[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-24, 06:29, said:

Both of you have left out pertinent and important parts of the laws you’re quoting. Try again.

I assume you are thinking of

Law 46 B 5 said:

If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy.

Now how will you rule if Declarer in this situation says "Continue" or "Another"?

Shall law 46B5 or Law 46B3A prevail?

What is the (logical) difference between the words "Continue", "Another" or for instance "Low"?

[barmar]

I'm with pran and sanst.

If declarer says "small", we check B1c, which says it's the lowest card of the suit led. But what suit was led if dummy is leading rather than falling suit?

Since they didn't explicitly state a suit, we then go to B3a, which says it's the same suit as the previous trick.

B5 doesn't apply because "small" is not anything like "anything".

I surmise that blackshoe disputes that declarer has "designated a rank" when the rank is merely implied by application of B1, rather than stated explicitly. I don't think that's how most players interpret it -- the rank can be designated either explicitly using the "proper form", or implicitly following the rules in 46B.

[blackshoe]

And all of this fooforah would be avoided if the laws required proper procedure to be followed (see Law 46A).

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-24, 10:51, said:

And all of this fooforah would be avoided if the laws required proper procedure to be followed (see Law 46A).

Agree. the problem would rapidly disappear If players called the director for each play infraction by declarer; and the director imposed escalating procedural penalties.

Current law provides default interpretations, which seem to condone such infractions. Much better would be to define and legalize specified common designations, provided they're unambiguous in context (for example "Small" when dummy is following suit). The law would penalize designations that it didn't explicitly allow, especially any ambiguous play.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-24, 10:51, said:

And all of this fooforah would be avoided if the laws required proper procedure to be followed (see Law 46A).

Sure.

But we find in

PREFACE TO THE 2017 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE said:

The trends begun in the 2007 Revision have been continued - the increased discretion given to Tournament Directors, the attempts to rectify a situation rather than to penalise, and maintaining the position of Regulating Authorities. It is not expected that the Code herein will last indefinitely (indeed right up to the time of publication there were still ongoing discussions on certain laws) but the framework is there, tried and tested, for future editions.

and in

INTRODUCTION TO THE 2017 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE said:

The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.

I have a huge problem imagining how the defenders might be damaged by using law 46B3A rather than law 46B5 in the situation we discuss here?

[lamford]

I don't think "small" designates a rank, so it is just an incomplete designation when dummy is leading. It is covered adequately when dummy is following.

[nige1]

Sven Pran also quotes TFLB preface, which said:

The trends begun in the 2007 Revision have been continued - the increased discretion given to Tournament Directors, the attempts to rectify a situation rather than to penalise, and maintaining the position of Regulating Authorities. It is not expected that the Code herein will last indefinitely (indeed right up to the time of publication there were still ongoing discussions on certain laws) but the framework is there, tried and tested, for future editions

Sven Pran quotes TFLB introduction, which said:

The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.

Sven nails a root problem with the laws of Bridge: The WBF confines its responsibility to restoring what it calls "Equity" and then devolves those powers to directors and regulators. Endless cheating scandals are just one consequence of eschewing deterrence..

[blackshoe]

"Just an incomplete designation"? So what do we do with it, according to which law(s)?

[pran]

nige1, on 2019-December-25, 18:23, said:

Sven nails a root problem with the laws of Bridge: The WBF confines its responsibility to restoring what it calls "Equity" and then devolves those powers to directors and regulators. Endless cheating scandals are just one consequence of eschewing deterrence..

With the 2007 laws

WBFLC said:

Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and
experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the
increased responsibilities given to them.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2019-December-24, 11:36, said:

Agree. the problem would rapidly disappear If players called the director for each play infraction by declarer; and the director imposed escalating procedural penalties.

Would it be the problem which “rapidly disappeared”, or the players?

[barmar]

Maybe what we need are different levels of laws depending on how "serious" the event is, similar to the way we have different convention charts for different types of competitions.

So 46B would be in effect in less formal events like club games, but would not be allowed in major championships.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2019-December-26, 00:08, said:

Maybe what we need are different levels of laws depending on how "serious" the event is, similar to the way we have different convention charts for different types of competitions.

So 46B would be in effect in less formal events like club games, but would not be allowed in major championships.

AFAIK no sport has rules that differ dependent on the level of players. Besides, what would be the point where the changes take place? Playing on my club I have a set rules that allow some infractions, but when I meet some of the same players at a regional of national event we have to deal with a prohibition?
Usually at clubs over here all kinds of infractions are made without the director being called. A change of call or play by the declarer is hardly ever a problem, some even ‘solve’ a revoke by changing the played card a few tricks back without anybody protesting. I’ve even encountered players who didn’t think it odd to open the auction with a double “because I’ve no 5 card”. These are the kind of players who consider calling a director as more or less an accusation of cheating. I don’t care, if they have a nice afternoon or evening of a game they call bridge, it’s okay with me, but at my table and at the level I’m usually playing we stick more rigidly to the Laws. It works, so why change it? The players I wrote about would still play the game their way, without director, however simplified the Laws are for their sake.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2019-December-26, 02:57, said:

AFAIK no sport has rules that differ dependent on the level of players.

I can think of some exceptions, but not many: tennis plays 5 sets in professional grand slams only, cycling specifies different lengths of time trial for different levels, athletics allows women in mass races to run with the men at most levels but not at olympic level, things like that.

sanst, on 2019-December-26, 02:57, said:

Usually at clubs over here all kinds of infractions are made without the director being called. A change of call or play by the declarer is hardly ever a problem, some even ‘solve’ a revoke by changing the played card a few tricks back without anybody protesting.
...
These are the kind of players who consider calling a director as more or less an accusation of cheating.

But this is the fault of bridge as a whole. It's far too easy to put the blame on the players and say things cannot be changed. There are mediocre people playing every other sport too, but they still know the rules, expect to pay a price if they break them, and don't feel they are accused of cheating if the opponent points out to the referee that the ball was out or whatever.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2019-December-26, 05:18, said:

I can think of some exceptions, but not many: tennis plays 5 sets in professional grand slams only, cycling specifies different lengths of time trial for different levels, athletics allows women in mass races to run with the men at most levels but not at olympic level, things like that.

In many sports there are changes possible in the way the game or whatever you want to call it is played. Youngsters at football play in a field about a quarter of the size of that of the adults etcetera. But the rules about infractions are the same for all.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2019-December-26, 02:57, said:

AFAIK no sport has rules that differ dependent on the level of players.

I was thinking of something like "mulligans" in golf. But upon research, I see that they're not allowed in the rules, so no formal game would have them. But casual players allow them because they simply ignore this rule for expediency. This would be like kitchen-table bridge versus club and tournament duplicate.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-December-27, 09:53, said:

I was thinking of something like "mulligans" in golf. But upon research, I see that they're not allowed in the rules, so no formal game would have them. But casual players allow them because they simply ignore this rule for expediency. This would be like kitchen-table bridge versus club and tournament duplicate.

Sounds much like the BBO 'undo' function to me