[blackshoe]

We had hoped, David and I, that this forum would not become another blml, but would instead be a place where folks could get practical advice on how the laws should be applied. I guess the hope was in vain.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-04, 18:02, said:

We had hoped, David and I, that this forum would not become another blml, but would instead be a place where folks could get practical advice on how the laws should be applied. I guess the hope was in vain.

Isn't the most practical approach considering what the players will actually do, though?

[blackshoe]

Not if what they're actually doing is illegal, unless you're of the school that (apparently) believes that "it's a game; if the players do something outside the rules, change the rules to match what they do".

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-04, 18:23, said:

Not if what they're actually doing is illegal, unless you're of the school that (apparently) believes that "it's a game; if the players do something outside the rules, change the rules to match what they do".

No, but declarer playing prematurely is something players will see once in a great while, and as I think David mentioned, they might not know it is an infraction (if it even is). It would be surprising for the director to be called. How are you suggesting conducting the player education concerning something that happens very rarely and never (except, so far, once in the entire world) causes a problem. By punishing the NOS once declarer produces a new card? I guess it doesn't matter, since this is something few people will experience in their lifetime. I still disagree with the approach though.

[blackshoe]

My apologies. We had, I thought, strayed from the OP, and I interpreted your #42 to be general, in response to my general comment in #41, rather than specific to the scenario in the OP.

[Zelandakh]

Could I perhaps just get things straight here because I have a real issue with the ruling as seems to be given here.

Declarer (legally) plays a card.
Defender points out previous trick is still in progress.
Declarer (illegally) withdraws card played.
Defender does nothing.
Defender quits trick.
Declarer (illegally?) plays a different card.
Defender calls Director.

Apparently it is being rules here that the inactivity between the withdrawal and the quitting means the loss of rights under Law 11. Since when has doing nothing whatsoever been classified as "Takes any action"? This is imho absurd. It is the card play equivalent of the auction 1♠ - 4♥ - (Stop) 3♠ where 4th seat is now deemed to have accepted the 3♠ IB by pausing for 10 seconds before pointing it out. Is there a time limit on other irregularities too? If so, where can I read about this in the Laws? The original card needs to be played and, as an opponent, I would regard the attempt be declarer to change the card as a valid reason to be as SB-like as I liked in any future meetings with them.

[barmar]

The people claiming that the NOS took action seem to consider quitting the trick to be said action. Declarer's first irregularity was picking up the card, so the TD should have been called at that time.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-March-30, 09:37, said:

But are players really expected to memorize all the actions that are irregularities? And if you don't know, or even suspect, that something is an irregularity, you're not going to feel a need to call a TD. As someone said, if you're not sure, call -- but in this case they probably weren't "not sure", so they didn't see the need.

I'm a student of the Laws, but I admit that I didn't remember that taking back the card is an irregularity, and would not have batted an eye at declarer's initial action. As with the OP, it's only when a different card appears when he replays that I'd have a problem.

barmar, on 2012-April-17, 09:48, said:

Declarer's first irregularity was picking up the card, so the TD should have been called at that time.

O.K., everything is clear, now.

[barmar]

Just to be clear, I was describing the rationale of the people saying that the NOS took action and may have lost their right to restitution, I wasn't actually agreeing with it.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-April-17, 10:04, said:

Just to be clear, I was describing the rationale of the people saying that the NOS took action and may have lost their right to restitution, I wasn't actually agreeing with it.

Good. Because it seems to me that in real life the NOS will not call the director, as they will not even realise that an irregularity has taken place until declarer changes his card.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-04, 18:23, said:

Not if what they're actually doing is illegal, unless you're of the school that (apparently) believes that "it's a game; if the players do something outside the rules, change the rules to match what they do".

Sometimes that's the right solution. If a rule is arbitrary, and what the players actually do doesn't make the game worse (and possibly makes it better), why not change the rule to satisfy the players?

The Laws are not set in stone, they weren't handed down by an infallible authority.

[blackshoe]

I always thought Edgar was widely believed to be infallible - or nearly so.

I do understand your point, and I agree, with the caveat that changing the rules to suit the players isn't always the right way to go (a point you also made) — and it is certainly not the way to go for a TD at the table.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-April-18, 09:37, said:

Sometimes that's the right solution. If a rule is arbitrary, and what the players actually do doesn't make the game worse (and possibly makes it better), why not change the rule to satisfy the players?

What one person sees as an obvious improvement, another person thinks makes it worse or is unnecessary.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-April-25, 08:06, said:

What one person sees as an obvious improvement, another person thinks makes it worse or is unnecessary.

Of course, it's hard to please everyone. I'm sure there were many who objected when they changed the scoring for doubled undertricks.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-April-25, 10:33, said:

Of course, it's hard to please everyone. I'm sure there were many who objected when they changed the scoring for doubled undertricks.

It certainly changed Bridge. I liked the switch, because we were in the fuddy-duddy camp even when younger. But, under the old scoring, there was some interesting mixed strategy available to the strong side when red vs. white.

Semi-bluffing to collect 700-1100 vs 650 was fun when successful, and embarrassing when they didn't bite.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-25, 11:29, said:

It certainly changed Bridge. I liked the switch, because we were in the fuddy-duddy camp even when younger. But, under the old scoring, there was some interesting mixed strategy available to the strong side when red vs. white.

Semi-bluffing to collect 700-1100 vs 650 was fun when successful, and embarrassing when they didn't bite.

The main problem with the old scoring for doubled undertricks white was that against red you only needed two tricks to safely sacrifice against any grand (except 7NT of course)!

It was felt that this too often simply made a joke of the game.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2012-April-25, 13:46, said:

The main problem with the old scoring for doubled undertricks white was that against red you only needed two tricks to safely sacrifice against any grand (except 7NT of course)!

It was felt that this too often simply made a joke of the game.

Yes, that is true. I was commenting on extensions from that fact and the counter-games the red side used to play. That scoring change, and one other (to combat striped tail ape doubles) were definitely good things.