[Chris3875]

Law 20F5b uses very strong language "the player MUST call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous ..... etc." Obviously for a Declarer not to do so before the opening lead is faced would be an infraction. Would the director always apply a penalty in this instance, or only if the infraction actually resulted in damage to the opponents?

[pran]

Chris3875, on 2012-May-25, 19:13, said:

Law 20F5b uses very strong language "the player MUST call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous ..... etc." Obviously for a Declarer not to do so before the opening lead is faced would be an infraction. Would the director always apply a penalty in this instance, or only if the infraction actually resulted in damage to the opponents?

That is up to the Director's discretion.

[blackshoe]

According to the laws, when they say a player "shall" do something, and he does not do it, he should receive a PP "more often than not". Also, when a player "must" do something, and he does not, that is "a serious matter indeed", certainly more serious than not doing what one "shall" do. So it would seem that not getting a PP for a "must do" infraction ought to be pretty rare. However, as Sven says, issuance of a PP is up to TD discretion, and I must say that in about 17 years of playing and directing in clubs around here, I have never seen nor given a PP in match points or IMPs. I have seen and given warnings — in fact I have seen repeated warnings to the same players for the same offense, although I have not had the opportunity to deal with such as a director myself (which is probably a good thing from the players' viewpoint, since once I have given a warning, I will give a PP for a repeat of the same offense).

IMO directors at lower levels (clubs, sectionals, regionals) in the ACBL — at least in my little part of it — don't give out PPs enough. However, I seem to be a pretty small minority in that opinion.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-26, 12:48, said:

According to the laws, when they say a player "shall" do something, and he does not do it, he should receive a PP "more often than not". Also, when a player "must" do something, and he does not, that is "a serious matter indeed", certainly more serious than not doing what one "shall" do. So it would seem that not getting a PP for a "must do" infraction ought to be pretty rare. However, as Sven says, issuance of a PP is up to TD discretion, and I must say that in about 17 years of playing and directing in clubs around here, I have never seen nor given a PP in match points or IMPs. I have seen and given warnings — in fact I have seen repeated warnings to the same players for the same offense, although I have not had the opportunity to deal with such as a director myself (which is probably a good thing from the players' viewpoint, since once I have given a warning, I will give a PP for a repeat of the same offense).

IMO directors at lower levels (clubs, sectionals, regionals) in the ACBL — at least in my little part of it — don't give out PPs enough. However, I seem to be a pretty small minority in that opinion.

My experience is that particularly at lower levels the social life in clubs is at least as - if not more important than strict rules. Very often irregularities are caused by ignorance, and most players will appreciate education rather than being hit with PPs.

If a player consistently ignores warnings and causes inconveniences with his repeated irregularities then of course a PP is definitely in order.

[blackshoe]

On the subject of repeated warnings, there's an interesting scene in Robert Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers. It takes place in the main character's high school class in "History and Moral Philosophy" (keep in mind that the novel is placed some two hundred or more years in the future). The teacher describes the following procedure in raising a dog: bring the puppy home. When he messes on the rug, say mildly "don't do that", and clean up his mess. Repeat as often as necessary until the dog is full grown. At that point, when the dog messes on the rug, take him out back and shoot him. Then the teacher asked for comments from the class. One girl said "That's the stupidest way to raise a dog I ever heard of!" The teacher replied "Yes it is. Back in the twentieth century, though, that's how people raised their kids."

Bottom line: I firmly believe that repeated warnings are ineffective as a behavior modification tool.

As you say, players who act from ignorance appreciate education rather than PPs, and I give them that. If they've been playing bridge for twenty years, though, they ought to know better by now. Heck, we have a couple players here who've been playing almost as long as I've been alive (I'm 65).

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-26, 20:59, said:

[...]
Heck, we have a couple players here who've been playing ... as long as I've been alive (I'm 65).

I have.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist that )

[blackshoe]

[mycroft]

Ed, like everything else in Starship Troopers (which is a sermon with a plot attached, and I don't agree with a lot of the sermon - good plot, mind you), that's a bit much (although he's pretty accurate re: children, and only getting worse. Note, this is not a polemic for corporal punishment, more for the "you can't let your 12-year-old walk to school, that's reckless endangerment of a minor!"). *If* after the repeated warnings, we throw you out of the club as your first penalty, your analogy would hold. What's actually happening is that after repeated warnings, we penalize. After repeated penalties, we throw you out of the club.

Also the major difference between the way one trains dogs and, potentially, children, and the way you train bridge players is that bridge players are expected to understand words, logic, and future consequences.

[blackshoe]

You don't know the bridge players I know. That said the point was not that bridge players (or children) are as unintelligent as dogs, but that, as I said, repeated warnings (and nothing else) do not work, even with people who allegedly have and can use a brain cell or two.

Around here the scenario is that any warning given is a pretty mild "you shouldn't do that", if that much — and it never gets to the next level.

[mycroft]

Well, that is a problem (and I do, in fact, know bridge players - they're worse than children^*. They're *supposed to* be able to learn, but...) There has to be penalties given to the perennial offenders; but penalties to the first-time offenders works just like first-time rubbing nose in it to the dog. Except that unlike dogs, bridge players react to setting dominance tactics like this by routing around it - either not going, or raising a ruckus and getting the TD removed. Also unlike dogs, 90% of bridge players *do* learn the first or second time they're warned. The other 10% break nicely into "don't get it, ain't gonna try, don't care" and "well, as long as all that happens is I get the occasional lecture..."; and, of course, they're the problem.

Please note that I do agree with you about how things are currently working. And I will take my blame for my part in it. But I try.

* I know I've embarrassed the odd LOL by asking if she was a parent or grandparent. If so, do you know the magic word? The way they treat caddies...

[nigel_k]

In this situation I have always informed the opponents without calling the director. I have never been penalized and, now that I am aware of the word 'must' in the relevant law, I will continue to inform opponents without calling the director. If that makes me 'worse than a child' and in need of severe and repeated chastisement, then so be it. Or people could just get a life.

[blackshoe]

Holding every player to the letter of every law isn't the point. The point is that players fail to act in accordance with the rules, and sometimes that causes problems. When it does, those players need first to be educated, and if they continue to transgress, to be penalized. And if a player explains to me that he doesn't give a damn what the rules are, he's going to continue doing what he wants, he's going to get disciplinary penalties instead of (or perhaps in addition to) procedural penalties.