[Vampyr]

 sfi, on 2015-January-05, 14:36, said:

I don't agree that the question warrants a penalty, but that's probably because I ascribe different motives to it. If the question is intended to focus leader's attention on the club suit, then I would agree.

I don't really care about the motive; I think that asking questions before partner has selected a lead is a serious enough offence to warrant a PP, especially since it started the whole unpleasant incident.

[Bbradley62]

So, the consensus appears to be: result stands, with possible penalties for both North and East.

[sfi]

 Vampyr, on 2015-January-05, 14:58, said:

I don't really care about the motive; I think that asking questions before partner has selected a lead is a serious enough offence to warrant a PP, especially since it started the whole unpleasant incident.

Even if the discussion continued:

East: It's not your lead.
North: Sorry.

You'd still assign a PP? Because that sort of thing happens all the time.

In this scenario, North committed two infractions - asking out of turn and asking about a specific bid rather than the entire auction. Even so, I would guess the situation occurs at least once a session. That's a lot of procedural penalties, especially given that I have never seen one actually being given.

[Vampyr]

 sfi, on 2015-January-05, 15:17, said:

You'd still assign a PP? Because that sort of thing happens all the time.

But this time it caused a problem.

[jillybean]

 sfi, on 2015-January-05, 14:36, said:

I don't agree that the question warrants a penalty, but that's probably because I ascribe different motives to it. If the question is intended to focus leader's attention on the club suit, then I would agree.

Intent should have no bearing at all.

[pran]

cancelled - there must havde been some forum mixup here

[Vampyr]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-05, 15:37, said:

Intent should have no bearing at all.

That's not true; if it can be proven that North was trying to draw partner's attention to clubs, then a lot more than a PP is required.

Some education at this table and this club about the role of the director would be a good idea.

[jillybean]

I should have seen that coming.

[Trinidad]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-05, 15:37, said:

Intent should have no bearing at all.

?!?
Any educator will tell you that you need to reward or penalize intent and not the consequences of an action, for the simple reason that people in a learning phase, usually children, but also bridge players, have an influence on their intents but not on the consequences of their actions because they can't see them or can't control them. Intent is why there is a big difference in the punishment for premeditated murder and negligent homicide, even if the consequence is the same.

Educators will tell you that when a child wants to help you with cleaning and grabs a dirty, greasy rag to "clean" your expensive carpet, ruining it in the process, you will need to reward it for helping. In practice, of course, often the child gets penalized for ruining the carpet. (Parents are only human.)

On the other hand, parents rarely penalize their children for throwing a peanutbutter-jelly sandwich on that carpet, as long as the sandwich happens to land with the peanut butter and jelly on top. The punishment comes when the kid does it again 5 minutes later when it lands upside down. Same action, same intent, different consequences and, since real parents are imperfect, different punishments. But if you want the child to behave, you will have to punish it after the first thrown sandwich, regardless of how it lands.

Intent has no bearing on liability. Everybody is liable for the consequences of their actions. And in bridge liability is dealt with by adjusted scores. Penalties are meant to correct behavior, by making sure that the misbehaver will not have the intent to misbehave again. This simple sentence shows that it is not very effective to punish someone for something he did but never intended to do.

Rik

[jillybean]

Very interesting but am still not sure what intent has to do with applying bridge laws. There is no mention of intent that I can see in the laws, there is no premeditated or negligent extraneous information, and I imagine, for a good a reason.

[snip] people in a learning phase, usually children, but also bridge players

I think you may have misunderstood the context , this occured during an open game, the player has 1800 master points and I would hope and expect players who have amassed this number of master points in live games would have learned how to conduct themselves at the table. If the player had 50 points in the BCD game I should still call the director and the director would apply the laws as he sees fit but perhaps not as he would in an open game.

The laws talk about rectification and restoring equity, which if you decide here that there was no alternative to the club lead, there is no rectification. Unless the director sees fit to apply a penalty, there is no "punishment" but I assume the director may see fit to apply a penalty for subsequent infractions. (Penalties of any kind are very very rarely., if ever handed out here)

The problem may be like a lazy parent, players often overlook this type of infraction or correct it themselves. Now we have these 50MP players growing up to be 1800MP players who are still unaware of how to conduct themselves at the table. The response I got when I brought attention to the infraction was "everyone does it", in that case perhaps the laws should be changed.

[Vampyr]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-06, 00:02, said:

Very interesting but am still not sure what intent has to do with applying bridge laws.

