[mr1303]

I think a warning that dummy should not get involved should be sufficient, unless dummy was a persistent offender in which case the PP definitely comes out.

[blackshoe]

The fact that dummy did something that the law says he must not do doesn't sway you?

[mycroft]

I've told this story before, but I think it's an appropriate case to judge on.

8-year-old memory, but the auction is probably perfect.

---

Partner leads the ♦A, seeing two diamonds and the ♣5432 - exactly - on the board. I make the normal - wrong, but normal - smart [] comment "nice clubs". I also play the ♦2, playing "When we have shown length in a suit, carding on opening lead is 'middle-only encourage, high and low are SP'." Partner dutifully leads a club, I ruff, and we get partner's trump trick for the set.

Needless to say, the opponents have an issue with my comment - and I immediately admit they have a point. "It was an innocent comment, but here it was very wrong. I'm sorry. Director, Please!" TD arrives, everything is explained, TD wanders away to consult.

Ruling: "With that agreement T1 and this auction, there's absolutely no alternative to a club switch T2. Score stands. The comment, in this position, is worth a PP, and the only reason we're not assigning one is that the offender immediately realized the enormity of the situation and admitted everything." I avoided a PP by the slimmest of margins, only because all the education that needed to be done had already been done, in other words.

I think this case is similar in enormity, and if dummy doesn't immediately realize it and admit to the problem, it's time for education - and if he's that kind of player (and the club knows its own), the PP may have to be in MPs. Having said that, I am not ruling that declarer didn't see the J, and even if he had forgotten about the K or Q, there's no benefit at T12 to *not* playing the A (after all, the "still out" K might crash). Score stands, you *can't* assist declarer, you're very lucky that this time it *didn't* cost you a trick,...

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2016-May-03, 09:47, said:

Ruling: "With that agreement T1 and this auction, there's absolutely no alternative to a club switch T2. Score stands. The comment, in this position, is worth a PP, and the only reason we're not assigning one is that the offender immediately realized the enormity of the situation and admitted everything." I avoided a PP by the slimmest of margins, only because all the education that needed to be done had already been done, in other words.

The education being that you can get away with it if you are really really sorry? The more important point is that you should not have been allowed to gain. Also it is hard to visualise a hand in which there is no LA to a club switch. You were dealt with incredibly leniently. It is not clear why.

Anyway this is obviously much more serious than the OP case.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-03, 10:07, said:

The education being that you can get away with it if you are really really sorry? The more important point is that you should not have been allowed to gain. Also it is hard to visualise a hand in which there is no LA to a club switch. You were dealt with incredibly leniently. It is not clear why.

Punishments, in general, have three goals:
1) To educate the perpetrator
2) To satisfy society's need for revenge
3) To deter potential other people from committing the same "crime".

1) It was clear that the perp (Mycroft) was not going to be educated by a penalty.
2) There was no need for revenge. (Why would one want to take revenge on someone who only did something silly?)
3) A penalty at a bridge table doesn't serve as a deterrent, since nobody will hear about it. This would be different if the penalty would be accompanied by: "Dear players, may I please have your attention? I have just awarded a PP of x% of a board, since the player couldn't resist making an unnecessary comment. Please be advised that unnecessary comments will lead to PPs. Thank you for your attention. Please proceed." But (fortunately) I don't know any bridge clubs where this practice is followed.

Vampyr, on 2016-May-03, 10:07, said:

Anyway this is obviously much more serious than the OP case.

You must be joking.

The case of the OP deals with a dummy who does something that is:

• clearly against the rules
  
• clearly against the spirit of the game
  
• quite possibly with the intent to make his side gain

Mycroft did something that is:

• clearly against the rules
  
• clearly with the intent to make the game more enjoyable (which, IMO, is the spirit of the game)

I am happy that TDs are reluctant to give PPs for actions that have the intent to increase the enjoyment of the game, even if they fail at their intent. I fail to see how playing a card that your partner is supposed to play (the action by OP's dummy) could have the potential to increase the enjoyment of the game.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2016-May-03, 11:49, said:

A penalty at a bridge table doesn't serve as a deterrent, since nobody will hear about it.

