A little knowledge is dangerous

[pran]

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.

Sorry, as English is not my native language I do make such mistakes. :P :rolleyes:

[blackshoe]

Sorry, as English is not my native language I do make such mistakes. :P :rolleyes:

No worries. I guess the point is that if nobody calls the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity, both sides have committed an infraction. If the law merely requested that the TD be called, it wouldn't be an infraction not to do so.

[pran]

No worries. I guess the point is that if nobody calls the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity, both sides have committed an infraction. If the law merely requested that the TD be called, it wouldn't be an infraction not to do so.

My ruling in such cases will pretty often be that the table result stands.

 

Both sides have jeopardized their rights. If one side has received an obviously unfair and good result there might be a case for Law 81C3 against the "fortunate" side, possibly also effective for the other side.

[billw55]

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.

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

I do agree that teaching the rules is important. But, for really new players (their first few sessions maybe) I have come to think that the top priority is retention - keeping them coming back. That means making him/her feel comfortable, at ease, and enjoying it, with all other considerations secondary. There will be plenty of time to teach the rules ... but not if they stop attending.

 

Yes, there may be a type of player who prefers the letter of the law right from day one, but experience tells me this is small minority.

[blackshoe]

I do agree that teaching the rules is important. But, for really new players (their first few sessions maybe) I have come to think that the top priority is retention - keeping them coming back. That means making him/her feel comfortable, at ease, and enjoying it, with all other considerations secondary. There will be plenty of time to teach the rules ... but not if they stop attending.

 

Yes, there may be a type of player who prefers the letter of the law right from day one, but experience tells me this is small minority.

I suspect that many players, whatever their level, would just as soon do what they like, and the Devil take the rules. But few of them, if any, would admit it.

[VixTD]

I think the irregularity is the change of card by declarer. No one drew attention to this, so there's no obligation to call the director. If someone had said "are you allowed to do that?" or something similar then the director should have been called.

[Vampyr]

I think the irregularity is the change of card by declarer. No one drew attention to this, so there's no obligation to call the director. If someone had said "are you allowed to do that?" or something similar then the director should have been called.

 

Is telling the declarer to pick up his card, to go ahead and change it, drawing attention to the irregularity? I mean, think of someone who had his back to the table and heard this comment. He would know that something irregular was taking place.

 

Nigel's questions above are good ones that need to be answered.

[blackshoe]

• 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.

1. No.
   
2. Yes.
   
3. Yes. No. No. Law 9B1{a}: The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. (Emphasis mine).
   

[aguahombre]

Is telling the declarer to pick up his card, to go ahead and change it, drawing attention to the irregularity? I mean, think of someone who had his back to the table and heard this comment. He would know that something irregular was taking place.

 

Nigel's questions above are good ones that need to be answered.

At some point I thought so, too. But, I surrendered. Something verbal by a defender was an irregularity, but nobody drew attention to it; the picking up of the card as directed by the defender was an irregularity, but nobody drew attention to it. People think irregularities draw attention to themselves; they don't. Declarer's original goof was not an irregularity; his comment that he was stupid is a technical irregularity of absolutely no consequence, because it only drew attention to his own stupidity..... and we can't get past that.

[Vampyr]

Something verbal by a defender was an irregularity, but nobody drew attention to it; the picking up of the card as directed by the defender was an irregularity, but nobody drew attention to it.

 

The first drew attention to the second.

[PeterAlan]

2.6.2.3 Drawing attention to a possible irregularity

Any comment at the table which points to the possibility of an irregularity draws attention to the irregularity within the meaning of Law 9B1 (a). If no request for a ruling is then stated, the players are in the position generally of players when attention is drawn to an irregularity and the director is not summoned forthwith.

Reservation of Rights under Law 16B2 does not override this condition if the request for a ruling is not then made within the time limit specified above.

[aguahombre]

The first drew attention to the second.

Can you really draw attention to an irregularity which hasn't occured yet by first saying something which itself an irregularity? I don't think that meets the requirement for drawing attention.

[Vampyr]

Can you really draw attention to an irregularity which hasn't occured yet by first saying something which itself an irregularity? I don't think that meets the requirement for drawing attention.

 

It does in the EBU -- see White Book passage quoted above.

[aguahombre]

It does in the EBU -- see White Book passage quoted above.

Interesting. By that interpretation, you can via your own irregularity, both create an irregularity in the future and draw attention to it at the same time.

[Vampyr]

Interesting. By that interpretation, you can via your own irregularity, both create an irregularity in the future and draw attention to it at the same time.

 

Well, maybe yes and maybe no -- I can't understand what you are saying at all! Anyway, any comment such as "put that back in your hand" certainly "points to" an irregularity -- ie a card being replaced by another.

