[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2019-November-25, 16:18, said:

This has been discussed at considerable length in these forums.

Yeah, well, I guess the assertion must be true then.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2019-November-25, 19:47, said:

Yeah, well, I guess the assertion must be true then.

I think that the basis for your belief is faulty, but I do know some of the non-bridge beliefs that you have revealed in these forums, so I am not surprised.

[Cascade]

 nige1, on 2019-November-25, 02:19, said:

Yes and the director might impose a PP on dummy.

Very unlikely in practice I would venture to suggest.

There are much more significant infractions for which penalties are not handed out when they should in my view.

To be fair to dummy on some occasions the comment might have started as an attempt to prevent an irregularity but was delivered too late.

Worse though I have had director's tell me that because I did not say that I was going to accept the lead then I must have rejected it.

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2019-November-25, 19:15, said:

Accepting the lead is giving the game away.

By that logic, the experienced defender should refuse the lead - he has no reason to think that declarer will not retry legally after entering with some Queen. But I think simply playing to the lead is not going to wake up Declarer anyway, he will be much too concentrated on what card is played.

 Vampyr, on 2019-November-25, 19:15, said:

It doesn’t really matter what dummy thinks about the hand; he has no right to try to play the hand from his side of the table.

Agreed, if he consciously aimed to obtain an advantage (rather than just "prevent" an infraction) then he fully deserves a PP.

[nige1]

Bridge Rules are too complex. Many are controversial, unnecessary, add no value, and should be scrapped e.g.

• Prevention of pro-questions.
• Insistence that victims protect themselves from opponents' disclosure infractions..
• Denial of redress to the victim who makes a serious error in the mix-up created by law-breaking opponents.
• Bizarre "equity-restoration" kludges to allow players to recover with minimal penalty from mechanical errors (illegal or stupid bids and plays like insufficient bids).
• Denial of redress to victims who don't explain how they've been damaged.
• Almost all system regulations -- for instance alert rules.
• And other local variations,

A more relevant example: condoning irregular behavior by a player who attempts to "prevent" an infraction. e.g.

• Dummy trying to prevent declarer leading from the wrong hand. Often the attempt is belated, causing resentment, or worse, as here..
• Player asking "having none", ostensibly to try to prevent a revoke., This rule provides a careless or unethical partnership with information that might help them to count the hand. It's pure evil.

The only justification for such rules is to make the law more sophisticated for the amusement of secretary birds.

Bridge-Law Discussion-groups (like this one) illustrate that directors disagree about ruling the simplest cases with undisputed facts, Players fare worse. Bridge rule-makers should gradually work towards a simple set of rules that players and directors can understand. Pulling the chain on unnecessary rules might be a good start.

[pescetom]

 nige1, on 2019-November-26, 10:02, said:

A more relevant example: condoning irregular behavior by a player who attempts to "prevent" an infraction. e.g.
[*]Dummy trying to prevent declarer leading from the wrong hand. Often the attempt is belated, causing resentment, or worse, as here.

The Law doesn't condone such irregular behaviour, although it is rarely punished. The root cause here is that Dummy despite his many limitations may attempt to prevent an infraction, which is both unnecessary (except perhaps in refusing to revoke) and an obvious source of problems.

 nige1, on 2019-November-26, 10:02, said:

[*]Player asking "having none", ostensibly to try to prevent a revoke., This helps careless or unethical players to count the hand

Luckily nobody does this here, nor would dream that it is legal. It was forced on WBF by ACBL as I heard it - certainly should be scrapped.

[Vampyr]

 pescetom, on 2019-November-26, 08:02, said:

By that logic, the experienced defender should refuse the lead - he has no reason to think that declarer will not retry legally after entering with some Queen.

Unfortunately, Aces and Kings beat Queens.

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2019-November-26, 10:41, said:

Unfortunately, Aces and Kings beat Queens.

Of course, but as I said defender has no reason to expect that entering with some Queen will not be possible.

[weejonnie]

 nige1, on 2019-November-25, 17:12, said:

A typical case, where the director might consider a PP.

