[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-12, 18:11, said:

That does not follow from what I said. I gain from a warning by being educated for next time and not being penalized. That is a good thing. I guess what you are saying is that if I won't feel bad about being warned you have to penalize.

No. I don't expect you to feel bad, I expect you to change your ways.

I learned the concept from Larry Harris, author of The Bridge Director's Companion. He used PP(W) as a construct meaning that one should in some cases issue a warning in lieu of a PP in MPs or IMPs. You're right that a warning is not a penalty. It's sort of like going in front of a judge and having him say "I'm not going to throw you in jail today, but if I see you here again, you will regret it". The problem in bridge is that we have too many TDs who never do anything else but issue warnings. That doesn't work, as I'm sure you know.

[aguahombre]

That might be considered a lot of space and words to agree with me that a warning is not a penalty.

[barmar]

A warning in lieu of a PP is similar to a cop giving you a warning instead of issuing a ticket. It's a reminder that you could have been penalized severely, and is intended to put fear in your mind so you don't offend again. And even though there's no monetary penalty in the form of a fine (analogous to points in the game), there's an emotional penalty.

[barmar]

pran, on 2015-March-11, 12:57, said:

Well, about Dummy

and (unless I am much mistaken) when a person A does something in his capacity of being person B's agent then legally that action is taken at the moment A does it, not already when B instructed him to do it?

As I mentioned earlier, I think this use of "play" is intended differently. They should have written "Dummy acts as declarer's agent by moving his cards into the played position."

I think the main point of that statement is to describe the procedural difference between rubber bridge (where declarer traditionally reaches across the table to play dummy's cards) and duplicate (where dummy moves the card on declarer's behalf after declarer plays it by naming it.

[pran]

barmar, on 2015-March-15, 09:23, said:

As I mentioned earlier, I think this use of "play" is intended differently.

Fair enough, and I think differently.

Do you think Dummy shall be allowed to say to Declarer: "You are in your hand" when Declarer has just called a card from Dummy but has the lead himself?
"Everybody" does that.

This is a "must not" violation the way you think!

[campboy]

pran, on 2015-March-15, 14:14, said:

Do you think Dummy shall be allowed to say to Declarer: "You are in your hand" when Declarer has just called a card from Dummy but has the lead himself?
"Everybody" does that.

I don't do that (because I don't think the laws permit it). But the real question here is whether, if dummy does say "you're in your hand" after declarer calls for a card, defenders have the option of accepting the card called for. I believe they are entitled to do so.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2015-March-16, 15:45, said:

I don't do that (because I don't think the laws permit it). But the real question here is whether, if dummy does say "you're in your hand" after declarer calls for a card, defenders have the option of accepting the card called for. I believe they are entitled to do so.

Of course.

This is just one reason that the suggestion that a card not be considered "played" until dummy places it in a played position would not work.

[mycroft]

Off topic, but:

I will issue a PP in MPs if the player knows enough to know it was a the wrong thing to do, and does it anyway; or if I believe that the player doesn't care or won't learn without there being a hit in the "wallet".

I will issue a PP(Warning) to ensure the player knows enough to know it is the wrong thing to do next time; if I believe the player will learn from the education.

I probably do err on the side of leniency, and players get away with too much; but that is the intent.

So yes, if the warning will gain you anything but 1/4 board, like education, you're likely to get it. There are those for whom the warning gains them nothing. Unfortunately, we need a stick for them.

[pran]

campboy, on 2015-March-16, 15:45, said:

I don't do that (because I don't think the laws permit it). But the real question here is whether, if dummy does say "you're in your hand" after declarer calls for a card, defenders have the option of accepting the card called for. I believe they are entitled to do so.

Vampyr, on 2015-March-16, 15:51, said:

Of course.

This is just one reason that the suggestion that a card not be considered "played" until dummy places it in a played position would not work.

I just don't buy the conclusion "it would not work", this is a matter of the eventual understanding of the applicable laws.

Now consider Declarer calling for a non-existing ♥2 from Dummy while there is a ♥3 available there.

Again Dummy says "you're in your hand", (he does not say "I have no ♥2" or Words to that effect).

Technically the call for the ♥2 is still void (Law 46B4), and again Dummy appears to having violated at least Laws 9A2 and 43A1b, probably also Law 43A1c (the call for a non-existing card in dummy is an irregularity!).

Should the fact when "everybody" is convinced that the call for ♥2 was just a misnomer for ♥3 in any way affect the ruling?