[blackshoe]

BudH, on 2016-February-24, 21:41, said:

Law 70E2: "The regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g., “from the top down”) in which the director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified
in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this law)."

From ACBL Duplicate Decisions: "It is presumed that trumps are played from the top down."

From ACBL Tech. Files: "With this in mind, the following are given as guidelines concerning claims:

A. The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible
for claimer (although play within the suit is normally from the
top down).

B. Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which he was
likely unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage.

C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check
with a "high" trump.

D. Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his trumps
to his disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the suit.
(Directions - July/October, 1992)

I used the word "regulation" for a reason. Guidelines are not regulations.

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-February-25, 15:05, said:

(My enhancement)

The designation leaves no doubt about declarer's intention.

My question was whether it's legal, not whether it could be misinterpreted.

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-February-26, 11:38, said:

My question was whether it's legal, not whether it could be misinterpreted.

Law 46A describes "Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card".

According to the introduction to the laws a deviation from this description "is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized". This can hardly justify the term illegal.

Instead Law 46B clearly specifies how to handle "Incomplete or Erroneous Call" without any suggestion of consequence(s) against an offender.

[mycroft]

infraction != illegal ? interesting.

It, like the 7 or 8 things you, I, and everyone else do every day in RL, is rarely if ever punished; that doesn't make it not illegal.

[blackshoe]

What Mycroft said.

[Zelandakh]

There are plenty of cons in real life that are not really ok but also not quite illegal. Similarly, if a LOL with Alzheimers accidentally walked out of a shop with something before paying she is doing something illegal but one would perhaps not feel fit to label them a criminal. The problem here is perhaps the usage of the term "illegal" in a context where it does not really fit. I think pran sees it akin to the "criminal" label above while you simply see it as not having followed the laws and regulations to the letter. So perhaps we should first define what "illegal" means in a bridge context...

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2016-February-27, 07:59, said:

There are plenty of cons in real life that are not really ok but also not quite illegal. Similarly, if a LOL with Alzheimers accidentally walked out of a shop with something before paying she is doing something illegal but one would perhaps not feel fit to label them a criminal. The problem here is perhaps the usage of the term "illegal" in a context where it does not really fit. I think pran sees it akin to the "criminal" label above while you simply see it as not having followed the laws and regulations to the letter. So perhaps we should first define what "illegal" means in a bridge context...

May I put it this way:

"Illegal" simply means "not legal" and I expect "illegal" actions to be penalized.

Not so when the laws describe procedures without suggesting any penalty for deviations. IMHO "illegal" or "not legal" are too strong terms in such cases.

[blackshoe]

From chapter one of the laws:

Quote

Irregularity: A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.

Infraction: A player’s breach of law or of lawful regulation.

From the introduction to the laws:

Quote

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”

Rectification is a separate issue from penalty.

Quote

Rectification: The remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director’s attention.

When a player does not follow correct procedure, as defined in law or regulation, he has done something illegal. What he has done will be rectified if the laws call for or allow rectification, and should be, but often is not, penalized when the laws call for penalty.

If a player fails to do what she "may" do, she has not done anything illegal. If she fails to do what she "does", she has done something illegal.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2016-February-27, 14:14, said:

If a player fails to do what she "may" do, she has not done anything illegal. If she fails to do what she "does", she has done something illegal.

But we are not talking about either of these Ed but rather Law 46, which is a "should" law in which the results of using the appropriate designation are laid out. Put another way, if there was a law regarding your tax returns that stated they should arrive before 2359 on March 17th and must arrive before 2359 on March 31st, with late arrivals being charged $50 (or 50€, whatever). Would you consider someone whose tax return arrived on March 18th a criminal or that they had done something illegal? Your definition is certainly one possibility but by no means the only one and there is no backing in the Laws for it as far as I can see, notwithstanding the quotes you provided.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2016-February-27, 16:39, said:

But we are not talking about either of these Ed but rather Law 46, which is a "should" law in which the results of using the appropriate designation are laid out. Put another way, if there was a law regarding your tax returns that stated they should arrive before 2359 on March 17th and must arrive before 2359 on March 31st, with late arrivals being charged $50 (or 50€, whatever). Would you consider someone whose tax return arrived on March 18th a criminal or that they had done something illegal? Your definition is certainly one possibility but by no means the only one and there is no backing in the Laws for it as far as I can see, notwithstanding the quotes you provided.

Law 46A is a "should" law. Law 46B is a series of instructions to the director as to how to rule when declarer violates Law 46A.

Your example has, as far as I can see, nothing whatsoever to do with my previous post.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-February-27, 17:15, said:

Law 46A is a "should" law. Law 46B is a series of instructions to the director as to how to rule when declarer violates Law 46A.

Your example has, as far as I can see, nothing whatsoever to do with my previous post.

(Legal) theory is fine, but real life is a different matter:

How often, as a percentage rate of how often Law 46A is violated, is the Director involved in order to apply Law 46B?

My experience is that the rate cannot be given in percentages, you have to apply minute fractions of percentages?

I don't think I have ever played a board without declarer "violating" Law 46A by saying "low", "ruff", "win", "a [club|diamond|heart|spade]" for at least half of the tricks in the board. And does anybody complain?

