[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-April-09, 11:18, said:

That goes against natural justice

Pfui.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-09, 12:40, said:

Pfui.

You may mock, but what is the point of having a detailed list of offences which merit a PP if the TD can add new ones to them on a whim? Players should be told what they can and cannot do. It is not difficult to add "commenting on a board in play while sitting out".

I bet if you asked people at our club if they could point out that dummy has a card in the wrong suit when they were watching while sitting out, they would not have a clue whether they could or not; and they would not have much more of a clue after reading the Laws. In fact I do not have a clue either after reading them.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-April-09, 15:02, said:

You may mock, but what is the point of having a detailed list of offences which merit a PP if the TD can add new ones to them on a whim? Players should be told what they can and cannot do. It is not difficult to add "commenting on a board in play while sitting out".

First, nobody but you is suggesting the TD might issue PPs on a whim. Second, that list is headed with "The following are examples of offenses subject to procedural penalty (but the offenses are not limited to these)". Clearly the list is not exhaustive. Third, you want a change to the laws. You won't get it here. But you know that already.

lamford, on 2016-April-09, 15:02, said:

I bet if you asked people at our club if they could point out that dummy has a card in the wrong suit when they were watching while sitting out, they would not have a clue whether they could or not; and they would not have much more of a clue after reading the Laws. In fact I do not have a clue either after reading them.

Nor would I, for I would first have to figure out what "has a card in the wrong suit" means.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-09, 15:54, said:

Nor would I, for I would first have to figure out what "has a card in the wrong suit" means.

You already know that. But just in case you don't we will define it as short for "incorrectly sorted into suits as specified by Law 41D, in that one or more cards of different suits are present in one or more of the columns". And I do not know if that definition is sufficient, nor does it matter. I think everyone understands what "sorted into suits" means.

And while you are reading that, you can tell me where in the Laws it states that a player sitting out cannot point out that Law 41D has been breached. And it seems that if the Rabbit had noticed that he had a diamond among his hearts, then he would be unable to correct it or draw attention to it.

9A2 Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period.

and 9A3 When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded.

But we have all noticed, as dummy, that we have placed two cards in the wrong order and illegally corrected it, haven't we?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-09, 15:54, said:

"The following are examples of offenses subject to procedural penalty (but the offenses are not limited to these)".

For the TD to award a PP, therefore, there needs to be an offense. How does the player establish what the offenses are if they not listed?

[blackshoe]

I would think "offense" refers to breaches of correct procedure.

[Vampyr]

Lamford, if you have a point it must be that you can issue penalties to "players" but not "spectators". Rule how you like when you are the director.

You might ask the roving par to carry a card with their pair number on it, to,avoid confusion about whose table it is when the normal pair is displaced.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-09, 19:33, said:

Lamford, if you have a point it must be that you can issue penalties to "players" but not "spectators".

Can you think of any reason why we cannot issue penalties to competitors that have the status of spectator when they interfere at the play of another table?

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-10, 02:19, said:

Can you think of any reason why we cannot issue penalties to competitors that have the status of spectator when they interfere at the play of another table?

There is no reason. However, PPs are normally issued when someone "knows" they should not be doing something. Here the Chimp would have had to have known that he was being classed as a spectator for two boards, even though he was not specified as one by the TD.

If the Rabbit had noticed that he had put a diamond in with his hearts a few seconds after putting the dummy down, and he had corrected it, then the effect would have been the same, and the contract would still make (although as SB pointed out the Chimp's comment had no effect on the result of the hand anyway). Would you now give a PP to dummy for breach of 9A3? Exactly the same principle applies to dummy as a spectator now the play period has commenced. And if a remark about a board is overheard at the next table, it is normal to give a PP only if it affects the bidding or play at the new table, but not if it does not. It is the same here and I would have issued a warning only. Especially as there are glaring omissions in the laws.