Can Dummy Call Director?

[Vampyr]

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.

 

I think that everyone else finds it not so "previous", because the revoke card is still visible while the attempted correction is being made.

 

Of course this discussion has gone beyond the OP case, in which, if I recall correctly, the offender said something like "sorry".

[PeterAlan]

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!

At risk of extending the diversion, and since this is a relatively substantial point in its own right, in my opinion Yes. W's exclamation not only draws attention to the fact that he has revoked on the second occasion, it also (and for the first time) draws attention to the fact that he did so earlier, and I see no reason why dummy should not now be able to call the director on that.

[pran]

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!

 

At risk of extending the diversion, and since this is a relatively substantial point in its own right, in my opinion Yes. W's exclamation not only draws attention to the fact that he has revoked on the second occasion, it also (and for the first time) draws attention to the fact that he did so earlier, and I see no reason why dummy should not now be able to call the director on that.

 

Do you maintain your opinion if the first revoke (unnoticed) happened in (say) trick 3 and the second revoke in (say) trick 9?

[PeterAlan]

Do you maintain your opinion if the first revoke (unnoticed) happened in (say) trick 3 and the second revoke in (say) trick 9?

And do you maintain your opinion if the two revokes happened on successive tricks? The laws aren't drafted in terms of some arbitrary gap between events. It seems to me that either attention has also been drawn to the previous revoke or it hasn't, and that it's more satisfactory to adopt the interpretation that it has.

[blackshoe]

It is certainly true that when attention is drawn to the current revoke, that may cause a player to remember an earlier one. Whether that constitutes "drawing attention" to the earlier revoke is I suppose debatable, but on balance I agree with Peter.

[pran]

And do you maintain your opinion if the two revokes happened on successive tricks? The laws aren't drafted in terms of some arbitrary gap between events. It seems to me that either attention has also been drawn to the previous revoke or it hasn't, and that it's more satisfactory to adopt the interpretation that it has.

Sure I do.

We are talking about two separate irregularities, and if neither of the other three players draws attention to the first then why should dummy be allowed to do so at the time attention is (legally) drawn to the second?

 

But I believe what you probably forget here (in the interest of justice) is that nothing prevents dummy from drawing attention to any irregularity that has occurred during play at the end of the play period.

[blackshoe]

Sure I do.

We are talking about two separate irregularities, and if neither of the other three players draws attention to the first then why should dummy be allowed to do so at the time attention is (legally) drawn to the second?

 

But I believe what you probably forget here (in the interest of justice) is that nothing prevents dummy from drawing attention to any irregularity that has occurred during play at the end of the play period.

Some have suggested that if no one calls the TD until after the play, even if dummy can't do anything until then, the NOS might lose their legal redress. Personally, I think that's ridiculous. Dummy calls w/o attention being called: TD rules "no redress, because dummy violated the rules". Dummy calls at the end of play: TD rules "no redress, because nobody called earlier". BS, I say.

[pran]

It is certainly true that when attention is drawn to the current revoke, that may cause a player to remember an earlier one. Whether that constitutes "drawing attention" to the earlier revoke is I suppose debatable, but on balance I agree with Peter.

Sure the second revoke may cause the players to become aware of the first revoke, but is that relevant if neither of them (other than dummy) draws attention to the first revoke as well as to the second?

[pran]

Some have suggested that if no one calls the TD until after the play, even if dummy can't do anything until then, the NOS might lose their legal redress. Personally, I think that's ridiculous. Dummy calls w/o attention being called: TD rules "no redress, because dummy violated the rules". Dummy calls at the end of play: TD rules "no redress, because nobody called earlier". BS, I say.

No rights are ever forfeited by dummy drawing attention to an irregularity at his first legal opportunity.

 

(But rights can be forfeited if dummy is the first player drawing attention to an irregularity when he does so before play is completed.)

[blackshoe]

Sure the second revoke may cause the players to become aware of the first revoke, but is that relevant if neither of them (other than dummy) draws attention to the first revoke as well as to the second?

Yes.

[pran]

Yes.

Allowing dummy (as the only player) to draw attention to the first irregularity (before end of play)?

 

No, I don't buy that.

[blackshoe]

Allowing dummy (as the only player) to draw attention to the first irregularity (before end of play)?

 

No, I don't buy that.

Not what I said. It's relevant to the discussion whether drawing attention to one irregularity is, if it wakes up a player (including dummy) also drawing attention to the other. If they're different irregularities, to cite the most general case, then I would say no. If they're the same irregularity, i.e. a revoke, then I would say yes. You can argue otherwise if you like.

 

OTGH, if dummy cannot lose his sides rights if he waits until after the play, it doesn't really matter. He should wait. However, while I don't recall ever seeing such a ruling, it seems others here have. So what's poor dummy to do? He's damned if he calls the TD now, and he's damned if he waits. :blink: :(

 

Of course, he could appeal, and then the "reviewer" could overturn the TD's interpretation of the law. B-)

[pran]

Not what I said. It's relevant to the discussion whether drawing attention to one irregularity is, if it wakes up a player (including dummy) also drawing attention to the other. If they're different irregularities, to cite the most general case, then I would say no. If they're the same irregularity, i.e. a revoke, then I would say yes. You can argue otherwise if you like.

I do indeed.

OTGH, if dummy cannot lose his sides rights if he waits until after the play, it doesn't really matter. He should wait. However, while I don't recall ever seeing such a ruling, it seems others here have. So what's poor dummy to do? He's damned if he calls the TD now, and he's damned if he waits. :blink: :(

 

Of course, he could appeal, and then the "reviewer" could overturn the TD's interpretation of the law. B-)

A TD denying rectification on the ground that he was summoned to the table after play ended although he was summoned without delay when attention was drawn to the irregularity proves himself incompetent and ignorant of the relevant laws (i.e. Laws 9 and 11).