A little knowledge is dangerous

[jillybean]

I played at the club the other night in a 0-1500 game with a brand new player.

At one stage when partner was declaring, playing 4th to trick he pulled out a low

trump and held it face up on the table. Realizing what he had done he said to me

“oh! sorry, that was stupid”

 

LHO piped in and said, “put it back in your hand, declarer cannot have a penalty card”.

 

As dummy, I kept quiet.

[aguahombre]

I don't understand. Did Declarer fail to follow suit by mistake (and was about to correct it)? Was it a low trump that lost the trick via an underruff?

 

It was either a card played, or it could be replaced ---with play continuing. It would not remain on the table as a penalty card.

[Vampyr]

It was either a card played, or it could be replaced

 

Provided it was an illegal play, ie a revoke.

[aguahombre]

Provided it was an illegal play, ie a revoke.

Yes, that is included in what I said. There is no third choice; it was a played card, and life goes on --or it wasn't, is replaced, and life goes on.

[Vampyr]

Yes, that is included in what I said. There is no third choice; it was a played card, and life goes on --or it wasn't, is replaced, and life goes on.

 

It was kind of included, but you didn't make it entirely clear that the only way the card could be withdrawn was if it was a revoke.

[Bbradley62]

Sounds to me like declarer was either ruffing dummy's winner or underruffing, and opponent was being nice to the rookie once he [declarer] quickly realized he had done something silly.

[Vampyr]

Sounds to me like declarer was either ruffing dummy's winner or underruffing, and opponent was being nice to the rookie once he [declarer] quickly realized he had done something silly.

 

It seems like a good idea to "be nice" to rookies, but a solid understanding of the rules will be more useful to him in the long run.

[nige1]

I played at the club the other night in a 0-1500 game with a brand new player. At one stage when partner was declaring, playing 4th to trick he pulled out a low trump and held it face up on the table. Realizing what he had done he said to me "oh! sorry, that was stupid" LHO piped in and said, "put it back in your hand, declarer cannot have a penalty card".As dummy, I kept quiet.

IMO, after somebody drew attention to an infraction, when the play is over, dummy should call the director, if nobody else has already done so.

[jillybean]

Sorry, trump was led, declarer played a low trump to the trick.

[Vampyr]

Sorry, trump was led, declarer played the wrong, low card to the trick.

 

Well, if the opponents let him pick up and change his card this time, declarer will wonder why it is not allowed next time.

[aguahombre]

So, what really happened validates both the thread title and Nige1's post. The opponent wasn't necessarily being charitable...just ignorant.

 

It seems Dummy was the only one at the table who knew an infraction had occured, and should have been the one to call the TD at the conclusion of play.

[pran]

So, what really happened validates both the thread title and Nige1's post. The opponent wasn't necessarily being charitable...just ignorant.

 

It seems Dummy was the only one at the table who knew an infraction had occured, and should have been the one to call the TD at the conclusion of play.

Nobody is required to draw attention to an irregularity and apparently nobody did.

(The TD should be called once attention is drawn to an irregularity.)

[aguahombre]

Nobody is required to draw attention to an irregularity and apparently nobody did.

(The TD should be called once attention is drawn to an irregularity.)

You are referring to the play period and dummy's limitations. After the play has ended, and he no longer has those limitations, former Dummy should call the TD. Noone else need have called attention to it; he knows one occured and has the obligation to call.

[blackshoe]

The question is whether opponent's actions called attention to an irregularity. So was there an irregularity? Yes, declarer's comment to his partner is an irregularity. So is opponent's action (his instruction to declarer). The latter, IMO called attention to the former, and that is enough to allow dummy to call the director at the time. When the director arrives at the table, he will be given all relevant facts, including declarer's RHO's action, and should rule on all irregularities he identifies.

 

If the opponent's action does not call attention to declarer's irregularity (!?) then I agree dummy should wait until the hand is over before calling the TD. Note that I disagree with Nigel, who said "after somebody drew attention to an infraction, when the play is over, dummy should call the director, if nobody else has already done so." [Emphasis mine.]

[aguahombre]

The question is whether opponent's actions called attention to an irregularity. So was there an irregularity? Yes, declarer's comment to his partner is an irregularity. So is opponent's action (his instruction to declarer). The latter, IMO called attention to the former, and that is enough to allow dummy to call the director at the time. When the director arrives at the table, he will be given all relevant facts, including declarer's RHO's action, and should rule on all irregularities he identifies.

