[blackshoe]

So let me get this straight. If a player commits an infraction where he does not do something the law says he "must" do, for which the law says a PP should be issued "more often than not", you will not issue a PP unless (1) you have already told the player to do what the law says he must, and (2) he apparently deliberately and intentionally ignores your instruction. Further, the PP will be for violation of 90B8, not the original infraction. Is that right? If so, what happened to "the TD is bound by these laws"?

It sounds an awful lot like you're saying "whatever the law says, my thirty years of experience says different, so I'm not going to do what the law tells me to do".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-08, 09:18, said:

So let me get this straight. If a player commits an infraction where he does not do something the law says he "must" do, for which the law says a PP should be issued "more often than not", you will not issue a PP unless (1) you have already told the player to do what the law says he must, and (2) he apparently deliberately and intentionally ignores your instruction. Further, the PP will be for violation of 90B8, not the original infraction. Is that right? If so, what happened to "the TD is bound by these laws"?

It sounds an awful lot like you're saying "whatever the law says, my thirty years of experience says different, so I'm not going to do what the law tells me to do".

You must have overlooked the most important part of my comment?

Let me put it this way: In many situations I deliberately rule differently in an ordinary club event from how I rule in a national championship. (And in general I am more lenient in the former, except that I shall never knowingly compromize the interests of an NOS.)

[gnasher]

The way the question is phrased, the answer is "not necessarily". For the non-offenders to be entiled to redress, the infraction must have caused or contributed to the misdefence.

By the way, most of the (now 118) messages on the Facebook page are discussing a different question - how to restore equity and/or penalise the offender.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2011-July-08, 11:04, said:

The way the question is phrased, the answer is "not necessarily". For the non-offenders to be entiled to redress, the infraction must have caused or contributed to the misdefence.

By the way, most of the (now 118) messages on the Facebook page are discussing a different question - how to restore equity and/or penalise the offender.

What is the URL of the Facebook page? Can people who are not on Facebook read it/post on it?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-July-08, 10:17, said:

You must have overlooked the most important part of my comment?

Let me put it this way: In many situations I deliberately rule differently in an ordinary club event from how I rule in a national championship. (And in general I am more lenient in the former, except that I shall never knowingly compromize the interests of an NOS.)

Which part of which comment was that?

I don't have a problem with ruling differently at different levels. I don't have a problem with "education is more important at club level than penalizing". I do have a problem with "at clubs, we do not issue PPs except in very rare cases" (most of which seem to be "the player didn't do what I told him to").

If, at a club, I was ruling on a case where a player didn't do something the law says he "must" do, I would tell him that the law says he must do whatever it is, and if I get called again because he didn't do it, I will issue a PP for the failure to do what he must do, not for failing to do what I told him. And if I do get called again, having told him that, I will issue a PP. For a lot of club players, "if you do that at a tournament you will get a PP" does no good, either because they don't care ("I don't play at tournaments") or because they don't believe it (whether it's true or not).

As far as most of the club TDs around here are concerned, there's no such thing as a PP. I think we need to get away from that attitude.

I am happy to explain to players that the laws assign, by their wording, a hierarchy of when a PP should be applied ("should do" will rarely get one, "must do" will most often get one). This should be true at clubs just as much as it is at tournaments, even though we are generally more lenient, in favor of education at clubs. I also think that if TDs are fair and objective about when and why they give PPs, they will find that their fears about players leaving the club in droves will have been unfounded. <shrug> Maybe I'd believe differently if I owned a club, but I doubt it.

[mycroft]

David, thanks. That's very useful.

Where I was going with that was, of course, that the "slow play penalties" for "exceeding the time limit for the match" are regulations made under that law, and therefore behaviour that leads to such a penalty is in fact an "irregularity per se" in matches played under those regulations - which affects your initial Facebook response.

Where that leads us in the full discussion, of course, is very little.

[aguahombre]

All this diversion about slow play being an irregularity does not coincide with what the OP originally gave us.

Although there was plenty of time on the clock, Dummy attempted to rush the defenders. At the level of players also given in the OP, what this would lead me to believe is that not only "could dummy have known" that what he was doing might disconcert the opps into an error, but also increases the likelihood that it was his intent (which I could not prove).

[AlexJonson]

I would think that if it is the heinous dummy that is causing the problem, either defender could call the TD if they feel themselves innocent practitioners of legitimate thought.

They might tell the TD that they were 'upset' and might need a later adjustment. It would of course be a matter of TD judgement how upset they were.

Sometimes we refer to chess, and there was a famously reported incident from the 1930s(?) Player A complains his oppo's smoking is putting him off. The arbiter persuades B to not smoke at the table. Later A calls the arbiter because he can sense that B wants to smoke, and it is putting him off.

While I am aware of and accustomed to the rules restricting dummy, I'm very surprised at how emotional poeple feel about it:

'Dummmy must not ...' - was this not aimed against dummy suggesting plays to the declarer, rather than making (doubtless unacceptable) comments to the defenders about their pace of play, the cut of their jackets, or whatever.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-08, 11:53, said:

Which part of which comment was that?

