Declarer wants to change his card

[blackshoe]

I work on the principle that either you call the TD or you don't: you do not call the TD later.

 

Sure. So do I. We might wish that everybody followed this principle. But they don't. :huh:

[barmar]

In the case at hand, the laws do not address the problem. Because of that lack, leading while not everyone has quitted the previous trick is not, technically, an irregularity. However, declarer picking up his played card and putting it back in his hand is an irregularity. It is also one of that class of irregularity which will require the director to make sure it is handled correctly. So the assertion that nothing worthy of a director call occurred until declarer changed his card is incorrect.

But are players really expected to memorize all the actions that are irregularities? And if you don't know, or even suspect, that something is an irregularity, you're not going to feel a need to call a TD. As someone said, if you're not sure, call -- but in this case they probably weren't "not sure", so they didn't see the need.

 

I'm a student of the Laws, but I admit that I didn't remember that taking back the card is an irregularity, and would not have batted an eye at declarer's initial action. As with the OP, it's only when a different card appears when he replays that I'd have a problem.

[aguahombre]

 

I'm a student of the Laws, but I admit that I didn't remember that taking back the card is an irregularity, and would not have batted an eye at declarer's initial action. As with the OP, it's only when a different card appears when he replays that I'd have a problem.

Thank you. Apparently I failed at expressing this point.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't expect players to memorize all the possible irregularities. It would make more sense to memorize what is proper procedure, and then anything else is an irregularity. But I don't expect players to do that either.

 

If you aren't aware that something is or may be an irregularity, I don't think you can be faulted for not calling the TD. OTOH, there are four players at the table, and anything that seems like calling attention to an irregularity should trigger a director call by somebody. "Hang on, I've still not quitted the trick" may not technically call attention to an irregularity, but it sure seems like it does.

[aguahombre]

"Hang on, I've still not quitted the trick" may not technically call attention to an irregularity, but it sure seems like it does.

I thought we already established that Declarer's lead after all four cards had been played to the previous trick was NOT an irregularity; the defender not having turned his card down is not an irregularity. I don't know whether fourth hand saying "hang on" to prevent his partner from playing to the next trick so he might retain his option to have the trick faced is an irregularity or not.

 

So, if "hang on" seems like calling attention to an irregularity, please tell us what irregularity that would be, and which side should have called the TD at that point.

[barmar]

Actually, I'll bet at least one of the players assumed that leading before the previous trick had been quitted was an irregularity, and "hang on" drew attention to it. But they probably also thought that it was one of the trivial irregularities that one just handles at the table.

[blackshoe]

I thought we already established that Declarer's lead after all four cards had been played to the previous trick was NOT an irregularity; the defender not having turned his card down is not an irregularity. I don't know whether fourth hand saying "hang on" to prevent his partner from playing to the next trick so he might retain his option to have the trick faced is an irregularity or not.

 

So, if "hang on" seems like calling attention to an irregularity, please tell us what irregularity that would be, and which side should have called the TD at that point.

 

It isn't an irregularity. I said so. Repeatedly. "Seems like" = "has the appearance of" ≠ "is".

[mgoetze]

If someone places a quitted card incorrectly, facing the wrong way, do you call the Director? I've never seen anyone do that. Players just point out that the card is pointed incorrectly, the mistake is corrected, and play continues. In real life, it would be considered absurd to call the Director for this form of irregularity.

 

Huh? Why is this an irregularity? I know several world class players who quit all their cards horizontally and noone ever points out anything.

[pran]

Huh? Why is this an irregularity? I know several world class players who quit all their cards horizontally and noone ever points out anything.

That is a violation of

A. Completed Trick

 

When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

 

B. Keeping Track of the Ownership of Tricks

 

1. If the player’s side has won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward his partner.

 

2. If the opponents have won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward the opponents.

[...]

[mgoetze]

Didn't know that's in the laws. Guess what they play at the Bermuda Bowl is just not bridge. ;)

[aguahombre]

Didn't know that's in the laws. Guess what they play at the Bermuda Bowl is just not bridge. ;)

Yeh, the wording of that section, and others...such as how the dummy's cards are arranged when he/she sets it down, make it sound like they are merely describing what normally happens rather than it must be that way. So, it is unclear IMO.

[blackshoe]

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized)…

 

It seems pretty clear that this is a "does" situation, so not doing it is a violation.

[mycroft]

There are probably 1000 violations of the law that happen every session. There are some violations of law that are habitual, and nobody bothers to correct it, because it's "never a problem".