It matters in a variety of rulings, but unfortunately determining intent often requires mind reading.

Quote

The response I got when I brought attention to the infraction was "everyone does it", in that case perhaps the laws should be changed.

"Everyone" does not do it. If the laws were changed to conform to the club in the OP, we would have a very zany and ineffective Lawbook.

[sfi]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-05, 15:37, said:

Intent should have no bearing at all.

There is no requirement for the director to assign a procedural penalty (Law 90 says the director may do so). It seems to me that intent should be the primary determining factor in the decision about whether or not to do so, but I may be out of step with current thinking on this point. As I said, I've never seen anyone actually receive a PP, so I don't know when good directors around here would apply them.

As a first step in the actual situation, how about the director simply point out that North should not be asking questions when it is not that turn to lead. And then point out that anyone asking about the auction should ask about the entire auction.

This requires two things though - that the director actually know the rules and how to apply them, and that players call the director at the appropriate time. Without these two things, it is hard for players to learn correct procedure.

I still see your comment as a far more flagrant violation than North's action, no matter how much it was intended in jest.

[campboy]

While a PP might be reasonable if North was aware that partner was on lead, I think it would be quite inappropriate if he asked the question because he thought it was his lead. And it is not an infraction to ask (at an appropriate time) about a specific call -- Law 20F3 permits this.

[sfi]

 campboy, on 2015-January-06, 03:07, said:

And it is not an infraction to ask (at an appropriate time) about a specific call -- Law 20F3 permits this.

Indeed it does. This seems to have been changed in the last update.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2015-January-06, 01:01, said:

It matters in a variety of rulings, but unfortunately determining intent often requires mind reading.

Indeed it does. But what you describe as "mind reading" is not as impossible as you imply. Anybody with some empathy, decent people skills, an investigative, open mind and the capacity and willingness to listen can draw large amounts of conclusions about other people's thought processes.

And that is one of the reasons why good TDs (and judges) have exactly these characteristics.

Rik

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2015-January-06, 01:01, said:

...but unfortunately determining intent often requires mind reading

IMO the laws of a game should rely on mind-reading as little as possible. For example, if a defender asks about a specific suit-bid while his partner is deciding what to lead, then intent may be important. The asker might innocently think that he is on lead -- or he might be trying to prevent or suggest the lead of that suit. (For simplicity, assume, as here, that the normal lead is CA, and there is no LA). For mind-reading directors, like Trinidad, this presents no problem but for most directors it does. Even if the director is sure that the player is trying to direct a lead, the worst he can do is to issue a PP. If he is brave enough to issue a warning for deliberate UI, he causes offence and risks an action for slander. Hence, IMO, where possible, the law should be changed to penalize the UI itself, rather than its use. Normally, intent should be ignored.

The director must try to read the mind of the law-breaker when interpreting many current laws For example, when a player claims slip of the hand rather than slip of the mind. Most directors (but not Trinidad) take the word of a plausible rationalizer. This penalizes the honest player. Hence, IMO, it would improve the laws to remove mechanical-error legislation, treating all such mistakes as slips of the mind.

[jillybean]

 Vampyr, on 2015-January-06, 01:01, said:

"Everyone" does not do it. If the laws were changed to conform to the club in the OP, we would have a very zany and ineffective Lawbook.

Have you played much bridge in NA?

[jillybean]

 Vampyr, on 2015-January-06, 01:01, said:

It matters in a variety of rulings, but unfortunately determining intent often requires mind reading.

Please explain how intent influences rulings. I understand intent would be important when deciding to apply penalties but I don't understand how it applies to the laws in regards to restoring equity.

[aguahombre]

My experience with people blurting out this particular question is the same as Andy's. It is knee-jerk, wondering 0314 1430 or not even an RKC response at all. True, it was asked at the wrong time. True, I might have to make a ruling after the hand is over if there could have been not-so-innocent intent. But, the ruling would be procedural. Banging that club ACE is just too natural/normal/obvious.

[blackshoe]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-06, 00:02, said:

The response I got when I brought attention to the infraction was "everyone does it", in that case perhaps the laws should be changed.

First, "everyone does it" isn't true. Second, the fact that some people, even a lot of people, do it at one club, or even many clubs, does not mean the law should be changed, it means the players should be educated on how to "do it" correctly.

"Everyone" speeds. That won't get you off the hook if you get caught speeding.