the TD after an irregularity. To get the correct ruling and protect themselves from doing other mistakes.

I know it's been pretty normal for TDs to tell players to take up a "penalty card" lying on a table when (s)he hasn't been called. But that's just ridiculous. When you arrive at a table with a defenders card lying there, you obviously have to rule that it's a penalty card from this moment.

So the interesting point is whether the premature lead from penalty card holder's partner will be allowed to stand, become a penalty card or not. And that's just not obvious. Personally I tend to rule on a case_to_case basis here. Normally ruling in favour of the less experienced side. And have a real problem when both sides are equally experienced and when I don't know (I "always" know in Norway, and i very seldom direct abroad).

If both sides are equally responsible then why do you make a ruling in favour of one side based on some arbitary criteria?

[blackshoe]

I would be the last person to advocate any kind of blanket "rule this way" policy. IMO, every ruling should be made on the merits of the case at hand - and even cases which look superficially the same may be different in detail.

Quote

When you arrive at a table with a defenders card lying there, you obviously have to rule that it's a penalty card from this moment.

No, sir. It is not obvious. If it were, no one, including me, would suggest any other ruling.

Quote

I hate hate hate hate hate doing this, whether you legally can or not. What do you gain?? The fact is many bridge players are either too dumb, too inexperienced, or too cocky to follow proper procedure 100% of the time. You may think you give them incentive to call the director next time, but I think it has three larger effects. It will make them not like directors, it will make them be less likely to come back to that club or tournament, and if they DO find themselves in this situation again they won't call the director at the later point either!

Players that are "too inexperienced", and by and large those who are "too dumb" to follow proper procedure are unlikely to draw a PP, even from me. "Cocky" players are another matter.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to tell what in many cases the impact of issuing PPs might be, because we have evolved a culture that deprecates (to say the least!) doing so at all. That's the kind of thing that leads to "zero tolerance" policies when somebody or other finally gets fed up. And ZT is itself a bad idea, if you ask me. Look at the abuses it engenders in other walks of life.

I will continue to point out where the law allows or suggests PPs, particularly where I think one might be appropriate (which would not, as I said, be for a violation of Law 9B1(a)). That does not mean I would actually issue one at the table, since we here do not and cannot have all the information available to the director on scene.

I've been directing, at club level, for a number of years now. In practice, I have yet to issue a PP or DP, although it's been close a time or two.

[Lanor Fow]

In either case (being called before the 10♥ is led or after it has been) I would ask if defenders if they knew the rules regarding lead penalties for MPCs. If either defender doesn't then I rule that the 3♦ is not a penalty card as Blackshoe did.

This means that I am not ruling in the way obvoius to skaeran, but my reason for doing so is that defenders are autherised to know that they have a penalty card (althoguh not what it is, i think, not completly confident on that though), and knowing that there is such a card and there could be lead penalties invoked could have changed the way either defender played.

I have no particular problems with poeple not calling the director for MPCs, but in my opinion having failed to do so you shouldn't then try to impose lead penalties.


If all parties invovled knew about the lead penalties then i'm likely to rule that the 3♦ is a penalty card. As such I will probably rule that a dimond lead is requierd. Whether i determine the 10♥ to be a penalty card is something I would have to decide at the table, and probably quite heavly based on the tempo of the lead. If it was very quick, then then 10 stays on the table. I would also factor experience of both sides into it as well.

[barmar]

Cascade, on Feb 18 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

skaeran, on Feb 19 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

Both sides are equally responsible for calling the TD after an irregularity. To get the correct ruling and protect themselves from doing other mistakes.

I know it's been pretty normal for TDs to tell players to take up a "penalty card" lying on a table when (s)he hasn't been called. But that's just ridiculous. When you arrive at a table with a defenders card lying there, you obviously have to rule that it's a penalty card from this moment.

So the interesting point is whether the premature lead from penalty card holder's partner will be allowed to stand, become a penalty card or not. And that's just not obvious. Personally I tend to rule on a case_to_case basis here. Normally ruling in favour of the less experienced side. And have a real problem when both sides are equally experienced and when I don't know (I "always" know in Norway, and i very seldom direct abroad).

If both sides are equally responsible then why do you make a ruling in favour of one side based on some arbitary criteria?

Presumably because the more experienced side should know better, while the less experienced side may feel intimidated or is simply ignorant of this.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2009, 08:15 PM, said:

I've been directing, at club level, for a number of years now. In practice, I have yet to issue a PP or DP, although it's been close a time or two.

I drive a much harder bargain on the forums than I do in real life as well!