Following suit?

[bluejak]

Declarer led a club to the dummy, won in dummy with an honour. He then said "ten". Dummy duly played the ♦T, dummy's only ten.

 

RHO did not look at the card played from dummy, but assumed it was the ♣T, so "followed" with a club, though he had diamonds.

 

Well?

[ahydra]

Well, RHO's revoked. L46B3

 

ahydra

[barmar]

Haven't we had a Lamford hypo like this, where one of the defenders, who looked and sounded like SB, argued that declarer could well have known that using an incorrect designation might have induced a revoke?

[chrism]

Indeed; I don't think the defenders get off the hook for the revoke; they are obliged to pay sufficient attention. However, declarer has violated the "should" in 46A:

When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card. Although 46B3(b) makes it clear that dummy must play the ♦10, this is still a deviation from correct procedure (others may differ, and the topic has been bludgeoned to death in other threads).

 

If we judge that this was a deliberate attempt to confuse, it is a violation of 73D2

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

By virtue of the presumed deliberate nature of the incomplete designation, we can deduce that declarer could have known that it could work to his benefit. If we further deem RHO to be "innocent" the Director awards an adjusted score according to 73F

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

 

In my view this is a big stretch. First, I am reluctant to consider RHO as innocent; a player who was paying proper attention would not have revoked in this case (barring exceptional circumstances such as impaired vision, where the player was reliant on cards being fully designated when played). Second, I am hard pressed to accept the hypothesis that this was "purposeful" and "an attempt to mislead".

 

So in the end, I am treating this as a simple revoke.

[barmar]

So while we shouldn't adjust the score, we could potentially issue a PP to declarer for violating 46A. This is a "should", so we don't usually penalize it (no harm, no foul), but we could choose to do so in this case because of the damage that ensued to the NOS (there was harm, so foul).

[aguahombre]

At the point where David's OP ends, we don't know even if there is harm, Barry.

 

We don't know if the revoke will become established and whether the revoke penalties will come into play. (These are not adjusted scores.)

 

We don't know whether the card exposed (if the revoke is corrected) and the ensuing ruling about that exposed card will be harmful or not.

 

There is foul, an irregularity or two, but we need to go further into what happened afterward to concern ourselves with an outcome.

[gordontd]

At the point where David's OP ends, we don't know even if there is harm, Barry.

 

We don't know if the revoke will become established and whether the revoke penalties will come into play. (These are not adjusted scores.)

 

We don't know whether the card exposed (if the revoke is corrected) and the ensuing ruling about that exposed card will be harmful or not.

 

There is foul, an irregularity or two, but we need to go further into what happened afterward to concern ourselves with an outcome.

Actually we may not need to: if the revoke is not established, it is within our power to deem that the exposed card is not a penalty card. Should we do that?

[aguahombre]

Actually we may not need to: if the revoke is not established, it is within our power to deem that the exposed card is not a penalty card. Should we do that?

Maybe, but the first couple of posters don't seem to think so. I accept that a defender next to play has an obligation to look at the previous card played by dummy.

[gordontd]

Maybe, but the first couple of posters don't seem to think so.

I thought they hadn't considered the possibility, which is why I brought it up.

[mfa1010]

Actually we may not need to: if the revoke is not established, it is within our power to deem that the exposed card is not a penalty card.

 

Is it?

 

The way I read Law 50, this power is only about prematurely exposed cards, not cards that were played.

Law 67 says that the defender's withdrawn revoke card becomes a major penalty card.

 

--

 

I would treat this as a simple revoke for the reasons chrism said.

[gordontd]

Is it?

 

The way I read Law 50, this power is only about prematurely exposed cards, not cards that were played.

 

I'm sure there will be people here who will be fed up with hearing me say this, but I take as my authority Max Bavin who told me that there is no limit in the Laws on the TD's ability to deem that an exposed card is not a penalty card. Indeed when I discussed this very case with him, that was an option that he thought was available and legal, although he said he wouldn't use it unless he thought there had been some deliberate attempt to induce an error.

[mycroft]

Around here, there is a player with a very strong accent who talks into eir cards. It is very difficult to understand, and very easy to mishear. I have had to rule repeatedly that e did call for the card e claimed to (as partner pulled it, usually), and that any play based on the mishearing is defender's own problem. Please speak more clearly in future, but since it never hurts em, e never cares to do it. I tell the defender if they play based on what dummy pulled, and *that* was wrong, they're covered.

 

Since that is policy as I have been instructed, the difference between "acatrsk" and "Ten", unique declarations as they both be, is zero. Anyone who did that *trying* to get a revoke is guilty of sharp practise, and I'd warn declarer about that (same as I warn the declarer above), but defender played on her own belief, with lack of care and attention to dummy, and has no protection.

[chrism]

I thought they hadn't considered the possibility, which is why I brought it up.

I did not raise the possibility in this case, because I think it unreasonable to protect an opponent who has "followed suit" to a card that was not called, not played, and not even in the dummy at the time. There are certainly cases where I could be more sympathetic.

[bluejak]

So while we shouldn't adjust the score, we could potentially issue a PP to declarer for violating 46A. This is a "should", so we don't usually penalize it (no harm, no foul), but we could choose to do so in this case because of the damage that ensued to the NOS (there was harm, so foul).

I don't know what it is like where you are, but around here over 90% of players sometimes make an incomplete designation, so the number of times this happens on an average duplicate night with 12 tables is probably in the region of 1200 times. Are you really going to issue 1200 PPs a night?

 

Oh, I see, you are only going to issue a PP when RHO follows to a card not in dummy. Apart from anything else, if something happens 1200 times a night and does not get penalised 1199 times do you really think that is the correct approach, to only penalise when RHO is an idiot?

