[mrdct]

bluejak, on Jan 4 2010, 09:52 PM, said:

Oh, please!

If you feel attention has been drawn, then dummy is required to call the TD, not to pontificate, act like a total nerd, and pretend to be a TD in defiance of Law 10A.

If attention has not been drawn, then the dummy should just shut up as required by Law.

Quoting Laws by dummy is just arrogant, rude and unhelpful.

You earlier opined that "quoting laws to the table is not only illegal it is a lot worse than playing on with a penalty card" but are you now saying that this act is merely "arrogant, rude and unhelpful"?

It seems to me that dummy was simply trying to prevent the irregularity of the players failing to call the TD when required to do so. The obiter dictum of "partner has lead options here" to my mind is a helpful comment as it provides a rationalisation for why she is stepping in to try to prevent the irregularity.

I think the behaviour of declarer's LHO is quite suspect, particularly from an experienced director who ought to know that at very least his actions could be perceived as trying to take advantage of his superior knowledge of the laws to avoid his partner having to incur lead penalties.

[MFA]

bluejak, on Jan 5 2010, 02:57 AM, said:

Quote

Since attention has been drawn to the irregularity (the revoke), dummy is entitled to call the director about that. Law 43A1a.

Now, this is the interesting post. Has attention been drawn? I am not sure.

Wow, is that an issue?
West says "Oops" and replaces his wrong card. How can that not be equivalent with saying: "Sorry guys, I revoked, here is the right card"?

West has drawn attention to his revoke himself. Which he has to in order to avoid the revoke from being established (unless he wants to gamble of course that noone will ever notice the revoke at all).

[jeremy69]

Quote

That needs attention to be drawn. If it is not, then there is no Law requirung a TD call.

Splitting hairs! Dummy thought that declarer was being deprived of his options so using his vast knowledge of the laws he selected 9A3 "any player, including dummy,may attempt to prevent another player commiting an irregularity...."

Quote

I think it is lawyering like this that drives some players away from the "regulated" duplicate bridge scene. There are clubs in the UK who are currently deciding to opt out of the imminent "pay-to-play" arrangements because of this sort of stuff.

The barrack room lawyer may well put some players off but why the affiliation of a club to the EBU should affect this is a bit of a mystery. You will be bound by the same law book whether you affiliate or not and the players who want to quote the law at any point, convenient or otherwise, won't be restricted to EBU clubs.

[1eyedjack]

jeremy69, on Jan 5 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

Quote

I think it is lawyering like this that drives some players away from the "regulated" duplicate bridge scene. There are clubs in the UK who are currently deciding to opt out of the imminent "pay-to-play" arrangements because of this sort of stuff.

The barrack room lawyer may well put some players off but why the affiliation of a club to the EBU should affect this is a bit of a mystery. You will be bound by the same law book whether you affiliate or not and the players who want to quote the law at any point, convenient or otherwise, won't be restricted to EBU clubs.

You make a fair point, but not I think a compelling one.

Clubs are generally run on reasonably democratic lines. Their committees will make decisions that are broadly in accordance with the wishes of their members and will be geared toward retaining members (or at least retaining their positions as committee members). One of the decisions that they will be making is whether to opt in to pay-to-play and subject their members to the authority and regulations of the EBU.

As you point out, the laws to which we refer in this thread are not regulations that have been delegated to a sponsoring organisation. Nevertheless the practicality is that if a club is not affiliated to a sponsoring organisation then there is no higher authority beyond the club itself for the enforcement of any of the laws of bridge, including the primary laws. Furthermore, questions of interpretation of the primary laws, such as whether in particular circumstances attention has been drawn to an irregularity, have at least the potential for referral to the SO's laws and ethics body.

BBO is a prime example of how a body which is not subject to SO regulations have free reign to flout whatever laws they consider appropriate, regardless of whether those laws are regulated by an SO or not. Take for example the prevalence of "psych-barred" tournaments on BBO.

In any case, my point is that this bickering is typical of a type of argument which influences the decision to opt out. That the particular argument is one which concerns the primary laws rather than delegated laws does not dissuade me as to the validity of the generality. It is the mentality/mindset that focuses on whether a volunteered penalty card might or might not call attention to an irregularity, the outcome of which has a material effect on all that follows, which is what turns players off.

[Oof Arted]

blackshoe, on Jan 4 2010, 05:22 PM, said:

Then I looked down and discovered he had led a club. "Oops," says I, and I put down a small club, leaving a spade on the table.

mmmm

So 2 cards FACED on the Table to the SAME trick do NOT make an Irregularity over the Pond

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on Jan 5 2010, 04:00 AM, said:

Ok, so, for once the two moderators agree with each other.  Others don't. 
This is much ado about nothing.  The dummy could have just called the director, since the irregularity (not a revoke, but rather a pen. card) had already occurred.  Dummy could have just done so without putting his two cents in, but just calling the director is the same difference --he would explain that there were options.