Against South's 6♠, West leads ♥J, won by declarer's ♥A.

At trick 2, declarer nominates dummy's ♠Q. Defenders are experienced players but neither objects.

Dummy hastens to point out "You are in hand".

Coming to his senses, declarer, eschews the ♠ finesse, playing safely to make his contract. He is rewarded with an overtrick

Defenders call the director. IMO he should adjust to 6♠-1 and impose a PP for Dummy's interference in the play.

---

it is also question as to whether 'dummy could have known' at the time of the infraction that it might damage the NOS. Law 23 oops 72C. A good evil player might well realise that a heart ruff is threatened and declarer should play Ace and another (even if the king does not drop) to circumvent it.

[axman]

 sfi, on 2019-November-25, 13:55, said:

I think I can use Law 55B2 by ruling that the lead from dummy is the "correct hand" if the defenders exercise their right to accept it.

Making declarer follow with the card they were intending to lead just seems strange and punishing - it's another situation where declarer can't gain an advantage.

I believe that the situation described is that dummy (lead) and declarer (play) have played to a trick (both OOT). I should think that accepting the lead requires that the played card is required to be played even if a revoke (a revoke can be corrected).

[barmar]

 weejonnie, on 2019-November-26, 11:32, said:

it is also question as to whether 'dummy could have known' at the time of the infraction that it might damage the NOS.

If Lamford and SB are to be believed, whenever damage actually occurs, the offending player "could have known" that it might, so that Law licenses always adjusting.

[Vampyr]

 axman, on 2019-November-26, 15:08, said:

I believe that the situation described is that dummy (lead) and declarer (play) have played to a trick (both OOT). I should think that accepting the lead requires that the played card is required to be played even if a revoke (a revoke can be corrected).

I think so too. The law is not very clear.

[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2019-December-01, 10:21, said:

I think so too. The law is not very clear.

Are you serious?

Law 44C said:

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

and is very clear!
(My enhancement)

[sanst]

That is one of the more nonsensical rules in the Laws. Why would this have precedence over the prohibition of cheating? Why would that be a worse offence than being violent?
I agree with nige1 that the laws are in dire need of a thorough cleanup. There’s a discussion over here with Ton Kooijman, chair of the WBFLC, about the last part of the last sentence of 17D3. According to him only the player who passed OOT commited an infraction, the subsequent ones passed in turn. But why is the information given by these passes UI? That he can’t make clear.

[pran]

 sanst, on 2019-December-02, 02:54, said:

That is one of the more nonsensical rules in the Laws. Why would this have precedence over the prohibition of cheating? Why would that be a worse offence than being violent?
.......

Can you see any possible conflict in the laws here? I can't.

[gordontd]

 sanst, on 2019-December-02, 02:54, said:

That is one of the more nonsensical rules in the Laws. Why would this have precedence over the prohibition of cheating? Why would that be a worse offence than being violent?

The laws are not there to deal with cheating or violence.

[sanst]

 gordontd, on 2019-December-02, 06:29, said:

The laws are not there to deal with cheating or violence.

Law 73B2: “The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.” I do call that cheating. And I encountered more than once oral and psychological violence, which certainly is a breach of law 74A2 “A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.”
Besides, since it happens and not so rarely as to be neglectable, the Laws should deal with it.

[gordontd]

 sanst, on 2019-December-02, 08:23, said:

Law 73B2: “The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.” I do call that cheating. And I encountered more than once oral and psychological violence, which certainly is a breach of law 74A2 “A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.”
Besides, since it happens and not so rarely as to be neglectable, the Laws should deal with it.

I think your quote from Law 73B2 is effectively arguing my point: despite (or because of) defining it at the gravest possible offence, no sanction is provided for it.

From the Introduction to the Laws: "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. "

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2019-December-01, 11:02, said:

Are you serious?

and is very clear!
(My enhancement)

Whatever. It is more interesting when both dummy and declarer have played legally to the trick.

[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2019-December-02, 12:47, said:

Whatever. It is more interesting when both dummy and declarer have played legally to the trick.

In what way?
Sample scenario(s) please.