[aguahombre]

Oh, I see, you are only going to issue a PP when RHO follows to a card not in dummy. Apart from anything else, if something happens 1200 times a night and does not get penalised 1199 times do you really think that is the correct approach, to only penalise when RHO is an idiot?

Using your figures and our club, there would be more than one PP out of 1200 :P

[barmar]

I don't know what it is like where you are, but around here over 90% of players sometimes make an incomplete designation, so the number of times this happens on an average duplicate night with 12 tables is probably in the region of 1200 times. Are you really going to issue 1200 PPs a night?

Of course not. What part of "no harm, no foul" do you fail to understand?

 

There's a law that says that if you have a pool in your yard, there must be a gate to prevent children from wandering into the yard and potentially falling in and drowning. But as far as I know, there are no inspectors regularly checking every home with a pool, handing out citations to the ones whose gates are not closed properly. But if a child does drown because the pool was not properly gated, the homeowner would likely be arrested for negligence.

 

I know this analogy is extreme, there's a world of difference between causing a death and affecting the result of a bridge hand. But the point of the analogy is the times when we DON'T punish -- even though an open gate is potentially much more dangerous than an incomplete designation, we don't routinely punish it. But when someone violates a law and it does cause damage, the law allows us to punish them.

[jallerton]

I agree with Bluejak. I suspect that even Barmar does not name both the rank and the suit of every card he plays from dummy.

 

I disagree with the "no harm, no foul" approach. The bridge Laws distinguish between 'rectifications" and "penalties". If an offender gains from his offence, the Laws provide an appropriate rectiifcation so that the offender's opponents do not lose out. Penalties should be assessed based on the severity of the offence, independent of whether the offence causes a problem. It might not have made a difference this time, but is likely to do so in the future unless the offender can be discouraged from such behaviour.

[Bbradley62]

... the offender can be discouraged from such behaviour.

I don't think declarer (the only "offender" on this hand was a defender) has behaved in any way that needs to be discouraged.

[blackshoe]

The fact that declarer's failure to state clearly the rank and denomination of the card for which he's calling is a common infraction makes it no less an infraction (see Law 46A) and hence the declarer no less an offender. Should such behavior be discouraged? One would think so, else the many ways of improperly designating such a card enumerated in Law 46B would be defined as proper procedure, not irregularities. It seems to me this should be all the more so in cases where declarer's irregularity may have led a defender astray - whether or not that was intentional, and whether or not we can deem the defender to have been paying insufficient attention, or whatever.

[gordontd]

It might not have made a difference this time, but is likely to do so in the future unless the offender can be discouraged from such behaviour.

 

It did make a difference this time, to the tune of one major penalty card.

[jallerton]

I said "might not" partly because it is debatable whether declarer's irregularity caused the major penalty card. In this case, many would argue that the main cause of the major penalty card was the defender's failure to pay attention. It's not clear to me why declarer's irregularity of calling for "ten" was the major contributing factor. On the other hand, if declarer had called for a "club" at a point where dummy did not have any clubs left, then the defender's action of "following" with a club would seem more understandable.

[jallerton]

As has already been pointed out, there are two infractions in this case. The declarer committed the first infraction and this is explained in Law 46.

 

LAW 46: INCOMPLETE OR ERRONEOUS CALL OF A CARD FROM DUMMY

A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card

When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

B. IncompleteorErroneousCall

In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

1. (a) If declarer in playing from dummy calls ‘high’, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the highest card.

(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick.

© If he calls ‘low’, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card.

2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.

3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit:

(a) In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.

(b) In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played declarer must designate which is intended.

4. If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

5. If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy.

 

As I understand it, Law 46A tells us that calling for "ten" was an infraction, whilst Law 46B describes the appropriate rectification. In this case Law 46B3(b) applies, so the rectification is that the ten which was still in dummy's hand at stage is the card which has deemed to have been played.

 

Looking elsewhere in the Law Book I note Law 12B2:

 

Law 12B2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

 

This would seem to prevent the TD from applying, for example., Law 23 to this situation.

 

In respect of the defender's infraction, the normal major penalty card rules apply, as has already been noted.

[blackshoe]

This would seem to prevent the TD from applying, for example., Law 23 to this situation.

Well, no. If Law 23 applies, you apply it. If it does not apply, you don't. What 12B2 says is that you can't just adjust the score because you think the rectification wasn't good enough, or because you think it was too harsh.

[barmar]

The fact that declarer's failure to state clearly the rank and denomination of the card for which he's calling is a common infraction makes it no less an infraction (see Law 46A) and hence the declarer no less an offender. Should such behavior be discouraged? One would think so

But if the lawmakers really wanted to discourage it, they would have made it a MUST, not a SHOULD. Since it's just a SHOULD, we mostly just pay lip service to it, we don't enforce it strictly with penalties.

 

But what SHOULD allows us to to is selectively penalize in situations where the infraction actually caused some difficulty. You could even reason that if it causes enough of a problem that the players felt the need to call the TD, then it's serious enough to penalize.

[blackshoe]

But if the lawmakers really wanted to discourage it, they would have made it a MUST, not a SHOULD. Since it's just a SHOULD, we mostly just pay lip service to it, we don't enforce it strictly with penalties.

 

But what SHOULD allows us to to is selectively penalize in situations where the infraction actually caused some difficulty. You could even reason that if it causes enough of a problem that the players felt the need to call the TD, then it's serious enough to penalize.

I would argue that what "we" do is wrong. :-)

 

In this case it did cause a problem.