Dummy calling director

[dickiegera]

Last nite at local club game partner played a diamond on a heart trick that I won.

Dummy immediately called for director.

 

Director took dummy that he could not do that.

 

However director still allowed declarer the option of forbidding or requiring me to lead a diamond.

Leading a diamond from KJ109 with Qx in dummy allowed declarer to make contract.

 

I thought that after dummy's call of director drawing attention to an opponents irregularity the

 

PENALTY IS NOT ENFORCED.

 

Comments.

[gordontd]

Last nite at local club game partner played a diamond on a heart trick that I won.

Dummy immediately called for director.

 

Director took dummy that he could not do that.

 

However director still allowed declarer the option of forbidding or requiring me to lead a diamond.

Leading a diamond from KJ109 with Qx in dummy allowed declarer to make contract.

 

I thought that after dummy's call of director drawing attention to an opponents irregularity the

 

PENALTY IS NOT ENFORCED.

 

Comments.

The TD is allowed to designate that the exposed card not be a penalty card. It's also possible for dummy to be given a PP. Neither of those things is compulsory.

[PhilG007]

Last nite at local club game partner played a diamond on a heart trick that I won.

Dummy immediately called for director.

 

Director took dummy that he could not do that.

 

However director still allowed declarer the option of forbidding or requiring me to lead a diamond.

Leading a diamond from KJ109 with Qx in dummy allowed declarer to make contract.

 

I thought that after dummy's call of director drawing attention to an opponents irregularity the

 

PENALTY IS NOT ENFORCED.

 

Comments.

The TD was quite right. The Laws of Bridge are quite clear on this. Dummy shall not participate in any part

of the play. But an infringemnt has taken place i.e a revoke which is subject to penalty irrespective of dummy

calling the TD.

[barmar]

Law 81C3

The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:

...

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the

periods established in accordance with Laws 79C and 92B.

So even though the TD became aware of the revoke through an irregularity of dummy, he still rectifies the error.

 

The time that there's no immediate rectification is in Law 43B3, which only applies if dummy calls attention to an irregularity after having violated 43A2, which prohibits looking at other players' hands.

[steve2005]

So even though the TD became aware of the revoke through an irregularity of dummy, he still rectifies the error.

Secretary bird says where did anyone say there was a revoke?

[lamford]

The TD is allowed to designate that the exposed card not be a penalty card. It's also possible for dummy to be given a PP. Neither of those things is compulsory.

Would it not be normal however to so designate if dummy had called attention to the irregularity (assuming there was one) when dummy is prohibited by inference by 9A2 from doing so?

[axman]

Last nite at local club game partner played a diamond on a heart trick that I won.

Dummy immediately called for director.

 

Director took dummy that he could not do that.

 

However director still allowed declarer the option of forbidding or requiring me to lead a diamond.

Leading a diamond from KJ109 with Qx in dummy allowed declarer to make contract.

 

I thought that after dummy's call of director drawing attention to an opponents irregularity the

 

PENALTY IS NOT ENFORCED.

 

Comments.

 

On the facts presented, there is no basis for lead penalties. that is TD error. The TD call breached 43A1a,c and therefore dummy's score should be reduced, hopefully encouraging the players 'to not repeat dummy's transgression' in the future.

[blackshoe]

Last nite at local club game partner played a diamond on a heart trick that I won.

Dummy immediately called for director.

 

Director took dummy that he could not do that.

 

However director still allowed declarer the option of forbidding or requiring me to lead a diamond.

Leading a diamond from KJ109 with Qx in dummy allowed declarer to make contract.

 

I thought that after dummy's call of director drawing attention to an opponents irregularity the

 

PENALTY IS NOT ENFORCED.

 

Comments.

1. Don't shout.

2. No comment on the director's ruling until you answer the important question: did your partner have a heart?

[dickiegera]

1. Don't shout.

2. No comment on the director's ruling until you answer the important question: did your partner have a heart?

 

Yes partner had a Heart. Partner played a diamond and a second later played a heart and dummy called for director immediately.

[blackshoe]

Wait, what? This sounds like he played a diamond on a heart trick, realized he'd revoked, and immediately and without saying anything corrected it. Is that what happened? If so, then dummy would have done better to say nothing until someone else called attention to the irregularity, or the hand was over.

 

So we have a revoke (Law 61A) and a correction (Law 62A, Law 62B). So far so good. Now the diamond is a major penalty card (Law 62B1, Law 50). Now the director is called. That he is called by dummy doesn't matter to the revoke/penalty card ruling. I'll come back to dummy in a minute. Since you are on lead and your partner has a major penalty card, director gives declarer the option to forbid or require a diamond lead, or to neither require nor prohibit such a lead (Law 50D2). I gather declarer required a diamond lead, possibly costing your side a trick. Sorry, but that's the way it goes.

 

Back to dummy. Law 43A1{a} says "Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play". Law 43B1 says "Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 and A2 above." But the introduction to the laws says when a player does something he "should not" do, this is an infraction, but a procedural penalty would be rare. I am, if you've followed my posts here, a strong advocate of giving PPs when appropriate, but I would not give one here. I would explain to dummy why he should not be calling the director, and I would make a note of the incident in case he does it again. Then I would give him a PP. Probably. Or another warning, if I thought that was more appropriate (inexperience, generally clueless, whatever). A third offense would surely get penalized.

 

There is no provision in law or regulation that would suggest the director should not enforce the laws because it was dummy who called the director. Also, according to (I think, it was a couple years ago) Dan Plato, who answered my email to "rulings", dummy may call the TD for a ZT violation, even if no one else has called attention to it. I guess the theory is that such a violation calls attention to itself.

