[blml] Cut the mustard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[David Grabiner]

Richard hills <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> writes:


> Law 46A (Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card):
>
> "When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer **should**
> clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card."
>
> Scope:
>
> " ... When a player 'should' do something ('a claim should be
> accompanied at once by a statement...'), his failure to do it is
> **an infraction of Law** ... "
>
> Law 72B2 (Infraction of Law - Intentional):
>
> "A player **must not** infringe a law intentionally, even if there
> is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay."
>
> Scope:
>
> "The strongest word, 'must' ('before making a call, he must
> inspect the face of his cards'), indicates that violation is
> regarded as serious. Note that 'may' becomes very strong in the
> negative: 'may not' is a stronger injunction than 'shall not',
> just short of 'must not'."
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> Ergo, parsing current Law shows that the routine intentional
> action of declarer partially designating a card is a serious "must
> not" violation which usually deserves a Law 90 Procedural Penalty
> or a Law 91 Disciplinary Penalty.
>
> It seems to me that this is very inconsistent with current rulings
> and practice.

This is a matter of context.  Intentionally violating a Law with a penalty 
imposed is a serious violation, whether done out of spite or in an attempt to 
gain a competitive edge.  But the seriousness of violating a Law depends on the 
seriousness of the wording of the Law being violated, and the context.

Another example of a "should" law that is often violated is the claim statement. 
When declarer claims, he "should" state a line of play, but if he just faces his 
hand with all winners and the claim is obvious to all four players, there is 
normally no problem.  (He does jeopardize his rights if there is a disputed 
claim; if he faces his hand and makes no mention of an outstanding trump, he 
will lose a trick if it can ruff anything.)

Another example of a similar "should" is L16A2.  If you have substantial reason 
to believe that an opponent has made a call which was suggested by UI, you 
should summon the TD at that time.  If you do not, you may jeopardize your right 
to an adjusted score.  But nobody would argue that you are required to call the 
TD every time a novice competes after a slow pass.

And "should" is the correct wording for L46A as well.  If declarer says "Spade 
six", there is no question that the S6 is played.  If a spade was led by an 
opponent and he says "Six", he will not cause a problem because it is illegal 
for dummy to play any other six.  But again, he may jeopardize his rights if 
there is a dispute; if he just won the HA in dummy and says "Six", he may be 
ruled to have led the H6.

Even some "must"s aren't treated as serious violations.  If partner misexplains 
or forgets to Alert one of my calls but damage appears unlikely, I will normally 
say, "There was a failure to Alert; 3D shows X.  Please call the TD if you think 
there was a problem."  That is a violation of L75D2, which says that I must call 
the TD, but a PP for failure to call the TD in this situation is unlikely. (I 
have only once even seen a PP for failure to correct the MI, and that was in a 
case in which there was damage; declarer did not correct a failure to Alert one 
of her own bids, and a defender misdefended as a result.)