Aint no big deal.  next hand.

Whether I agre with Ed or not is irrelevant: I give my views without worrying with whom I agree, in fact, whether there is anyone with whom I agree. I find that in general I tend to agree with the people I have most respect for amongst the more learned types - but there are two obvious possible reasons for this, one good, one bad!

I think this case is important. We must stop dummies participating in the play. Saying that quoting a Law and calling the TD are equivalent is wrong: one is a legal right, one is illegal and trying to control the play.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on Jan 5 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

I think the behaviour of declarer's LHO is quite suspect, particularly from an experienced director who ought to know that at very least his actions could be perceived as trying to take advantage of his superior knowledge of the laws to avoid his partner having to incur lead penalties.

"Suspect", is it? If you want to call me a cheat, come out and say it.

Dummy asserted, essentially, that her knowledge of the laws was at least as good as mine, if not better. I can assure you she was not going to allow me to "take advantage" of anything. Nor had I any intention of doing so. I thought, and still think, that she was participating in the play, in violation of Law 43.

As for preventing the irregularity of failing to call the TD, that irregularity had already happened, so her chance to prevent it was long gone.

[blackshoe]

jeremy69, on Jan 5 2010, 04:41 AM, said:

Dummy thought that declarer was being deprived of his options so using his vast knowledge of the laws he selected 9A3 "any player, including dummy,may attempt to prevent another player commiting an irregularity...."

Her.

Law 9A3 said:

Any player, however, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

Law 42B2 said:

Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer.

Law 43A said:

Except as Law 42 allows:
A. Limitations on dummy
1. (a) Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the director during play.
  ( Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.
  © Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

The second of these may be interpreted in two ways vis-a-vis the first: that it simply reiterates, where declarer is concerned, the provision of law 9A3, without saying anything about dummy attempting to prevent an irregularity by a defender, or that it narrows the scope of dummy's right to attempt to prevent an irregularity to preclude attempting to prevent one by anyone other than declarer. I don't know which interpretation is correct, or even whether any authority has considered the question.

If dummy addressed her comment about lead options to her partner, is there anyone here who would disagree that she would then be in violation of Law 43A1{c}? If she addressed her comment to the table at large, then certainly her partner will have heard it, so it seems to me the same principle applies. If she'd simply said "I think we need the director now", I would have had no problem at all. But that's not what happened.

BTW, this pair have a long history of making their own rulings at the table, and of intimidating lesser players. In the past, this was mostly him, not her. It seems they've changed tactics and are now using this "I'm a director" BS to the same end.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jan 5 2010, 04:15 AM, said:

Does any comment in conjunction with the correction call attention to the revoke? (I did say "oops", but I also wonder about comments by other players).

In my opinion: Clearly YES.

The laws have no requirement to the manner in which attention is called, so any action whatsoever that is suitable to make the players realize that an irregularity has occurred qualifies as "calling attention to the irregularity"

In your case just replacing your spade with a club was such an action. (You didn't even need to say "oops").

[jdonn]

My top priority is not "stop dummy from participating in the play at all costs" (in fact, frankly, no one has ever given me a good reason that dummy shouldn't be able to point out an irregularity). My top priority in this case is "it's really low class to not strictly do what you are supposed to do, then immediately object to the other side not strictly doing what they are supposed to do." It would be like going through the '10 items or fewer' line at the grocery store with 13 items, then 30 seconds later scolding the person behind you for going through with 15. In a case like that I don't care if you are right, you blew it and you should keep quiet (unless you want to do the right thing and tell declarerer yourself that he has options and should call the director to find them out).

I have been hard on you, but deservedly I think. This sort of thing is exactly the reason that lawyers (bridge lawyers in this case, and my apologies real forum lawyers) have a bad reputation.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Jan 5 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

I find that in general I tend to agree with the people I have most respect for amongst the more learned types.

Yes, I have found that to be true, and also true of many other posters. This is natural and expected. I certainly have come to respect certain posters also: some for their common sense, some for their ability to articulate their case, and some for their willingness to do battle with other posters (whom it is clear that they respect) on the merits of what they have written rather than who wrote it.

In this case, Blackshoe and you have great citations of laws which back up the fact that things were not handled very well at the table. I agree that they were not.

However, the end result: that declarer was explained his rights by the director --should be acceptable to all. Dummy did not say what those rights were, even though he probably should have said even less. The timing of the director call was bad, but how many of us have failed to call at the exactly appropriate time? Did dummy know when the wrong card was exposed that his LHO would end up on lead or would ever be on lead before the penalty card went away?

As both Black and Blue have pointed out, either defender could have called the director --and perhaps should have, not as a matter of mandated law but as a matter of good sportsmanship.

