I'm a Director, too!

[bluejak]

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! :o

 

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]

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]

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.

 

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

Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer.

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.

  (B) 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]

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]

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]

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.

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[mrdct]

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

Rubbish. What if dummy hadn't said a word and then declarer said "wait a minute I fear that we may have breached the Law requiring the director to be called after an irregularity so we better call him now to prevent that irregularity". When you turn up at the table are you going to say, "sorry once an irregularity has been perpetrated it is too late to prevent it"?

 

The timeframe specified in the Laws is "the Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity". Blackshoe has already indicated that the timeframe between the "oops" and dummy's comment was so short that it did not afford him sufficient time to explain declarer's rights. Obviously "at once" can't mean instantly as humans need to time to cogitate what's going on and then come to the realisation that a director is required.

[bluejak]

Rubbish. You mean that dummy has not got time to speak while two more cards were played? I am surprised you want to support deliberately unethical behaviour. Ok, it was not cheating because I expect dummy did not know it was unethical, but condoning dummy directing play is awful.

 

Sure, if declarer had called the TD, or even if dummy had said something suitable, or had said it at a non-critical moment, it might be different. But that is not what happened: what happened is dummy waited until a critical moment and then made a suggestion about the play to declarer.

[duschek]

I believe that "oops" amounts to drawing attention to the irregularity. Thus dummy should call the TD when nobody else does (Law 9B1).

 

It all depends on which side knows about the rules. Here, it seems that declarer was unsure and relied on LHO's authority. From dummy's outburst it is clear that she has some understanding of the Laws, but not necessarily a strong TD. I am not going to let LHO benefit from this. I would rule that LHO had decided on a rectification himself, apparently being that the retracted spade should just remain face-up on the table and be played when possible. I would cancel that rectification under Law 10B and provide the correct rectification (penalty card, lead options) according to Law 50.

 

I fail to see why I should not cancel a clearly illegal rectification decided by the players, even when dummy decided to summon the TD at this time, when I hold LHO primarily responsible for (perhaps inadvertently) taking advantage of the fact that everybody at the table sees him as an authority on the Laws. Had dummy approached me after the hand, I would cancel the rectification and award an adjusted score on the same basis, so dummy hardly gains from "timing" her TD summoning.

 

Note how well this ruling, easily supported by the Laws, fits with 1eyedjack's layman views. I would certainly expect of any player with directing skills to summon the director when he or his partner tries to correct a mechanical error such as a revoke, call out of turn, or the like.

[jdaming]

then made a suggestion about the play to declarer.

I completely agree that saying something like "declarer has the right to forbid that suit being led" WOULD be unethical (cheating against the laws what have you) but this is not what happened. Dummy simply stated that Declarer had options. Which are the options declarer is given by the laws and might have otherwise have been taken from him.

[TimG]

I don't think

"Wait a minute, partner has lead options here"

amounts to directing the play.

 

I don't think dummy was really preventing an irregularity, but rather protecting her side's rights. I don't think there should be any objection to that. Does anyone really want to gain because declarer wasn't aware she had rights and wasn't bold enough to call the director and ask?

[mrdct]

You mean that dummy has not got time to speak while two more cards were played?

That is exactly what the facts reported by blackshoe suggest as by his own admission between his "oops" and dummy's comment he did not have time to explain declarer's rights so obviously the period of time it took for the last two cards of the trick to be played was extremely short.

 

It is ludicrous to suggest that dummy was lying in wait for the opportune moment to interject to gain some advantage for his side.

 

Perhaps dummy was waiting for someone else to pipe-up, but when nobody did took the appropriate action to prevent the irregularity of the director not being called to the table.

 

We don't have any details of the hand or how many tricks there were to go, so I guess it is also plausible that dummy might have felt if her side won the trick the hand would be over and the penalty card would be irrelevant so was initially comfortable to let the ball go through to the keeper, but once it was known that lead penalties could come into play, she quite reasonable sought to prevent the infraction of no director being called.

[bluejak]

If I am declarer, yes. I believe dummy should not help me in the play.

 

I still think most of the responses ignore the timing of dummy's intervention.

[blackshoe]

Since mrdct has got it wrong, let me clarify the timing:

 

I revoked. I corrected the revoke. Declarer played from dummy. Partner won the trick. Dummy immediately made her comment. I then objected to the comment. She then called the director. There were no long pauses anywhere in there. OTOH, it didn't happen with split-second timing, either. Say a second or two between events.

 

It wasn't the time between "oops" and the comment, it was the time between partner's winning the trick and the comment to which I referred earlier.

 

I am not at all sure that either member of this pair considers me an authority on the laws. Both seem pretty confident that they know more about the game (all aspects) than just about anybody else.

<_<

 

As to mrdct's other suppositions: yes, it's ludicrous, which is why I didn't suggest it, no, and no.

[Vampyr]

I still think most of the responses ignore the timing of dummy's intervention.

Did you not read the post directly above this one? It states what is pretty obvious, that dummy did not know until the end of the trick that her LHO would be on lead to the next trick.

 

I do not understand what you are suggesting, David. Should dummy, whose partner might not be aware that he had rights, have let play continue?

 

I think that "oops" clearly calls attention to the irregularity, but even if this were not the case, I think that allowing a lead to be made when there is an exposed card that has not been deemed a penalty card by director is an irregularity.

 

The OP stated:

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.

 

This is an interesting position. When exactly was the ruling to be made regarding the revoke? Would the OP have let partner lead and play continue "normally", declarer perhaps having been ignorant of the fact that he has been taken advantage of?

 

Also, this whole thing about dummy's mentioning "lead options" is stupid. I think that it is only natural for dummy to say something to that effect (possibly accidentally, and possibly in a bit of a panic) to make sure play is halted and the lead not made before the director arrived.

 

I am very slow to use the C word, so I will side with the poster who said that the OP's actions (and probable motives) were "suspect".

[gnasher]

I am very slow to use the C word, so I will side with the poster who said that the OP's actions (and probable motives) were "suspect".

I think you should be slow to use the "s" word too.

 

In any case, it seems quite inappropriate to use it here. Blackshoe's failure to call the director immediately seems to have been motivated by a desire for an easy life, and his concern about what dummy said appears to be driven by the belief that the letter of the Laws is more important than its spirit. That might seem wrong-headed to some of us, but it seems quite unfair to question his motives.