Can Dummy Call Director?

[pran]

Taking back a card and replacing it with another is an irregularity

 

Making some statement to the effect that a played card was irregular draws attention to that irregularity, and then taking back the card and replacing it with another is a premature rectification of this irregularity

 

No, just committing an irregularity as a premature rectification of another irregularity is not drawing attention to the first irregularity.

 

Agree with the first two. As for the third, I most emphatically do not agree.

 

Aside from that, the player also apologized for his actions, presumably as he was replacing the card. Even if you insist on your third statement, that apology drew attention to both irregularities, or the irregularity and premature rectification, take your pick.

 

Maybe yoy were a little bit careless when reading my comment?

 

Something like an apology for the first play is "some statement to the effect that a played card was irregular".

[barmar]

My dictionary defines "call attention to" as "cause people to notice" (it doesn't have a definition for "draw attention to", the actual phrase used in the Laws, but everyone seems to use these phrases interchangeably, so I'm going to treat them as synonymous).

 

Don't you think a player deliberately taking taking an unusual action, such as withdrawing his card, is surprising enough that it would cause the other players to notice the irregularity that prompted it, even without a verbal announcement? If dummy notices this, and realizes why it was done, hasn't it called attention by the above definition, so dummy is permitted to call the TD?

[blackshoe]

My answers: yes and yes.

[GreenMan]

Don't you think a player deliberately taking taking an unusual action, such as withdrawing his card, is surprising enough that it would cause the other players to notice the irregularity that prompted it, even without a verbal announcement?

 

"Doing something unusual" and "Calling attention" are different things. Sometimes the first also accomplishes the second, but not always, and we shouldn't assume the second from the first.

[pran]

My dictionary defines "call attention to" as "cause people to notice" (it doesn't have a definition for "draw attention to", the actual phrase used in the Laws, but everyone seems to use these phrases interchangeably, so I'm going to treat them as synonymous).

 

Don't you think a player deliberately taking taking an unusual action, such as withdrawing his card, is surprising enough that it would cause the other players to notice the irregularity that prompted it, even without a verbal announcement? If dummy notices this, and realizes why it was done, hasn't it called attention by the above definition, so dummy is permitted to call the TD?

Do I understand you correct that you assume a player will never try to change his play unless his first play was illegal?

[gnasher]

Do I understand you correct that you assume a player will never try to change his play unless his first play was illegal?

I don't think Barmar said that.

 

If you make an illegal play and then try to change it, that draws attention to the illegal play. There may be other occasions where you may make a legal play and then try to change it, but that doesn't affect the meaning of an illegal play followed by a correction.

[iviehoff]

My dictionary defines "call attention to" as "cause people to notice" (it doesn't have a definition for "draw attention to", the actual phrase used in the Laws, but everyone seems to use these phrases interchangeably, so I'm going to treat them as synonymous).

 

Don't you think a player deliberately taking taking an unusual action, such as withdrawing his card, is surprising enough that it would cause the other players to notice the irregularity that prompted it, even without a verbal announcement?

No. It's one thing to do something that makes it likely that people will notice something else. It's another thing to explicitly bring it to their notice.

 

As noted before, withdrawing a played card is not contingent upon the original played card being irregular. So whilst it might draw people's attention in the direction of you and that card, it does not explicitly bring the prior irregularity - which may not even be present - to their notice.

[barmar]

Do I understand you correct that you assume a player will never try to change his play unless his first play was illegal?

No, I'm saying that trying to change his play will cause the other players to take notice of what led up to it. If that was an illegal play, they'll notice it, and hence the withdrawal called attention to it.

[GreenMan]

No, I'm saying that trying to change his play will cause the other players to take notice of what led up to it.

 

They may take notice or they may not. In an ideal world everyone at the table will be paying attention to what's going on, but that's not always the case in real life.

 

IMNSHO we would do best to require actual attention-calling such as saying "Hey!" or waving and pointing to constitute drawing attention to an irregularity. Otherwise we may have a long list of gestures, grimaces, and long sighs that some would say constitute calling attention.

[Zelandakh]

Just on the grammar here, draw attention is slightly broader than call attention here since it encompases passive actions that cause attention to be brought to the irregularity, whereas call attention assumes a more active action. That makes it noteworthy that dummy may not call attention; but that they may call the Director when attention has been drawn. In this it seems that the Lawmakers are using unusually precise language.

[pran]

They may take notice or they may not. In an ideal world everyone at the table will be paying attention to what's going on, but that's not always the case in real life.

 

IMNSHO we would do best to require actual attention-calling such as saying "Hey!" or waving and pointing to constitute drawing attention to an irregularity. Otherwise we may have a long list of gestures, grimaces, and long sighs that some would say constitute calling attention.

I think this makes the point precisely.

 

An irregularity is committed. It might be an irregularity on its own or it might be a premature attempt to rectify a previous irregularity. But until attention to the previous irregularity is explicitly drawn we have no foundation for stating that the second irregularity itself draws such attention.

 

If no player other that dummy noticed the first irregularity and drew attention to it dummy may certainly not draw such attention, nor may he call the director.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that if a player puts a card in the played position, says "oops" or the like, picks up the card and puts it back in his hand, he has drawn attention to at least one irregularity. OTOH, he may not say anything, in which case he probably hasn't drawn attention to any irregularity. OTGH, if he tries, or appears to be trying, to change the played card surreptitiously, then he's probably in violation of 72B3. In the last two cases, I think dummy has to wait until the play is over before calling the director.

