unethical or not?

[dickiegera]

[hv=pc=n&e=skqj76hk3dkqjcajt]133|100[/hv]

 

Partner [WEST[ is in a 6♦ contract witch is cold.

Lead is the Ace of Hearts

East [Dummy] has 3 of hearts with his diamonds as shown.

 

[hv=pc=n&e=skqj76hkdkqj3cajt]133|100[/hv]

 

On Ace of Hearts lead by North King is played.

South follows and immediately tells West that 3 of diamonds is a heart.

North also holds Q hearts.

 

Director is called and states that K hearts is played and that is it

 

South knew from the beginning that 3 of hearts was in with diamonds

but waited till K of hearts was played to draw attention

 

Is this proper

 

Thank you

[blackshoe]

It's not improper. In fact, South need not have said anything at all.

 

When North leads ♥Q to trick two, and West "trumps" with the ♥3, he's down 1. If he tries to ruff high, he's revoked in dummy. Attention will be called to this, and he will have to correct it. Again, down 1.

 

I suppose a slight tinge of sarcasm in West's "thank you partner" at this point might be understandable. B-)

[wank]

yes all fine.

 

dummy putting his hand down wrong is an irregularity. south can draw attention to that irregularity whenever he wishes or not at all.

[Trinidad]

"Proper" is a big word, but I'm afraid that the ♥K has been played and that 6♦ is -1.

 

When dummy tabled, South was aware of an irregularity by the dummy (Law 41D). South doesn't have any duty to draw attention to this irregularity at that point.

West plays the ♥K. That was the card he intended to play and it is the card that is played and cannot be changed.

After that, South draws attention to dummy's irregularity. The TD should be called and he will instruct the dummy to properly arrange his cards after which play continues. This means that North is allowed to cash his ♥Q now.

 

I cannot imagine that I would intentionally do this as a South player, but there is no law that forces me to act when I know about an opponent's irregularity. If I know that an opponent has revoked, I will not mention that if leaving the opponents in the dark can give me an advantage. I don't think that is unethical at all. (Otherwise I obviously wouldn't do it.)

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

It's not improper. In fact, South need not have said anything at all.

That's not entirely true. South did need to say something to wake up North to cash the ♥Q. North might have thought -just like West- that the ♥K was singleton. Then he might switch and let the contract through. (Some North players might do that anyway. ;) )

 

Rik

[barmar]

That's not entirely true. South did need to say something to wake up North to cash the ♥Q. North might have thought -just like West- that the ♥K was singleton.

I believe blackshoe was talking about his legal (and ethical) requirement.

 

Although I suppose you could say that since the Laws say you have to try to get the best score, then it may be required to achieve that. Although just about anything in the play involves judgement calls.

[ggwhiz]

South did need to say something to wake up North to cash the ♥Q.

Rik

 

Not if declarer held the ♥Q. South (who doesn't know where it is) pointing the irregularity out now may have allowed the contract to make instead of waiting for the (almost) inevitable revoke. That is hardly unethical.

[robert2734]

There's no penalty if the dummy revokes. All three (I guess four) players are equally responsible for irregularities in the dummy. I don't have my rule book handy but it seems like the defenders have a duty to ensure the dummy has the proper number of cards correctly sorted.

[ggwhiz]

There's no penalty if the dummy revokes.

 

Really? What if a 2nd heart is played and declarer pitches a black card while winning in hand or/and then starts ruffing hearts with high trumps.

[pran]

There's no penalty if the dummy revokes.

Really? What if a 2nd heart is played and declarer pitches a black card while winning in hand or/and then starts ruffing hearts with high trumps.

Never, ever forget Law 64C in revoke situations!

[robert2734]

Really? What if a 2nd heart is played and declarer pitches a black card while winning in hand or/and then starts ruffing hearts with high trumps.

 

Rule 64B3. If the defenders let him do it it lives. No rectification.

[pran]

Really? What if a 2nd heart is played and declarer pitches a black card while winning in hand or/and then starts ruffing hearts with high trumps.

Never, ever forget Law 64C in revoke situations!

Rule 64B3. If the defenders let him do it it lives. No rectification.

 

There shall certainly be a rectification (effective for both sides) taking away any gain to the offending side from the revoke.

[blackshoe]

No rectification as in 64A does not mean no rectification at all. As Sven says, there is still 64C.

 

Yes, I was talking about legal and ethical requirements.

[mycroft]

I have been told, and have ruled (and have been appealed on), and ISTR something on the ACBL web site, that "everyone is responsible for dummy" is an old wives' tale, and that if dummy is put down improperly (per L41D) and that misleads the defenders into a misplay, we will restore equity.

 

As a result, even if South waited until the end of the hand to point it out (or waited until declarer tried to play the "3 of diamonds"), should North have had the ♥Q and not cashed it because it "wasn't cashing", we'd still adjust to -1 - because we won't protect *declarer* for partner's mistake.

 

The timing is...not what I would have chosen. South's conduct was...something I would remember for next time. But legal and proper, and South may not have known that they would have been protected later if she didn't point it out now.

[barmar]

No rectification as in 64A does not mean no rectification at all. As Sven says, there is still 64C.

So the director should restore equity, but the automatic transfer of tricks based on 64A is not done.

