I'm a Director, too!

[blackshoe]

Today, defending some NT contract, I was expecting declarer to lead a spade at one point - so I played a spade. 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. Yes, this is poor procedure, I should have called the TD. Now my partner wins the trick, and dummy says "Wait a minute, partner has lead options here". When I objected, she said "I'm a director, too, and I'm entitled to prevent an irregularity". The director was duly called, gave declarer his lead options, and went away. No comment was made on the fact that dummy started the ball.

 

Comments? In particular, I'm wondering what irregularity it was that dummy was trying to prevent.

[jeremy69]

The irregularity of the director not bring called (by either side) when there has been an infraction?

[Chris3875]

Well, I guess she was right in one way that Declarer does have the right to request or forbid a spade to be led by your partner - however, I thought dummy could only try to prevent an irregularity by Declarer.

 

I am SHOCKED that you would decide to have a penalty card on the table without calling the TD :P

[gnasher]

Why hadn't you told declarer about the lead options yourself?

[jdonn]

Honestly I think it's pretty outrageous to complain that dummy called the director when they didn't complain that you had failed to call the director earlier. I think there is a word for that sort of thing but I don't recall what it is.

[MFA]

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

[Chris3875]

Hmmm she wasn't calling the Director about the revoke though.

 

jdonn, maybe the word you are seeking is "shitstirring"

[bluejak]

Someone doing something wrong does not justify someone else doing something wrong.

 

Dummy has one right in this situation: to call the TD. Anything else is illegal. Quoting Laws to the table is not only illegal it is a lot worse than playing on with a penalty card. Players often do that, no-one minds very much.

 

I am SHOCKED that you would decide to have a penalty card on the table without calling the TD 

Lots of people do, so I think shock is over the top.

 

The irregularity of the director not bring called (by either side) when there has been an infraction?

Funnily enough, there is no Law requiring this.

 

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.

 

But what I am sure of is that that is not what dummy did.

[Elianna]

Honestly I think it's pretty outrageous to complain that dummy called the director when they didn't complain that you had failed to call the director earlier. I think there is a word for that sort of thing but I don't recall what it is.

There's a Farsi phrase that I like better than the English phrase: "The onion calls the garlic stinky". But I might go with Chris's word, honestly.

 

If dummy said something like "declarer can require spade lead", etc, then I'd have a problem. But all she said is that declarer has options (truth) and got a director.

[mrdct]

Quoting Laws to the table is not only illegal it is a lot worse than playing on with a penalty card.

Is there a Law that says that?

 

Law 42B2 gives dummy qualified rights to "try to prevent any irregularity by declarer".

 

Law 9B2 states, "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification". Accordingly, dummy is within his rights to try to stop his partner from playing-on until the director has outlined all of the nuances created by the penalty card. Quoting laws could quite reasonably form part of dummy's strategy to try to prevent his partner from perpetrating an irregularity.

[mrdct]

The irregularity of the director not bring called (by either side) when there has been an infraction?

Funnily enough, there is no Law requiring this.

How about Law 9B1(a)" The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity".

[bluejak]

The irregularity of the director not bring called (by either side) when there has been an infraction?

Funnily enough, there is no Law requiring this.

How about Law 9B1(a)" The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity".

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

[bluejak]

Quoting Laws to the table is not only illegal it is a lot worse than playing on with a penalty card.

Is there a Law that says that?

 

Law 42B2 gives dummy qualified rights to "try to prevent any irregularity by declarer".

 

Law 9B2 states, "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification". Accordingly, dummy is within his rights to try to stop his partner from playing-on until the director has outlined all of the nuances created by the penalty card. Quoting laws could quite reasonably form part of dummy's strategy to try to prevent his partner from perpetrating an irregularity.

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.

[aguahombre]

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.

[blackshoe]

I didn't explain declarer's rights to him for three reasons:

1. Dummy didn't give me the chance.

2. Declarer didn't ask.

3. When I'm playing, and not a playing director, I am not a director, I'm a player.

 

I probably, given a few seconds to think about it, would simply have called the TD myself.

 

Dummy did not call the director, so I didn't complain about her calling the director. What she did is to participate in the play of the hand by pointing out to her partner* that in her opinion he has lead options before my partner led to the next trick. I'm not so sure he has those options, though, since there was no TD call and no TD ruling regarding the revoke.

 

*She may in fact have said "Partner, you have lead options". I am not certain of this, which is why I didn't put it in the OP.

 

Well, okay, I've stretched the truth - dummy made a statement, I objected, and then she called the director. To what did I object? The fact that it seemed to me that dummy had violated Law 42. Further, while she is permitted to attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer, she is not permitted to attempt to prevent an irregularity by a defender, and the irregularity she was attempting to prevent was my partner leading before declarer had exercised his options — an irregularity by a defender.