P.S., Josh completed his post while I was writing mine, so you have a "respected" opinion, too.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Jan 5 2010, 02:04 PM, said:

I think this case is important.  We must stop dummies participating in the play.  Saying that quoting a Law and calling the TD are equivalent is wrong: one is a legal right, one is illegal and trying to control the play.

From the sound of it, dummy wasn't trying to participate in the play, but was merely trying to participate in the application of the Laws. She didn't say "My partner has lead options and I think he should forbid a club"; she just said "My partner has lead options". That is no more than a summary of what the director would have said if he had been called.

OK, so she should simply have insisted on the director's being called, but the outcome would have been exactly the same: her partner would have found out that he had lead rights. Regardless of how you got there, that is a better outcome than the alternative, which is that the defender should lead something without declarer's being offered a chance to enforce his rights.

From dummy's point of view, she didn't know that Blackshoe was about to call the director (and in fact he only says he "probably" would have done so). Furthermore, she didn't know whether he was going to do that in time to stop his partner from leading.

Blackshoe said:

Under what circumstances, in a similar case, might the TD have denied declarer his lead options? In particular, if dummy addresses the comment about lead options to her partner, should that lead to denial?

How about never?

It's reasonable to warn dummy, and to fine her if she persists in doing it, but I can't see how removing declarer's options can be justified either by law or by the demands of equity.

[bluejak]

It is all very well talking about sportsmanship, and no doubt Ed did something wrong. But one of the worst things at this game, which is completely unsporting as well as illegal, is for dummy to wait to a critical moment and then point something out to declarer's advantage that affects the play. It's awful, and some dummies do it more than once. That is what happened here, and I dislike trying to condone this unsportsmanlike behaviour because someone else at the table did something wrong. I am sorry, but two wrongs do not make a right.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jan 5 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

I am sorry, but two wrongs do not make a right.

In this case you are incorrect. The director came to the table and explained declarer's options to him. That is a 'right', and it was caused by the second 'wrong'. Having a nice cliche to fall back on doesn't change that.

[barmar]

Even though the end result was the same as if the proper procedure had been followed, that doesn't make the process correct. I'll throw another aphorism out: the ends don't justify the means.

For whatever reason, the lawmakers have given dummy very limited rights. He's not allowed to exceed these just because he feels that an injustice will be done. It's up to declarer to protect himself.

[StevenG]

Has the problem of a player not knowing about lead penalties not been discussed here before? I seem to remember that the conclusion was that the director could be called at the end of play and award an adjusted score, if appropriate.

[1eyedjack]

barmar, on Jan 5 2010, 06:41 PM, said:

It's up to declarer to protect himself.

Why, then, give dummy the limited rights that he has, such as to call the TD when attention to an infraction is drawn, or, worse, to prevent declarer from causing an infraction?

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on Jan 5 2010, 09:21 AM, said:

mrdct, on Jan 5 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

I think the behaviour of declarer's LHO is quite suspect, particularly from an experienced director who ought to know that at very least his actions could be perceived as trying to take advantage of his superior knowledge of the laws to avoid his partner having to incur lead penalties.

"Suspect", is it? If you want to call me a cheat, come out and say it.

One the evidence at hand I certainly wouldn't say (and didn't say) you cheated.

Deliberately not calling the director when attention has been drawn to an irregularity is cheating when it is motivated by an attempt to gain an advantage through the potential avoidance of further penalties. I'm sure in this case your motivation was to keep the game moving and to avoid the disruption and acrimony of a director call, but the potential perception remains that you could have had other motives which makes it a pretty naiive thing to do, especially from an experienced TD.

An actively ethical player is careful to both behave ethically and avoid situations where their behaviour could be perceived as unethical.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on Jan 5 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

But one of the worst things at this game, which is completely unsporting as well as illegal, is for dummy to wait to a critical moment and then point something out to declarer's advantage that affects the play.

Where, pray tell, in the Laws is a time limitation placed on when dummy is allowed to attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer?

As blackshoe already stated, we are only talking about a couple of seconds between the "oops" and the "wait a minute, partner has lead options here" and we were at the completion of the almost-revoke trick. This would strike me as the optimal time for dummy to take action.

Dummy is entirely within her rights to try to prevent declarer perpetrating the irregularity of not calling the director and I see nothing wrong with dummy expressing the reasons why she is seeking to have that irregularity avoided; particularly given that she given no indication of whether or not she believes lead penalties ought to be applied or which lead penalities ought to be applied (which would of course be illegal).

[bluejak]

Once an irregularity has been perpetrated it is too late to prevent it.

But stopping someone else from committing what you call an irregularity when you have already committed the same irregularity is ludicrous. When attention was drawn - assuming you decide that attention was drawn - all four players are under the same compulsion to call the TD. Why did dummy not do so?

What did dummy do? She waited for two more cards to be played, so as to reach a critical moment, and then and only then communicated to declarer something to help him in the play of the hand.

She did not stop an irregularity: the irregularity had occurred two cards earlier.