[axman]

bluejak, on 2012-December-27, 15:36, said:

It's ok, Gordon, I didn't fall for that one either. When a good player went on after unalerted Bergen and a signoff [and was surprised to receive a PP for it ] and I had to put in a fine via Scorebridge, I put a figure in then checked what it did to the score.

Why did I fine him not adjust? Well, his score was 3NT -4, vulnerable: most pairs, including his opponents' team-mates, got 5♣ = the other way - not vulnerable!

I hold as the strongest belief possible that assessment of the PP is independent of its effect upon the rankings/score for a board.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-31, 06:33, said:

Unfortunately if you paid anybody to administer, the entry fees would go up, and nobody would enter where I am (you should hear the grumbles when people turn up for a club night and find it's a "hideously expensive" sim pairs). The fields are small enough that other than our county congress and green point weekends, you rarely get non playing directors and scorers and when you do, they're still unpaid.

I don't particular expect competence at club events, but this was a National final run by an incompetent who was not a TD. I told our captain next year that if it was still going to a final I wanted a guarantee of competence at the final or I was not entering. There will be no final this year.

axman, on 2012-December-31, 09:51, said:

I hold as the strongest belief possible that assessment of the PP is independent of its effect upon the rankings/score for a board.

As do many people, but not me. The purpose of a PP is to discourage infractions. Players how receive an adjustment against them have been discouraged: where there is no adjustment there is no discouragement.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2012-December-31, 09:51, said:

I hold as the strongest belief possible that assessment of the PP is independent of its effect upon the rankings/score for a board.

bluejak, on 2012-December-31, 11:47, said:

As do many people, but not me. The purpose of a PP is to discourage infractions. Players how receive an adjustment against them have been discouraged: where there is no adjustment there is no discouragement.

I don't think these two positions are necessarily in opposition. All Axman is saying, it seems to me, is that if the TD believes a PP is appropriate, the fact that it may lower the contestant's position in the rankings, or may be perceived as lowering the contestant's score on a particular board (which IMO is a misunderstanding of how PPs work) is not relevant to the award of the PP. I don't know whether he would consider a score adjustment, in some or any cases, as sufficient deterrent that a PP is not necessary, but that, IMO, is only a minor detail.

FWIW, I would give more weight to the wording of the law which was infracted, in light of the discussion in the Introduction to the Laws, than to whether the score was adjusted. If a player violates a "should" law, I would rarely issue a PP. If a player violates a "shall" law, I would be inclined to issue a PP but might not if I feel he has been sufficiently warned by the rectification provided. If a player violates a "must" law, I would be disinclined to not give a PP. I do consider a verbal warning ("don't do that again") as a form of PP, to be used generally when the player concerned is inexperienced.

Just for the heck of it, the word "must" is used in some 36 of the 93 laws in the book. The phrase "may not", violation of which is almost as serious as violation of "must", appears in 21.

[Fluffy]

Why people seem so sure that EW will find hearts? only cyeryeti has suggested that double as penalty makes sense.

I play penlaty doubles as standard when partner has shown 1 suiter, specially when he has preempted, here 3♣ maybe is not a pure preempt but is very close.

I think East might double a diamond contract on pure power, so 3♦X and 4♦X are also logical endings for the hand.