I agree with all you said, Rik, except that this is a bit of an overbid. Certainly the four players at the table will hear about. Possibly players at nearby tables will hear about it. Possibly some of those will mention it to others later. Also, If suddenly a director were to give out PPs either in MPs, or in clear warnings in lieu of MPs (and then follow up on further transgressions with PPs in MPs), pretty soon everybody will know it, because this TD is unusual, and hence a topic for conversation gossip.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2016-May-03, 11:49, said:

Punishments, in general, have three goals:
1) To educate the perpetrator
2) To satisfy society's need for revenge
3) To deter potential other people from committing the same "crime".

1) It was clear that the perp (Mycroft) was not going to be educated by a penalty.
2) There was no need for revenge. (Why would one want to take revenge on someone who only did something silly?)
3) A penalty at a bridge table doesn't serve as a deterrent, since nobody will hear about it.

If this is really what you think then when would you ever give a PP? Which of these requirements would be fulfilled by, for example, pair or two pairs misboarding a board? In Mycroft's case, in any event, your #1 obviously applies. And #3, unless you plan to be as lenient with frequent repeats.

Quote

Mycroft did something that is:

• clearly against the rules
  
• clearly with the intent to make the game more enjoyable (which, IMO, is the spirit of the game)

Intent is, quite correctly, almost never relevant in bridge laws. The dummy in the OP probably played a card absently, with no intent to do anything at all. But anyway, whose enjoyment is enhanced by a braindead extraneous comment, especially when its having caused damage cannot be ruled out?

What is in the "spirit" and indeed the laws of the game is that you must not know spoil others' enjoyment of the game, which this remark clearly did.

[mycroft]

If I had been given a PP, I would have accepted it with good grace, of course.

I really, truly, wasn't saying anything about my clubs with the comment - and I think everyone knew that; it was the opening on a lowball 4-bagger. But when one *has* a club void, it's definitely in "Probst cheat" territory, and I take what I get.

Having said that, given that everybody at the table knew I had multiple options in signalling, my screaming for a club lead was much much louder than any comment I could have made - at least that was the judgement, and I don't disagree.

I agree that I was treated leniently. It wasn't that I was "really really sorry", though, it was that I made it clear that I knew how stupid I had been, and was willing to take any penalty awarded for being stupid at the wrong time. It's the deterrence factor that I think should apply to PPs, and if the PP isn't necessary for deterrence, then it isn't necessary. If nothing else will help, then it is.

In the OP case, therefore, I think it makes a big difference when the TD explains to dummy why they shouldn't do that - and how many of us haven't played against someone who plays the "obvious card" as dummy at least occasionally? - if dummy realizes the issue and admits their mistake, and stops doing it; or if dummy retorts that "my partner isn't an idiot, of course she was going to cover" or "it's a singleton; which half of it do you think declarer wasn't going to play?" or any of the other excuses that we've also all heard. It also matters if the player is one of those who feels he has to "help" his partner along. It's pretty easy to figure out who those players are, too.

Yes, I guess the other reason for a PP is "you screwed up the game in a way that isn't completely repairable; here's a penalty so that you think about what you're doing next time." I should have got a couple of those, too, I think; there's a reason you shouldn't let me sit in one of the "swaparound Howell" stationary tables without a responsible partner, or be responsible for the BridgeMates. OTOH, I have also learned that, and won't do it any more, either...

[Vampyr]

OK, forget everything I said about PPs, or rather, replace it with DPs.

Players who ought to know better should get them more, not less, frequently.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-03, 23:12, said:

OK, forget everything I said about PPs, or rather, replace it with DPs.

Players who ought to know better should get them more, not less, frequently.

Disciplinary penalties should be all about intent.