 

I suppose he could also give dummy a PP for failing to put down his cards properly, a violation of 41D.

[pran]

No rectification as in 64A does not mean no rectification at all. As Sven says, there is still 64C.

So the director should restore equity, but the automatic transfer of tricks based on 64A is not done.

 

I suppose he could also give dummy a PP for failing to put down his cards properly, a violation of 41D.

Well, technically, the correct way of describing it would be:

 

The automatic transfer of tricks based on 64A is not done, but the director should restore equity.

 

(And I don't fancy handing out PPs for every accident except when they are malicious.)

[robert2734]

There is no offending side. Everyone is equally responsible for watching the dummy revoke in front of him and doing nothing. We can have the director restore equity i. e. tell you how many tricks you should have taken but I don't know what we need players for.

[pran]

There is no offending side. Everyone is equally responsible for watching the dummy revoke in front of him and doing nothing. We can have the director restore equity i. e. tell you how many tricks you should have taken but I don't know what we need players for.

Where have you found that everyone is equally responsible for watching the dummy ..... ? I know of no law to that effect.

There's no penalty if the dummy revokes. All three (I guess four) players are equally responsible for irregularities in the dummy. I don't have my rule book handy but it seems like the defenders have a duty to ensure the dummy has the proper number of cards correctly sorted.

You had better find your rule book and look it up.

 

And there is certainly an offending side here: (Presumed) Dummy violating Law 41D and Declarer violating Law 44C.

[Zelandakh]

South knew from the beginning that 3 of hearts was in with diamonds but waited till K of hearts was played to draw attention

Out of interest how do you know this? It sometimes happen that a player does not notice something like this immediately but does after a certain time or after something changes (such as the king being played).

[pran]

South knew from the beginning that 3 of hearts was in with diamonds

but waited till K of hearts was played to draw attention

Out of interest how do you know this? It sometimes happen that a player does not notice something like this immediately but does after a certain time or after something changes (such as the king being played).

And whether or not South "knew" is irrelevant.

 

There is no law in Bridge that requires (or even recommends) that a player draws attention to an opposing player's irregularity.

[Zelandakh]

And whether or not South "knew" is irrelevant.

it may be irrelevant with respect to the correct ruling in this case but perhaps not in terms of how (s)he is viewed by others in the club, as evidenced by mycroft's post (#14). And sometimes things get put down to gamesmanship that are in reality nothing more than stupidity or ignorance. If you encountered such a case, I daresay that you would choose to have a word with the reporter about it.

[pran]

it may be irrelevant with respect to the correct ruling in this case but perhaps not in terms of how (s)he is viewed by others in the club, as evidenced by mycroft's post (#14). And sometimes things get put down to gamesmanship that are in reality nothing more than stupidity or ignorance. If you encountered such a case, I daresay that you would choose to have a word with the reporter about it.

What Mycroft says in that post is (AFAICS) the obvious fact that a defender is protected against damage from Dummy's violation of Law 41D. This of course depends on that defender claiming such damage when he becomes aware of the damage, not necessarily already when he became aware of the violation as such if that was earlier.

 

Also observe Law 11A which protects an ignorant non-offending side from forfeiting redress in certain situations.

 

I fail to see how his post (or in fact anything in the laws) can be taken to justify any bad feelings against a player who does not call attention to an irregularity, regardless of his possible reasons for such action or lack of action.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps you missed the part to which I was referring pran:

The timing is...not what I would have chosen. South's conduct was...something I would remember for next time.

If enough people, or in many clubs just the right people, have such "memories", things can get difficult in a bridge club quickly. And that can happen even to the most ethical. For example, one that happened to me was correcting an explanation that omitted a special case and the opps took the correction to mean I had that special case in my hand. I didn't and they held a grudge about it assuming that it was gamesmanship - which leads us back to this thread.

[mycroft]

Well, what I would remember is that "ah, this is someone who plays [Edit: his opponents] right to the Law" (and "and doesn't know it"). Those people get played right to the Law (and I do know it reasonably well).

 

There are players who I play right to the Law with, and we're very friendly about it; that's just the way they play and wouldn't expect anything different from anyone else. I actually find it a very comfortable way to play, provided everyone actually knows the Laws. There are players who I play right to the Law with, simply because they won't let others get away with anything; it's still friendly in most cases (and I bet half of them don't even realize what I'm doing), but I don't enjoy it as much and likely neither do they. There are also a couple who I play right to the Law with because otherwise they'd steal me blind with their clever "interpretations" of the laws (specifically Full Disclosure).

 

I also play midnights. My regular partner and I have come up with a new twist for the next one we play in - we're bringing in a d6, which we roll before each hand. We'll explain if asked...

[aguahombre]

And whether or not South "knew" is irrelevant.

 

There is no law in Bridge that requires (or even recommends) that a player draws attention to an opposing player's irregularity.

Maybe the OP was South. Maybe the OP was told this by South. It might not be relevant to the ruling, but it is an integral part of what the OP wanted to know. And it adds an element to the discussion even though the book answers which have been given are correct either way.

 

Knowing that the 3 of hearts had been placed with the diamonds, would my personal sense of ethics prevent me from remaining silent and gaining? No, not in this situation.