 

If the opponent's action does not call attention to declarer's irregularity (!?) then I agree dummy should wait until the hand is over before calling the TD. Note that I disagree with Nigel, who said "after somebody drew attention to an infraction, when the play is over, dummy should call the director, if nobody else has already done so." [Emphasis mine.]

Are you sure about this? I couldn't find in L73 anything about Declarer making a comment to Dummy about his (Declarer's) own stupidity. I also don't think disparaging one's self in this manner broaches ZT. It isn't intent to deceive, which "Thank you" at the beginning might be. And it isn't giving UI to partner ---he isn't even a participant in the play.

 

I also cannot find anything which says Declarer being stupid is an irregularity.

 

So, only the verbage by the opponent was an irregularity (incorrectly applying his own ruling). None of the three players with a standing to do so have brought attention to that as being an irregularity during the play; so, I believe Dummy has to Dummy-up until play has concluded.

[pran]

You are referring to the play period and dummy's limitations. After the play has ended, and he no longer has those limitations, former Dummy should call the TD. Noone else need have called attention to it; he knows one occured and has the obligation to call.

NO, I used Law 9A which clearly makes it optional (not compulsory) for any player (except dummy during the play period) to draw attention to an irregularity of which he becomes aware. (For dummy this option exists after end of play.)

 

You (I believe) confuse this Law with Law 9B which requests all four players (including dummy during the play period) to call the Director immediately once attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

[aguahombre]

NO, I used Law 9A which clearly makes it optional (not compulsory) for any player (except dummy during the play period) to draw attention to an irregularity of which he becomes aware. (For dummy this option exists after end of play.)

 

You (I believe) confuse this Law with Law 9B which requests all four players (including dummy during the play period) to call the Director immediately once attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

O.K. Then, I believe I, as Dummy, would be personally obligated to call the TD at the conclusion of play ---although apparently not required to do so.

 

I still don't think that we are on the same page about calling attention to an irregularity during the play vs knowing an irregularity occured.

[blackshoe]

Are you sure about this? I couldn't find in L73 anything about Declarer making a comment to Dummy about his (Declarer's) own stupidity.

Try Law 74B2.

[blackshoe]

You (I believe) confuse this Law with Law 9B which requests all four players (including dummy during the play period) to call the Director immediately once attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

Law 9B requires that the Director be called when attention has been drawn to an irregularity. It allows any player, including dummy, to do so.

[aguahombre]

Try Law 74B2.

O.K. But, I guess Declarer also violated 74B1 by not paying sufficient attention to the game. I don't think they meant it to apply to occasional brain farts.

 

And, then the "Thank you, Partner" camp is violating 74B2. I somehow doubt that or calling oneself a dumbsh** was intended in that Law. We definitely need more Directors for each session if so....or higher pay.

[nige1]

• Are players obliged to call the director only when somebody correctly describes the precise nature of the irregularity?
• Suppose, as here, players remark on an irregularity and volunteer their own ruling (right or wrong). From a legal point of view, has attention been drawn to an irregularity? It's obvious what I think :)
• Is dummy obliged to call the director, immediately somebody else draws attention to an irregularity? May he wait to see if anybody else will call the director? If the infraction is by declarer, may dummy deliberately wait until the end of play, hoping that the defenders are awarded less redress? I don't have feelings either way on these latter questions.

[aguahombre]

Are players obliged to call the director only when somebody correctly describes the precise nature of the irregularity?

Suppose, as here, players remark on an irregularity and volunteer their own ruling (right or wrong). From a legal point of view, has attention been drawn to an irregularity?

It's obvious what I think :)

Again...nobody commented on an irregularity; the comment was the irregularity, and the OP doesn't indicate further comment afterward. Declarer's carelessness was not an irregularity ---just a space-out play.

[nige1]

Again...nobody commented on an irregularity; the comment was the irregularity, and the OP doesn't indicate further comment afterward. Declarer's carelessness was not an irregularity ---just a space-out play.

After declarer's comment ...

LHO piped in and said, "put it back in your hand, declarer cannot have a penalty card".

[blackshoe]

What is David Burn likes to say about what the laws intended? Something about "we hang for what they wrote". The laws say what they say, and I for one am not going to start guessing what the drafters intended. Nor, I think, should anyone else.

[Bbradley62]

It seems like a good idea to "be nice" to rookies, but a solid understanding of the rules will be more useful to him in the long run.

Agreed. Hopefully, his partner explained it to him after the session.