 

Except that sometimes it is. Very very rarely, it is. And as I tell the offender when I rule against them, "yes, everybody does it, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong. It just means that almost always it doesn't cause damage. When it does. you get ruled against." When I do something unLawful (and I do), I realize that if it is one of those cases where it costs me, then it costs me.

[c_corgi]

It feels like the direction this thread is taking will result in the conclusion that a minor technical infringement by the NOS will result in loss of rectification for the grossest of misdemeanors by the OS. I don't see why "Director does so rule..." in L11 should not be interpreted as Director rules that NOS may lose the right to rectification... so that there is still scope for TD's judgement. In this case I would rule (1) the original lead stands and (2) the replacement lead is UI to defenders UNLESS declarer was aware that the original lead was irrevocably played.

[Vampyr]

My sympathies are with the OPer. If declarer led to trick 2 while I, as defender, still had my card facing up for trick 1, I wouldn't call the Director, I would just point out that trick 1 wasn't finished and expect declarer to wait until everyone was finished with trick 1. If I were declarer in this same scenario, I would be stunned if someone called the Director (I wouldn't object or anything, but I would be stunned). It was only when the declarer changed his card for trick 2 that something happened that merited calling the Director.

 

This post is inappropriate for this thread, because it describes what would happen in the real world.

[blackshoe]

We had hoped, David and I, that this forum would not become another blml, but would instead be a place where folks could get practical advice on how the laws should be applied. I guess the hope was in vain. :(

[Vampyr]

We had hoped, David and I, that this forum would not become another blml, but would instead be a place where folks could get practical advice on how the laws should be applied. I guess the hope was in vain. :(

 

Isn't the most practical approach considering what the players will actually do, though?

[blackshoe]

Not if what they're actually doing is illegal, unless you're of the school that (apparently) believes that "it's a game; if the players do something outside the rules, change the rules to match what they do".

[Vampyr]

Not if what they're actually doing is illegal, unless you're of the school that (apparently) believes that "it's a game; if the players do something outside the rules, change the rules to match what they do".

 

No, but declarer playing prematurely is something players will see once in a great while, and as I think David mentioned, they might not know it is an infraction (if it even is). It would be surprising for the director to be called. How are you suggesting conducting the player education concerning something that happens very rarely and never (except, so far, once in the entire world) causes a problem. By punishing the NOS once declarer produces a new card? I guess it doesn't matter, since this is something few people will experience in their lifetime. I still disagree with the approach though.

[blackshoe]

My apologies. We had, I thought, strayed from the OP, and I interpreted your #42 to be general, in response to my general comment in #41, rather than specific to the scenario in the OP.

[Zelandakh]

Could I perhaps just get things straight here because I have a real issue with the ruling as seems to be given here.

 

Declarer (legally) plays a card.

Defender points out previous trick is still in progress.

Declarer (illegally) withdraws card played.

Defender does nothing.

Defender quits trick.

Declarer (illegally?) plays a different card.

Defender calls Director.

 

Apparently it is being rules here that the inactivity between the withdrawal and the quitting means the loss of rights under Law 11. Since when has doing nothing whatsoever been classified as "Takes any action"? This is imho absurd. It is the card play equivalent of the auction 1♠ - 4♥ - (Stop) 3♠ where 4th seat is now deemed to have accepted the 3♠ IB by pausing for 10 seconds before pointing it out. Is there a time limit on other irregularities too? If so, where can I read about this in the Laws? The original card needs to be played and, as an opponent, I would regard the attempt be declarer to change the card as a valid reason to be as SB-like as I liked in any future meetings with them.

[barmar]

The people claiming that the NOS took action seem to consider quitting the trick to be said action. Declarer's first irregularity was picking up the card, so the TD should have been called at that time.

[aguahombre]

But are players really expected to memorize all the actions that are irregularities? And if you don't know, or even suspect, that something is an irregularity, you're not going to feel a need to call a TD. As someone said, if you're not sure, call -- but in this case they probably weren't "not sure", so they didn't see the need.

 

I'm a student of the Laws, but I admit that I didn't remember that taking back the card is an irregularity, and would not have batted an eye at declarer's initial action. As with the OP, it's only when a different card appears when he replays that I'd have a problem.

 

 

Declarer's first irregularity was picking up the card, so the TD should have been called at that time.

O.K., everything is clear, now.

[barmar]

Just to be clear, I was describing the rationale of the people saying that the NOS took action and may have lost their right to restitution, I wasn't actually agreeing with it.

[Vampyr]

Just to be clear, I was describing the rationale of the people saying that the NOS took action and may have lost their right to restitution, I wasn't actually agreeing with it.

 

Good. Because it seems to me that in real life the NOS will not call the director, as they will not even realise that an irregularity has taken place until declarer changes his card.