aguahombre Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 I suppose that if dummy notices at trick three that his cards are out of order he should just keep mum.Yep. That seems to be the law, and a great addition to my list Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 This seems to suggest that even if he notices that he made a mistake immediately after laying down dummy, it's too late for him to fix it himself -- he must get it right the first time. Or is that too SB'ish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 Yep. That seems to be the law, and a great addition to my list This seems to suggest that even if he notices that he made a mistake immediately after laying down dummy, it's too late for him to fix it himself -- he must get it right the first time. Or is that too SB'ish?That is my "list" ---laws, or lack of specificity in laws, which the pedantic could use to subvert the game I love and (my idea of) the spirit of the laws. There are two threads currently active on this theme. For the most part, posters are addressing the inadeqate wording of the laws; this is interesting and productive. I don't believe anyone is really advocating (here) Dummy leaving the cards missorted, or (there) using the difference between "auction" and "auction period" as an excuse for sleezy behavior. Another recent thread for my "list" was the one where a player just barely has taken his cards out of the board and wants to ask about a bidding sequence on the previous board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham_Suf Posted August 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 I think L9A4 protects declarer in this, so it's only dummy's infraction we can adjust/penalise for. I feel this goes against the spirit of L9a4 which was surely not intended to protect a player from disclosing an ongoing infraction. As declarer was aware that Dummy's cards were not in order, is he in breach of 72.3? Info: Standard of players, North - county; West - good club player; East - former county. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 I feel this goes against the spirit of L9a4 which was surely not intended to protect a player from disclosing an ongoing infraction. As declarer was aware that Dummy's cards were not in order, is he in breach of 72.3? Info: Standard of players, North - county; West - good club player; East - former county.I think we have to rule according to what the law says, not some nebulous concept of what we think its spirit is. As for Law 72B3 (there is no 72.3), no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.