[VixTD]

Is telling the declarer to pick up his card, to go ahead and change it, drawing attention to the irregularity? I mean, think of someone who had his back to the table and heard this comment. He would know that something irregular was taking place.

I think there has to be an awareness that it is an irregularity. If the auction goes: 1♠ - 1♥ and the next player asks offender to move the 1♥ bidding card to a position where he can see it better, that is drawing attention to the 1♥ bid, but not to the irregularity of the insufficient bid. If one player invites another to change a card and no one recognises this as an irregularity, attention has not been drawn to the irregularity.

[blackshoe]

I think there has to be an awareness that it is an irregularity. If the auction goes: 1♠ - 1♥ and the next player asks offender to move the 1♥ bidding card to a position where he can see it better, that is drawing attention to the 1♥ bid, but not to the irregularity of the insufficient bid. If one player invites another to change a card and no one recognises this as an irregularity, attention has not been drawn to the irregularity.

Anyone who's been playing bridge for more than a week should recognize that when an opponent tells declarer to pick up her card, something's not right. So I disagree with you - attention has been called to an irregularity.

[nige1]

I think there has to be an awareness that it is an irregularity. If the auction goes: 1♠ - 1♥ and the next player asks offender to move the 1♥ bidding card to a position where he can see it better, that is drawing attention to the 1♥ bid, but not to the irregularity of the insufficient bid. If one player invites another to change a card and no one recognises this as an irregularity, attention has not been drawn to the irregularity.

IMO... if other players don't notice the irregularity, that may be so but

• If a player apologises for an insufficient bid and the next player says "No infraction, just change your bid", then he has drawn attention to a possible irregularity and suggested a ruling.
• Similarly if a player apologises for playing a wrong card and the next player says "Put it back in your hand, declarer cannot have a penalty card" (as in the OP) then he has drawn attention to a possible irregularity and suggested a ruling.

When drawing attention to a putative irregularity, it should not matter whether the player correctly describes it -- or whether any ruling he gives is correct (although I suppose a player-ruling is an infraction).

[VixTD]

Anyone who's been playing bridge for more than a week should recognize that when an opponent tells declarer to pick up her card, something's not right. So I disagree with you - attention has been called to an irregularity.

I agree with your first sentence, but not with your second. There are plenty of players out there who have been playing for years and think that they can change a card played in error if they do it without pause for thought, or so long as it hasn't been covered, or so long as they're declarer and are not subject to penalty for exposed cards. They don't recognise it as an irregularity.

[mycroft]

Oddly enough, I agree with the second sentence, but not the first.

 

Attention has been drawn to the irregularity. But I believe there are some "everybodys" who know that "declarer can just pick up her card", and so while something went wrong, this is the right solution (they don't understand Law 9 either).

 

Interesting.

[Vampyr]

Oddly enough, I agree with the second sentence, but not the first.

 

Attention has been drawn to the irregularity. But I believe there are some "everybodys" who know that "declarer can just pick up her card", and so while something went wrong, this is the right solution (they don't understand Law 9 either).

 

Interesting.

 

What is the right solution? For the director to do nothing since the players have made a ruling themselves? If this is what you mean, I agree. Though any experienced players at the table should get a PP.

[nige1]

Suppose a defender plays a wrong card, the other defender says it's OK to correct it, and declarer doesn't demur. Should dummy immediately call the director?

Obviously, the ruling could polarise, depending on which director arrives. Judging from the consensus here, dummy would be well advised to say nothing until the end of play (even if doing so is a deliberate infraction of dummy's literal reading of the law). Another case of over-complex law punishing or inhibiting those who want to do the right thing.

 

A simpler rule -- that dummy is le mort -- would remove some of these problems. During the play, dummy mustn't comment on any putative irregularity (wrongly awarded trick, revoke, trick with the wrong number of cards, blatant cheating, or whatever), whether or not he believes attention has been drawn to it. If worried about something, dummy should call the director, at the end of play.

[mycroft]

The SB solution as dummy is to wait until the end of the hand and then call the TD and explain what happened. The likeliest result of that is two confused opponents, one battered novice declarer, one score stands and 80% of the population slightly more annoyed than before at the other 20%.

 

The probably righter solution is to wait until the end of the round, and explain to partner with no opponents present that that *isn't* the ruling, but they were being nice. Don't expect it from anyone else, and don't get caught being told you have to do it when it happens against you (unless you feel that's the right thing to do). And, of course, what the opponents had confused this situation with (declarer revoked, and caught it immediately).

 

But then again, consider the source of this comment (or at least, his self-opinion)