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-February-28, 02:54, said:

(Legal) theory is fine, but real life is a different matter:

How often, as a percentage rate of how often Law 46A is violated, is the Director involved in order to apply Law 46B?

My experience is that the rate cannot be given in percentages, you have to apply minute fractions of percentages?

I don't think I have ever played a board without declarer "violating" Law 46A by saying "low", "ruff", "win", "a [club|diamond|heart|spade]" for at least half of the tricks in the board. And does anybody complain?

As far as players and directors seem to be concerned, 46B might as well be in 46A -- everyone treats them as if they're the acceptable ways to call cards from dummy. The point of my question about saying "trump" instead of the actual suit name is that this form of designation isn't even allowed as an alternative in 46B.

And I wonder how "unless declarer's intent is incontrovertible" should be interpreted. Does it mean "If he uses one of the designations in 46B, then you interpret it this way unless there's obviously some other intent"? Or does it mean "If he uses some a form other than that specified in 46A, then you interpret it as in 46B unless there's obviously some other intent"? The latter would explain why "trump" could be accepted (the intent is obvious); but the first interpretation still wouldn't make "trump" acceptable.

[BudH]

blackshoe, on 2016-February-25, 18:23, said:

I used the word "regulation" for a reason. Guidelines are not regulations.

Law 70E2: "The regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g., “from the top down”) in which the director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this law)."

In what manner would you like the ACBL (as a "regulating Authority") to communicate the required information connected to Law 70E2?

In what way would it be official enough for you?

I think it being stated in ACBL's Duplicate Decisions is official enough. The information in the "Tech. Files" seems to possibly be not "official enough".

[blackshoe]

Duplicate Decisions is not regulation, it's advice for club directors.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-February-28, 23:42, said:

Duplicate Decisions is not regulation, it's advice for club directors.

Are such advices binding on the directors or just suggestions which directors are free to ignore (for whatever reason)?

[BudH]

pran, on 2016-February-29, 01:58, said:

Are such advices binding on the directors or just suggestions which directors are free to ignore (for whatever reason)?

There needs to be some "official" method for the ACBL (or other "regulating authority") to communicate decisions in situations like this.

Is being added to the "Elections by The ACBL Board of Directors" starting on page 136 of the present ACBL edition of the law book the only "official enough" method of documentation and communication to ACBL game directors (whether they be club directors or sectional/regional/national directors)?

My personal opinion is being published in Duplicate Decisions, an official ACBL publication, should be "official enough" if the information is not provided elsewhere. And if this is not true, ACBL should clearly state that at the beginning of Duplicate Decisions.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-February-28, 23:42, said:

Duplicate Decisions is not regulation, it's advice for club directors.

pran, on 2016-February-29, 01:58, said:

Are such advices binding on the directors or just suggestions which directors are free to ignore (for whatever reason)?

BudH, on 2016-February-29, 09:14, said:

There needs to be some "official" method for the ACBL (or other "regulating authority") to communicate decisions in situations like this.

Is being added to the "Elections by The ACBL Board of Directors" starting on page 136 of the present ACBL edition of the law book the only "official enough" method of documentation and communication to ACBL game directors (whether they be club directors or sectional/regional/national directors)?

My personal opinion is being published in Duplicate Decisions, an official ACBL publication, should be "official enough" if the information is not provided elsewhere. And if this is not true, ACBL should clearly state that at the beginning of Duplicate Decisions.

You do not (as far as I can see) answer my question.

IMHO: If such an advice is binding on directors then I see no distinction between it and a regulation.

And if it is not binding I do indeed wonder how it can be considered anything stronger than a recommendation.

A director who deliberately ignores a regulation can of course be disciplined, but if he ignores a recommendation he can only be questioned for his reasons but certainly not disciplined.

[ehhh]

Quote

After play begins on a later board, declarer realizes his error.

Am I missing something here?
Why has no reference to LAW 69 come up?

[ehhh]

Quote

Duplicate Decisions is not regulation, it's advice for club directors.

Although true, at the club level DD can be used in rulings.

Duplicate Decisions is a version of the official Laws of Duplicate
Bridge written in everyday English. Its purpose is to help club
directors understand the Laws and make good rulings. This book can
be used at the club level in place of the official law book.

Duplicate Decisions can be used to make most of the rulings that
will come up during a typical club game. The ideal way to use this
publication is to tab the most common rulings. Occasionally Duplicate
Decisions will refer the director to the official Laws book. In
those cases, the director will have to do some research before making
a ruling.

[blackshoe]

The introduction to Duplicate Decisions (DD) suggests that it is the law book rewritten in plain English and can be used by club directors "in place of the law book". I'm not so sure I agree with "rewritten in plain English", nor with "in place of the law book", but that's what it says. Nowhere in DD do I find that anything in it is regarded as regulatory. It is not binding.

ehhh, on 2016-February-29, 11:03, said:

Am I missing something here?
Why has no reference to LAW 69 come up?

Because Law 69 does not apply to this situation. It is the claimer, not his opponents, who is seeking a change in the score.