Legal?

[jsnjake16]

My partner and I were playing in a knockout recently and we ended up defending 3NT. A little over half-way into the play, my partner was on lead, and we had already taken 4 tricks. He thought about his play for about 20 seconds when I realized that he had one of his tricks turned wrong, so he thought we had only taken 3 tricks. I didn't think much of it and told him he had one wrong. He then laid down an ace to set it. Any other lead would've given them the contract, and it seemed clear that he wouldn't have played the ace if I didn't tell him that we had actually taken 4 tricks already. The opponents never said anything but I was wondering if there were any laws broken?

[Phil]

We talked about this here before. Perhaps the expatriate sages from the Laws site can be more specific, but I think partner (dummy or defender) can only call attention to this before the next trick, otherwise it becomes UI.

[RMB1]

Phil has it right. The relevant law is Law 65B3:

... Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

(Law 16B is the law on unauthorised information.)

 

Robin

[McBruce]

On the previous Laws site before the move here, we established this last month:

 

--Defenders or dummy may call attention to a trick turned incorrectly until the lead is made to the next trick (65B). Declarer only can go back further to have an error corrected.

 

--A player always has the right to an accurate count if the turned tricks do not agree, but the proper way to do this is to call the TD and explain that there has been an infraction since the turned tricks do not agree. The TD will examine the played cards and discover where the error is. Any other method of discovering where the error is involves players inspecting quitted tricks (66C) or discussing previous plays, neither of which is desirable.

 

--Even going this route is liable to pass UI, and in the case mentioned here, the result would be vulnerable to an almost certain adjustment or PP.

 

So you have to let your partner work it out for himself.

[kenrexford]

Absolutely the rule. No comments.

 

That said, some partners drive me absolutely nuts with this. One friend of mine is wrong on his trick count probably half the time, and then he always counts his winners/losers late in the hand, getting the wrong number. I twitch violently, but uncontrollably. I think the man is usually closer to right if you count his "losers" as "winners" rather than the actual way he has them on the damn table. LOL

[mycroft]

For those that can't count (hmm, I don't know any of those), just be extra careful to count correctly yourself. While you can't answer "how many tricks do we have in?", if the miscounter can see your count...

 

Strangely enough, that doesn't seem to be specifically illegal, even if it is not specifically authorized information.

[iviehoff]

To be clear, if the opponents had called the director, probably he should have adjusted the score to 3N making, on the grounds that your partner abused the unauthorised information you provided.

[helene_t]

But the correct trick count is authorized information isn't it?

[bluejak]

If you know what the correct trick count is because partner has told it you illegally, no, it is unauthorised.

 

Incidentally, Ken, does your partner not know he puts cards wrong? try to train him to count the cards in front of someone else.

[iviehoff]

To be clear, if the opponents had called the director, probably he should have adjusted the score to 3N making, on the grounds that your partner abused the unauthorised information you provided.

Thinking about it more carefully, if the opponents wanted a ruling, since this is ACBL (if I remember correctly) they should have called the director as soon you made the illegal comment. (Outside ACBL, in those countries where the authorities have not elected to disapply 16B2, it would probably have been sufficient to reserve their rights and call the director later if necessary.) The director should then warn your partner about the abuse of unauthorised information. It is then possible that the second offence would not have occurred.

[blackshoe]

Thinking about it more carefully, if the opponents wanted a ruling, since this is ACBL (if I remember correctly) they should have called the director as soon you made the illegal comment. (Outside ACBL, in those countries where the authorities have not elected to disapply 16B2, it would probably have been sufficient to reserve their rights and call the director later if necessary.) The director should then warn your partner about the abuse of unauthorised information. It is then possible that the second offence would not have occurred.

This is no longer different in the ACBL. Law 16B2 still allows the RA to prohibit reserving rights, but the ACBL did not make that election in the current laws.

[jnichols]

since this is ACBL (if I remember correctly) they should have called the director as soon you made the illegal comment.

In the 2008 ACBL version of the Laws the ACBL has not elected to disallow reserving ones rights.

[richlp]

Phil has it right.  The relevant law is Law 65B3:

... Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

(Law 16B is the law on unauthorised information.)

 

Robin

Could you clarify something for me pleae.

 

Can the "right expires when a lead is made to the following trick" be interpreted to mean that you can only point out when the last trick is incorrectly pointed?

 

Could a comment at Trick 10 such as "Pard. You've got Trick 4 turned wrong" be a violation of this rule?

[blackshoe]

Could you clarify something for me pleae.

 

Can the "right expires when a lead is made to the following trick" be interpreted to mean that you can only point out when the last trick is incorrectly pointed?

 

Could a comment at Trick 10 such as "Pard. You've got Trick 4 turned wrong" be a violation of this rule?

Certainly. In fact, that's precisely what the clause you quoted means: dummy or a defender can only call attention to a card turned the wrong way on the current trick until the lead is made to the next trick. After that, it's an infraction of law to do so.