[jallerton]

I said "might not" partly because it is debatable whether declarer's irregularity caused the major penalty card. In this case, many would argue that the main cause of the major penalty card was the defender's failure to pay attention. It's not clear to me why declarer's irregularity of calling for "ten" was the major contributing factor. On the other hand, if declarer had called for a "club" at a point where dummy did not have any clubs left, then the defender's action of "following" with a club would seem more understandable.

[jallerton]

As has already been pointed out, there are two infractions in this case. The declarer committed the first infraction and this is explained in Law 46.

Quote

LAW 46: INCOMPLETE OR ERRONEOUS CALL OF A CARD FROM DUMMY
A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card
When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.
B. IncompleteorErroneousCall
In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):
1. (a) If declarer in playing from dummy calls ‘high’, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the highest card.
(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick.
© If he calls ‘low’, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card.
2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.
3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit:
(a) In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.
(b) In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played declarer must designate which is intended.
4. If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.
5. If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy.

As I understand it, Law 46A tells us that calling for "ten" was an infraction, whilst Law 46B describes the appropriate rectification. In this case Law 46B3(b) applies, so the rectification is that the ten which was still in dummy's hand at stage is the card which has deemed to have been played.

Looking elsewhere in the Law Book I note Law 12B2:

Quote

Law 12B2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

This would seem to prevent the TD from applying, for example., Law 23 to this situation.

In respect of the defender's infraction, the normal major penalty card rules apply, as has already been noted.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2014-April-19, 08:05, said:

This would seem to prevent the TD from applying, for example., Law 23 to this situation.

Well, no. If Law 23 applies, you apply it. If it does not apply, you don't. What 12B2 says is that you can't just adjust the score because you think the rectification wasn't good enough, or because you think it was too harsh.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-April-18, 17:35, said:

The fact that declarer's failure to state clearly the rank and denomination of the card for which he's calling is a common infraction makes it no less an infraction (see Law 46A) and hence the declarer no less an offender. Should such behavior be discouraged? One would think so

But if the lawmakers really wanted to discourage it, they would have made it a MUST, not a SHOULD. Since it's just a SHOULD, we mostly just pay lip service to it, we don't enforce it strictly with penalties.

But what SHOULD allows us to to is selectively penalize in situations where the infraction actually caused some difficulty. You could even reason that if it causes enough of a problem that the players felt the need to call the TD, then it's serious enough to penalize.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-April-19, 20:20, said:

But if the lawmakers really wanted to discourage it, they would have made it a MUST, not a SHOULD. Since it's just a SHOULD, we mostly just pay lip service to it, we don't enforce it strictly with penalties.

But what SHOULD allows us to to is selectively penalize in situations where the infraction actually caused some difficulty. You could even reason that if it causes enough of a problem that the players felt the need to call the TD, then it's serious enough to penalize.

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

In this case it did cause a problem.

[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]

blackshoe, on 2014-April-20, 05:10, said:

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?

Quote

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]

barmar, on 2014-April-21, 08:52, said:

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]

Bbradley62, on 2014-April-21, 15:23, said:

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]

barmar, on 2014-April-22, 09:44, said:

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

Good. That was my intention.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-April-22, 09:44, said:

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]

barmar, on 2014-April-23, 10:41, said:

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.