[pran]

campboy, on 2013-December-03, 10:17, said:

Currently the laws make calling for "small" an irregularity. But virtually everyone does it all the time. In what sense is this not a problem? Now it is true that the issue could be (and is) dealt with by everyone pretending the law says something different, but this "solution" just seems inferior to changing the law to actually say what everyone acts as though it already says.

It is no more irregularity than calling for "high", "Top", denomination named without a rank and so on, and it leads to no more problem than do calls out of turn, penalty cards and a lot of other irregularities for which the laws have clear-cut prescribed reactions for the Director to apply.

I am not aware of any situation where any of those irregularities cause any problem, so why insisting on making it up?

When a player calls for a "small" he has played the lowest ranking card available and that's it - period.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-December-03, 16:10, said:

It is no more irregularity than calling for "high", "Top", denomination named without a rank and so on, and it leads to no more problem than do calls out of turn, penalty cards and a lot of other irregularities for which the laws have clear-cut prescribed reactions for the Director to apply.

I am not aware of any situation where any of those irregularities cause any problem, so why insisting on making it up?

When a player calls for a "small" he has played the lowest ranking card available and that's it - period.

Fine, but a lot of us think that it should not be defined as an irregularity, and therefore potentially subject to penalry.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-December-03, 16:18, said:

Fine, but a lot of us think that it should not be defined as an irregularity, and therefore potentially subject to penalry.

Your objection is with the use of "should" in Law 46, then. See the first post in this thread.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-December-03, 16:22, said:

Your objection is with the use of "should" in Law 46, then. See the first post in this thread.

Yes, something like "declarer may state the suit and rank of the card, or may otherwise indicate, unambiguously, which card he wants played to the trick."

Can the Law even mean that it is an irregularity not to name the suit when dummy has cards in the suit of the trick in progress?

[pran]

pran, on 2013-December-03, 16:10, said:

It is no more irregularity than calling for "high", "Top", denomination named without a rank and so on, and it leads to no more problem than do calls out of turn, penalty cards and a lot of other irregularities for which the laws have clear-cut prescribed reactions for the Director to apply.

I am not aware of any situation where any of those irregularities cause any problem, so why insisting on making it up?

When a player calls for a "small" he has played the lowest ranking card available and that's it - period.

Vampyr, on 2013-December-03, 16:18, said:

Fine, but a lot of us think that it should not be defined as an irregularity, and therefore potentially subject to penalry.

blackshoe, on 2013-December-03, 16:22, said:

Your objection is with the use of "should" in Law 46, then. See the first post in this thread.

Be aware that if this objection is to be taken seriously it must apply, not only to Law 46 but to every law in the book that defines irregularities with clear and unambiguous specifications for the respective reaction and/or rectification.

Even violations of laws that use the word "must" (e.g. Law 44C) are usually not penalized.

So I repeat my question: What is the problem with Law 46?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-December-03, 16:53, said:

Be aware that if this objection is to be taken seriously it must apply, not only to Law 46 but to every law in the book that defines irregularities with clear and unambiguous specifications for the respective reaction and/or rectification.

No one has suggested this.

Quote

So I repeat my question: What is the problem with Law 46?

A number of people have answered this question. You find the answers unsatisfactory. I don't think that asking again will net you an answer you like better.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-December-03, 16:26, said:

Can the Law even mean that it is an irregularity not to name the suit when dummy has cards in the suit of the trick in progress?

Yes, it can.

[pran]

pran, on 2013-December-03, 16:10, said:

It is no more irregularity than calling for "high", "Top", denomination named without a rank and so on, and it leads to no more problem than do calls out of turn, penalty cards and a lot of other irregularities for which the laws have clear-cut prescribed reactions for the Director to apply.

I am not aware of any situation where any of those irregularities cause any problem, so why insisting on making it up?

When a player calls for a "small" he has played the lowest ranking card available and that's it - period.

Vampyr, on 2013-December-03, 16:18, said:

Fine, but a lot of us think that it should not be defined as an irregularity, and therefore potentially subject to penalry.

No irregularity is in itself potentially subject to penalty like it was before 1987.

Be aware that before 1987 the laws did not distinguish between "penalty" and "rectification", they were both "penalties".

While "penalty" in 1987 was changed to "rectification" in the various laws the corresponding change was not made in the introduction to the laws.

Any director who acknowledges that "penalty" and "penalized" in the introduction is a generic term referring to all kinds of rectifications or penalties will not have any problem of the kind discussed here.

For the benefit of others the relevant part of the introduction could be rewritten to read:

should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often resulting in rectification

[Vampyr]

It seems a lot simpler to remove the word "should" from one Law than to change the definition (to something not good enough anyway) given to the word in the Laws.

[campboy]

Even if something is only a "should" instruction, that just means you would not normally penalise a single incident. Law 7C is a "should" instruction; if someone does not shuffle his cards you warn him a couple of times and then start penalising him. (And no, "rectification" and "penalty" are not the same thing. See the definitions in the laws. "Penalty" means either a procedural penalty or a disciplinary penalty, and is "additional to any rectification".)

"Not often penalised" does not mean "not penalised even if someone does it 50 times a session".