[Vampyr]

But until attention to the previous irregularity is explicitly drawn we have no foundation for stating that the second irregularity itself draws such attention.

 

The Laws do not say that attention must be "explicitly drawn", and in fact are mute on what constitutes drawing attention.

[pran]

It seems to me that if a player puts a card in the played position, says "oops" or the like, picks up the card and puts it back in his hand, he has drawn attention to at least one irregularity. OTOH, he may not say anything, in which case he probably hasn't drawn attention to any irregularity. OTGH, if he tries, or appears to be trying, to change the played card surreptitiously, then he's probably in violation of 72B3. In the last two cases, I think dummy has to wait until the play is over before calling the director.

He has drawn attention to exactly one irregularity: That he changed his mind on what card he intends to play.

 

There is no indication whatsoever here that the (first) card he played constituted an irregularity.

[Vampyr]

He has drawn attention to exactly one irregularity: That he changed his mind on what card he intends to play.

 

There is no indication whatsoever here that the (first) card he played constituted an irregularity.

 

No, but those at the table would know (eg if the second card was correcting a revoke).

 

In any case, one irregularity is enough.

[iviehoff]

It seems to me that if a player puts a card in the played position, says "oops" or the like, picks up the card and puts it back in his hand, he has drawn attention to at least one irregularity. OTOH, he may not say anything, in which case he probably hasn't drawn attention to any irregularity. OTGH, if he tries, or appears to be trying, to change the played card surreptitiously, then he's probably in violation of 72B3. In the last two cases, I think dummy has to wait until the play is over before calling the director.

I think that's a sensible analysis. Pran argues that it isn't quite watertight, and he has a point. But I think with "oops" followed by a picking a card back up we have reached the point where the TD is likely to agree that dummy was not being unreasonable in believing that attention had been drawn to some irregularity.

[blackshoe]

In any case, one irregularity is enough.

Precisely.

[barmar]

They may take notice or they may not. In an ideal world everyone at the table will be paying attention to what's going on, but that's not always the case in real life.

If they don't take notice, then obviously attention wasn't drawn. But if any of them do notice the connection, then the second action (withdrawing the card) has implicitly has drawn attention to the first action (lead out of turn).

IMNSHO we would do best to require actual attention-calling such as saying "Hey!" or waving and pointing to constitute drawing attention to an irregularity. Otherwise we may have a long list of gestures, grimaces, and long sighs that some would say constitute calling attention.

But as has been pointed out, the Law does not currently require that attention be drawn explicitly or actively. I think it's best for the game to interpret it liberally -- I think we should minimize the opportunities for players to get away with irregularities. I'm not sure I would even be against allowing dummy to draw attention to an irrgularity.

[pran]

[...]I'm not sure I would even be against allowing dummy to draw attention to an irrgularity.

 

That is a fair and reasonable opinion, and maybe this eventually will become allowed.

 

But presently the rule is that dummy may not in any way (except as explicitly permitted) participate in the play.

 

Now, to what extent is the argument valid that drawing attention to an irregularity implicitly draws attension also to a previous irregularity by the same player? In my opinion it never does.

 

Consider the following:

 

West revokes but nobody reacts.

West revokes again in the same suit in a later trick but now immediately exclaims that he has a card in the suit led.

Nobody says anything about the first revoke.

 

Is dummy now allowed to call the director for this first revoke? In my opinion of course not!

[Vampyr]

Is dummy now allowed to call the director for this first revoke? In my opinion of course not!

 

It is quite obvious that a case like this has no connection to the case under discussion.

[aguahombre]

It is quite obvious that a case like this has no connection to the case under discussion.

You are quite right. But I would just as soon Dummy thought there might be a connection, sat there turning the cards called for by declarer, and butted out until the hand was over ---as a meta rule.

[blackshoe]

I would think the law implies that if dummy calls the director during the play in a case where someone else has drawn attention to an irregularity, he should report that irregularity, and nothing else. After the play, he can call about other irregularities. This may well result in a revised ruling on the first call.

[pran]

I would think the law implies that if dummy calls the director during the play in a case where someone else has drawn attention to an irregularity, he should report that irregularity, and nothing else. After the play, he can call about other irregularities. This may well result in a revised ruling on the first call.

Exactly.

And if a player changes his play then that is the irregularity.

The fact that he does so is not itself drawing attention to the irregularity (for instance a revoke) he tries to avoid or rectify by changing his play.

[blackshoe]

Exactly.

And if a player changes his play then that is the irregularity.

The fact that he does so is not itself drawing attention to the irregularity (for instance a revoke) he tries to avoid or rectify by changing his play.

No, but I think it's highly likely that in the course of his investigation the TD will discover the revoke. There is also the possibility of a ruling that the player concerned, by simply attempting to change his card, has attempted to conceal a revoke, a heinous crime indeed. :) I do think that such a ruling would be rare, of course.

[pran]

No, but I think it's highly likely that in the course of his investigation the TD will discover the revoke. There is also the possibility of a ruling that the player concerned, by simply attempting to change his card, has attempted to conceal a revoke, a heinous crime indeed. :) I do think that such a ruling would be rare, of course.

Quite true.

But the fundamental question was (and still is) whether dummy may call the director on the previous irregularity (e.g. a revoke) because attention to this irregularity has already been drawn by the offender's subsequent irregularity.

 

My point has always been (and still is) that dummy may not do that.

 

(Dummy may not even call the director on the ground that the offender tried to change his play - or even did change it.)