I said:

Count me in: At club level I hardly ever give PP, but be sure that I tell the offender they must never do whatever it was that they did: "It will result in a significant penalty in a more serious event".

At this level I consider education much more called for than penalties.

(True I didn't explicitly specify how I react when a player deliberatly disobeys my instructions)

blackshoe, on 2011-July-08, 11:53, said:

I don't have a problem with ruling differently at different levels. I don't have a problem with "education is more important at club level than penalizing". I do have a problem with "at clubs, we do not issue PPs except in very rare cases" (most of which seem to be "the player didn't do what I told him to").

If, at a club, I was ruling on a case where a player didn't do something the law says he "must" do, I would tell him that the law says he must do whatever it is, and if I get called again because he didn't do it, I will issue a PP for the failure to do what he must do, not for failing to do what I told him. And if I do get called again, having told him that, I will issue a PP. For a lot of club players, "if you do that at a tournament you will get a PP" does no good, either because they don't care ("I don't play at tournaments") or because they don't believe it (whether it's true or not).

It appears to me that we say precisely the same, only using different words?

blackshoe, on 2011-July-08, 11:53, said:

As far as most of the club TDs around here are concerned, there's no such thing as a PP. I think we need to get away from that attitude.

I am happy to explain to players that the laws assign, by their wording, a hierarchy of when a PP should be applied ("should do" will rarely get one, "must do" will most often get one). This should be true at clubs just as much as it is at tournaments, even though we are generally more lenient, in favor of education at clubs. I also think that if TDs are fair and objective about when and why they give PPs, they will find that their fears about players leaving the club in droves will have been unfounded. <shrug> Maybe I'd believe differently if I owned a club, but I doubt it.

Agreed

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-08, 11:31, said:

What is the URL of the Facebook page? Can people who are not on Facebook read it/post on it?

You have to be both a member of Facebook, and a Facebook friend of the person who posted it. Anyway, I can promise you that it's not a very interesting discussion.

[blackshoe]

I guess we are on the same page then.

[gnasher]

Regarding dummy's right to say something, what's wrong with this logic?
- The regulations specify when the round should finish
- Finishing the round late is a breach of the regulations
- A breach of the regulations is an infraction, and therefore also an irregularity
- Any player may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2011-July-09, 02:12, said:

Regarding dummy's right to say something, what's wrong with this logic?
- The regulations specify when the round should finish
- Finishing the round late is a breach of the regulations
- A breach of the regulations is an infraction, and therefore also an irregularity
- Any player may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity.

We do generally expect that the players actually be in danger of committing the irregularity before dummy attempts to stop them, and this doesn't seem to have been the case here.

I'm slightly puzzled though that such strong players allow this sort of trivial comment (that could legitimately have been made by declarer) to distract them to the point of mis-defence.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2011-July-09, 03:13, said:

We do generally expect that the players actually be in danger of committing the irregularity before dummy attempts to stop them, and this doesn't seem to have been the case here.

Suppose that the table had actually been short of time. Would it then have been legal for dummy to say something?

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2011-July-09, 10:48, said:

Suppose that the table had actually been short of time. Would it then have been legal for dummy to say something?

Dunno about "legal", but it might change my opinion about dummy's intent as he was saying it

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2011-July-09, 10:48, said:

Suppose that the table had actually been short of time. Would it then have been legal for dummy to say something?

It would at least be consistent with your argument above.

But no, dummy's right to attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity is subject to Laws 42 and 43, which only allow him to try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. I think it's implied in the original post that it was the defenders who were being presented as the cause of the suggested slowness.

In answer to the original question, I don't think the defenders have any redress (and as I've already remarked I'm surprised that top-class players allow themselves to be disturbed by such a mild remark), but I do think dummy's comment might merit a PP.

[gnasher]

I see. When Law 9A3 says "any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)", it actually means "any player except dummy may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity; for dummy's rights see Laws 42 and 43".

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-July-09, 11:42

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2011-July-09, 11:40, said:

I see. When Law 9A3 says "any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)", it actually means "any player except dummy may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity; for dummy's rights see Laws 42 and 43".

That's my understanding of it. Let's see if anyone else reads it differently.

I have had a look in the White Book, and the relevant bits (from Ton Koojman) don't really clarify it to my mind.

[gordontd]

Well, I tried to phone bluejak, mamos & Max Bavin to see what they thought, but none of them were available. I did manage to speak to RMB1 in a taxi on the way to the airport to go to Australia, and we came to the conclusion, comparing it with the previous laws, that it was probably the intention that dummy should be able to try to prevent an irregularity by defenders, but that this hasn't been very clearly expressed in the cross-referencing.

Or maybe you do think it is clear, Andy?

[gnasher]

Quote

Or maybe you do think it is clear, Andy?

I don't think it's "clear" in the sense of being easy to understand. In fact, it's almost a model of obfuscation.

I do, however, think that when you read 9A3, 42 and 43 together, there's only one reasonable interpretation: Law 9A3 doesn't extend dummy's rights beyond what is granted in Law 42, so dummy can't try to prevent an irregularity by a defender.