[pran]

campboy, on 2013-December-04, 05:38, said:

Even if something is only a "should" instruction, that just means you would not normally penalise a single incident. Law 7C is a "should" instruction; if someone does not shuffle his cards you warn him a couple of times and then start penalising him. (And no, "rectification" and "penalty" are not the same thing. See the definitions in the laws. "Penalty" means either a procedural penalty or a disciplinary penalty, and is "additional to any rectification".)

"Not often penalised" does not mean "not penalised even if someone does it 50 times a session".

Did you read and understand my note?

Before 1987 a penalty was either (and most often) what after 1987 became rectification, a procedure penalty or a diciplinary penalty.

This distinction between penalty and rectification was not introduced in the introduction to the laws, there "penalty" remained the collective noun for all three types of reactions to an irregularity.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-December-04, 05:47, said:

Did you read and understand my note?

Before 1987 a penalty was either (and most often) what after 1987 became rectification, a procedure penalty or a diciplinary penalty.

This distinction between penalty and rectification was not introduced in the introduction to the laws, there "penalty" remained the collective noun for all three types of reactions to an irregularity.

I don't think that anyone is arguing this point, or cares.

[pran]

pran, on 2013-December-04, 05:47, said:

Did you read and understand my note?

Before 1987 a penalty was either (and most often) what after 1987 became rectification, a procedure penalty or a diciplinary penalty.

This distinction between penalty and rectification was not introduced in the introduction to the laws, there "penalty" remained the collective noun for all three types of reactions to an irregularity.

Vampyr, on 2013-December-04, 05:51, said:

I don't think that anyone is arguing this point, or cares.

I think that is crucial for correctly understanding today's laws reference to "penalized" in the introduction to the laws.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-December-04, 06:38, said:

I think that is crucial for correctly understanding today's laws reference to "penalized" in the introduction to the laws.

Right. This discussion is about whether the correct procedure for designating a card from dummy should be expanded.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-December-04, 04:25, said:

No irregularity is in itself potentially subject to penalty like it was before 1987.

Be aware that before 1987 the laws did not distinguish between "penalty" and "rectification", they were both "penalties".

While "penalty" in 1987 was changed to "rectification" in the various laws the corresponding change was not made in the introduction to the laws.

Any director who acknowledges that "penalty" and "penalized" in the introduction is a generic term referring to all kinds of rectifications or penalties will not have any problem of the kind discussed here.

For the benefit of others the relevant part of the introduction could be rewritten to read:

should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often resulting in rectification

Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn what the laws said before 1987. I care what they say now, and now they differentiate between rectifications and penalties. The two are not the same, and the definitions in the introduction have nothing to do with rectifications.

[nige1]

campboy, on 2013-December-03, 10:17, said:

Currently the laws make calling for "small" an irregularity. But virtually everyone does it all the time. In what sense is this not a problem? Now it is true that the issue could be (and is) dealt with by everyone pretending the law says something different, but this "solution" just seems inferior to changing the law to actually say what everyone acts as though it already says.

A radical option would be to persuade players and directors to obey the law, as written. There are other rules (about stop-cards, prematurely picking up pass cards, etc..) that are regularly broken and rarely cause a problem. Sometimes, however, they do cause a problem. This usually just results in annoyance and frustration. Players are reluctant to call the director and directors are reluctant to rectify damage because infractions are so widespread and so frequently condoned. All this nonsense can be avoided by clarifying and simplifying the law. For example, by omitting daft legal "interpretations" for irregularities which just encourage infraction. Thus, If the laws stipulated "suit and rank" as the only permitted designation then declarer would soon learn to avoid woolly terms like "small" or "spade" or "finesse", "win" or whatever. In the long term, it would save time and hassle.

Of course, there is a good counter-argument that the law should forbid "suit and rank" designations and mandate "small", "top", "finesse", "ruff" or whatever -- to avoid providing gratuitous unauthorised information to adjacent tables.

Anyway, whatever the rules are, IMO, they should be clear, simple and enforced.The last thing players want is yet more sophisticated and incomprehensible rules to disrespect and ignore.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-December-04, 09:29, said:

For example If the laws stipulated "suit" and "rank" as the only permitted designation then declarer would soon learn not to use woolly terms like "small" or "spade" or "finesse", "win" or whatever and a it would save time and hassle.

"Finesse" and "win" are very poor, but the others... how would the Law be enforced -- by having a director standing at every table? People can name the rank and suit every time, if they wanted to. Clearly they don't want to. Is somehow forcing them to do so good for the game?

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-December-04, 09:33, said:

"Finesse" and "win" are very poor, but the others... how would the Law be enforced -- by having a director standing at every table? People can name the rank and suit every time, if they wanted to. Clearly they don't want to. Is somehow forcing them to do so good for the game?

On the whole, players are happy to comply with simple clear rules.

Here, If the rule were simpler and clearer, I hope dummy and defenders would be less willing to condone declarer's infraction.

Just as at present, there might be problems. With simpler clearer rules, players would be aware of their legal recourse. And players like Vampyr wouldn't have to put up with some of the designations that they dislike.

[campboy]

I for one am not happy to comply with rules which inconvenience everybody for no purpose other than to save the people who write the rules some work. There is absolutely no benefit to players from making "small" an irregularity. If a player gains an advantage by varying the manner in which he calls for cards from dummy, we can deal with that under other existing laws.

[hautbois]

Please consider the deaf and hard-of-hearing and other scenarios where the card is neither touched nor called from dummy in a language understood by opponents.