[nige1]

hautbois, on 2013-December-04, 17:23, said:

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.

Eariler, I wrote

nige1, on 2013-November-26, 09:50, said:

The law shouldn't even bother interpreting illegal designations. It should just insist on <suit> <rank> (unless declarer is handicapped in some way). This would save time and unnecessary hassle.

Anyway, I agree with hautbois that rules and players should continue to make blanket allowances for disabilities.

Whatever the official language, card-designation will be more comprehensible if vocabulary is restricted and elegant variation discouraged.

[aguahombre]

campboy, on 2013-December-04, 17:15, said:

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.

Yes, using an irregularity irregularly should be an irregularity.

I regularly call
for top or small;
in between,
I call what I mean.

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2013-December-04, 17:32, said:

Yes, using an irregularity irregularly should be an irregularity.

But the question is whether using an irregularity regularly should be an irregularity....