[sanst]

 lamford, on 2019-March-27, 10:54, said:

As SB has pointed out many, many times, Law 74 is a "should" law - (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s
rights but not often penalised). And he is quite happy with a PP - in fact he collects them instead of master points. You were suggesting banning him from the club for a minor infraction that is "not often penalised".

If you ban SB for a breach of Law 74, then you have to sentence WW to 20 years hard labour for his breach of 9A4, a "may not" clause.

Call me oldfashioned, but I consider a breach of Law 74 about the worst infraction possible. Omly real cheating is worse than that. Both deserve the culprits sent packing.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2019-March-27, 12:46, said:

Call me oldfashioned, but I consider a breach of Law 74 about the worst infraction possible. Omly real cheating is worse than that. Both deserve the culprits sent packing.

I concur with the EBU which states on its site: "Annoying behaviour, embarrassing remarks, or any other conduct which might interfere with the enjoyment of the game is specifically prohibited by Law 74A."

I would change all of the "shoulds" in this Law to "musts", the strongest possible requirement. Until then, clubs can only really impose PPs for behaviour that is "not often penalised". The Laws of Bridge take priority over the Best Behaviour at Bridge edict.

[pran]

 sanst, on 2019-March-27, 12:46, said:

Call me oldfashioned, but I consider a breach of Law 74 about the worst infraction possible. Omly real cheating is worse than that. Both deserve the culprits sent packing.

Many Norwegian directors, including myself, rate Law 74 to be (without any doubt) the most important law in the book. And we say so whenever we train candidates to become certified directors.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2019-March-27, 15:01, said:

Many Norwegian directors, including myself, rate Law 74 to be (without any doubt) the most important law in the book. And we say so whenever we train candidates to become certified directors.

Then why is there a plethora of weak "should"s in this Law, and a plethora of strong "must"s in other Laws. And is the Norwegian translation the same?

[Vampyr]

 sanst, on 2019-March-26, 02:51, said:

As usual a most unlikely story. “No time to wash his hands”? Try the other. That being said, it’s the dummy who is the first to draw attention to the irregularity, which should also be taken into acoount. EW gain through the knowledge of the mpc and that advantage should be taken away. N deserves a PP, SB should be banned from the venue.
Why Folkestone of all places? Experienced a very sticky pavlova there? And eating Pavlova? Did they serve the corpse of the ballerina, who has been dead for the best part of a century?

The weekends are usually by the seaside and Folkestone was very nice, especially once the sun came out. It is also true that a raspberry Pavlova was offered as a dessert on one of the nights.

As far as the rest of the story is concerned, RR has definitely gained from the irregularity. I would adjust, but not so sure to what. I would have consulted one of the four other county directors in attendance.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2019-March-27, 17:32, said:

Then why is there a plethora of weak "should"s in this Law, and a plethora of strong "must"s in other Laws. And is the Norwegian translation the same?

Yes

(The English have a saying: "That is not Cricket".
We say: Bridge is a game for Gentlemen - and fair ladies. Which really means: "We need no law to tell us how to behave")

[sanst]

 Vampyr, on 2019-March-27, 23:32, said:

The weekends are usually by the seaside and Folkestone was very nice, especially once the sun came out. It is also true that a raspberry Pavlova was offered as a dessert on one of the nights.

Totally OT: I remember Folkstone from the days that the Ostend ferry moored there. The trip through the town wasn’t particularly pleasant, the same with Dover BTW. But I just took a look with Google’s street view, and Folkstone is a much nicer place than I thought it was. Sorry, Folkstone and Folkstonians.

[VixTD]

 RMB1, on 2019-March-26, 15:55, said:

Dummy drew attention to the irregularity.

 lamford, on 2019-March-27, 10:54, said:

If you ban SB for a breach of Law 74, then you have to sentence WW to 20 years hard labour for his breach of 9A4, a "may not" clause.

I don't think dummy has committed an irregularity. I think he was exercising his right under law 42B2 to try to prevent an irregularity. Dummy did not expose the card, he pointed out that it was stuck behind another card and in danger of being exposed prematurely.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2019-March-28, 03:03, said:

Totally OT: I remember Folkstone from the days that the Ostend ferry moored there. The trip through the town wasn’t particularly pleasant, the same with Dover BTW. But I just took a look with Google’s street view, and Folkstone is a much nicer place than I thought it was. Sorry, Folkstone and Folkstonians.

Maybe you went to Folkstone. Folkestone was very nice and the North London Club voted to return there.

https://www.tripadvi...nt_England.html

[lamford]

 pran, on 2019-March-26, 07:33, said:

Why on earth should the ♠3 be exposed during the act?

Because ChCh deliberately ensured that it was, maybe? He would now know that RR would (eventually) work out that the two of spades was not a singleton, and might be suit preference for clubs. Most at the North London club weekend thought that ChCh did this deliberately, but, again, proof was lacking ...

[lamford]

 pran, on 2019-March-28, 01:02, said:

(The English have a saying: "That is not Cricket".

Indeed they do, but in cricket some people still choose to follow the laws as written and not "walk" until they are given out, and some, as in a famous "Bell runout" apply the laws literally to their advantage.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2019-March-28, 01:02, said:

Yes

(The English have a saying: "That is not Cricket".
We say: Bridge is a game for Gentlemen - and fair ladies. Which really means: "We need no law to tell us how to behave")

Experience suggests that is not necessarily the case.

[lamford]

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

Thinkng about it, comng to the table with sticky hands is certainly not “carefully avoid[ing] any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game”. Taking too long for your meal and showing up afterwards with the remains of it sticking to you, deserves a PP as well.

Has no visitor to your bridge club ever sampled Deventer Koek beforehand? A delicious cake, but very sticky!

[sanst]

 lamford, on 2019-March-28, 13:19, said:

Has no visitor to your bridge club ever sampled Deventer Koek beforehand? A delicious cake, but very sticky!

It’s so good, they lick their fingers clean when eating it. Not very hygienic, but hardly noticeable.