 

If I had not said anything when she made her statement, she would have told her partner his options. No doubt she would have got them right, and I wouldn't have said anything to that. All wrong, of course, but several people have been berating me lately for "too many" director calls - in particular for things like the original revoke. So I was trying to tone it down a bit. Seems like that was a bad idea.

 

9B2 doesn't apply until the TD has been called. If dummy wanted to attempt to prevent the irregularity of playing on without calling the TD, she should have done so before declarer played from dummy on the revoke trick. Once declarer did that, dummy can no longer attempt to prevent that irregularity.

 

Hm. That's interesting. Where do we draw the line here? There has been a revoke, corrected (without, I think, attention having been drawn to it - certainly no one said anything when I corrected the revoke). If attention was not drawn, dummy has not the right to call the director — and declarer playing on is not an irregularity, so dummy has no right to attempt to prevent it. Is this then an illegal attempt to prevent?

 

Chris is shocked because I've told her never to do that. Violated my own rule, I did (see 3rd para preceding). I'm kinda shocked myself. B)

 

The TD failed to address the question of our not calling her when I corrected my revoke, though if attention wasn't called to it, there was no requirement to call her. She also failed to address the question whether dummy's comment was legal. I admit I didn't press either point, since frankly I figured she'd blow me off anyway.

 

Some further questions:

 

Does correcting a revoke without saying anything constitute "drawing attention to an irregularity"? I would assume that if I had tried to pick up the revoke card declarer (if dummy gave him the chance before doing it herself) would have objected, and I suppose that calls attention to the irregularity.

 

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).

 

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?

 

Having been called to the table at the time in the actual case, and given the facts of that case, what is the correct (and complete) ruling?

 

In summary, the first mistake was mine - I revoked. The second mistake was also mine — I didn't call the TD. The third mistake was IMO dummy's — I'm not at all sure she has a right to mention lead options at that point. Then we finally did something right, and called the TD. The rest of the mistakes were hers. :blink: :ph34r:

[Chris3875]

shocked WAS over the top - I agree. However, the fact it was in capital letters and followed by a poking out tongue smilie indicated that it was only poking fun at the normally correct blackshoe.

[blackshoe]

I know, Chris - and that's how I took it. :ph34r:

[blackshoe]

Um. One clarification: when I said in the OP that "no comment was made on the fact that dummy started the ball", I meant no comment by the TD - who had been given all the facts of who did what, and when.

[mrdct]

The irregularity of the director not bring called (by either side) when there has been an infraction?

Funnily enough, there is no Law requiring this.

How about Law 9B1(a)" The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity".

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

Wouldn't the act itself of the revoke card being substituted with a legal card constitute "attention drawn to an irregularity" and therefore trigger the law requiring the TD call? Of course the failure to call the TD when required by Law 9B1(a) becomes a further irregularity.

[1eyedjack]

Personally I would have said that leaving a penalty card face up on the table is itself an act of drawing attention to an unestablished revoke.

 

But then I am just a layman.

 

I suppose that bitching about what we would like the laws to have said rather than what they actually say is rather unproductive, and there are other forums for that anyway. Even so, I can't resist. It would have been so much simpler if any player at the table (dummy included) were granted a right (if not an obligation) to call the TD at any time for whatever reason, infraction or no (with the TD perhaps provided with the protection of allowing for a PP for frivolous calls). Or if that is too rich, at least give a blanket right to call the TD after an infraction regardless of whether or not attention has been drawn to it.

 

The laws have undergone several rewrites over history, and I cannot believe that this issue went unconsidered. Purely out of curiosity I would be interested to know what reasoning went into the prescription that attention be drawn to the irregularity before someone is entitled to call the TD. It is only dummy who is affected by this: any other player who wishes to call the TD after an irregularity can simply say "ooh look! An irregularity!" and then everyone can(/must) call the TD anyway.

 

Certainly it offends my sense of natural justice that the current laws allow only for the possibility that declarer, who may be ill-informed of the laws, may end up being denied all of the protection that the laws intentionally provide, simply because a defender fails to call the TD, while dummy sits there fuming and can see it all unfolding while powerless to act.

 

Given the shortcomings in the laws, it seems to me that if there has actually been an irregularity, followed by an act that might arguably be said to have drawn attention to it, then it would serve the furtherance of justice if we lean in favour of interpreting that later act as drawing said attention for the purposes of requiring the director to be called.

 

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. (OK I realise the OP came up in an ACBL game).

[mrdct]

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]

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? :o

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]

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...."

 

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]

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]

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

 

:o