[PhilG007]

Secretary bird says where did anyone say there was a revoke?

The OP said that a diamond was played on a heart trick i.e.failure to follow suit.

Unless the player had no more hearts this constitutes a revoke and is subject to penalty.

[sanst]

The OP said that a diamond was played on a heart trick i.e.failure to follow suit.

Unless the player had no more hearts this constitutes a revoke and is subject to penalty.

Is that so? ;)

[barmar]

Secretary bird says where did anyone say there was a revoke?

Nowhere. The OP left out these details, and presumably assumed we would understand that this was the reason the TD was called and had to make a ruling. The only pertinent question was about the legalities arising from dummy calling attention to the irregularity and calling the TD, not the original irregularity.

[Vampyr]

Yes partner had a Heart. Partner played a diamond and a second later played a heart and dummy called for director immediately.

 

It seems to me as if partner's action has called attention to,the irregularity, so there is no problem with dummy calling the director.

[ahydra]

It seems to me as if partner's action has called attention to,the irregularity, so there is no problem with dummy calling the director.

 

This is what I thought too, though there is an argument "not necessarily", e.g, if OP and declarer hadn't noticed it (replacing the card was done smoothly and they weren't paying attention). But that's rather rare - the players should be paying attention, and there is nearly always some sort of fumbling / apology / both from revoker.

 

ahydra

[barmar]

This is what I thought too, though there is an argument "not necessarily", e.g, if OP and declarer hadn't noticed it (replacing the card was done smoothly and they weren't paying attention). But that's rather rare - the players should be paying attention, and there is nearly always some sort of fumbling / apology / both from revoker.

Does that even matter? The law doesn't say "draw all players' attention". If the action draws dummy's attention to the irregularity, he can call the TD. He's just not allowed to be the one who draws attention to it.

[blackshoe]

Interesting point. What, in law does "draw attention" mean? It seems to me to mean "direct or attract (someone's attention) to something" (from my computer's American English Dictionary). So if you've played a card and then almost immediately play another card, you've perforce attracted the attention of anyone who is paying attention at the table to it. I can envision some saying "but nobody said anything". Nobody has to say anything, it's the action itself that draws attention to itself.

[pran]

Interesting point. What, in law does "draw attention" mean? It seems to me to mean "direct or attract (someone's attention) to something" (from my computer's American English Dictionary). So if you've played a card and then almost immediately play another card, you've perforce attracted the attention of anyone who is paying attention at the table to it. I can envision some saying "but nobody said anything". Nobody has to say anything, it's the action itself that draws attention to itself.

My understanding is that an irregularity cannot "draw attention" to itself.

 

The act of withdrawing a played card is as such not "drawing attention" to it, but any person (including the offender himself and spectators) can react in some way (e.g. with a statement) that draws attention to the irregularity.

[jvage]

My understanding is that an irregularity cannot "draw attention" to itself.

 

The act of withdrawing a played card is as such not "drawing attention" to it, but any person (including the offender himself and spectators) can react in some way (e.g. with a statement) that draws attention to the irregularity.

I had an interesting problem where this distinction was important. I was Dummy against a very good pair. Partner (who I think sort of believed I was the one in the partnership who knew about the laws and the one to take responsibility for such things...) led towards my (dummys) AKJ in clubs. He asked for the Ace and my LHO played the Q and then quickly changed this to a low club without saying anything...

 

My partner (declarer) looked at me with a glance that said: "What do we do now?" also without saying anything.

 

I knew about my limitations as dummy, but at the table I chose to say (after a short break, but still before anyone else had said anything): "Maybe we should call a director?"

 

After which both opponents started almost screaming about "Dummy is not allowed to call the director", which is not the case and was not my main problem....

[barmar]

My understanding is that an irregularity cannot "draw attention" to itself.

If the original card was a revoke, I think withdrawing it and replacing it with a card in the correct suit draws attention to the revoke. The withdrawal is not calling attention to itself.

 

But you're probably right if the irregularity is replacing one legal card with another, as in jvage's example.

[pran]

I had an interesting problem where this distinction was important. I was Dummy against a very good pair. Partner (who I think sort of believed I was the one in the partnership who knew about the laws and the one to take responsibility for such things...) led towards my (dummys) AKJ in clubs. He asked for the Ace and my LHO played the Q and then quickly changed this to a low club without saying anything...

 

My partner (declarer) looked at me with a glance that said: "What do we do now?" also without saying anything.

 

I knew about my limitations as dummy, but at the table I chose to say (after a short break, but still before anyone else had said anything): "Maybe we should call a director?"

 

After which both opponents started almost screaming about "Dummy is not allowed to call the director", which is not the case and was not my main problem....

Quite interesting situation.

Maybe the best choice of yours would have been to say nothing at the time but make it clear to your opponents that as soon as the play ends you would exercise your right to call the director and explain everything that happened (including your partner's bewilderment)?

[pran]

If the original card was a revoke, I think withdrawing it and replacing it with a card in the correct suit draws attention to the revoke. The withdrawal is not calling attention to itself.

 

But you're probably right if the irregularity is replacing one legal card with another, as in jvage's example.

A revoke is not itself an irregularity (unless it is clear that it indeed is a revoke).

Playing a second card to the trick (for whatever reason) is indeed an irregularity on it's own but cannot in addition be taken (legally) as drawing attention to a possible irregularity in playing the first card.

[axman]

My understanding is that an irregularity cannot "draw attention" to itself.

 

The act of withdrawing a played card is as such not "drawing attention" to it, but any person (including the offender himself and spectators) can react in some way (e.g. with a statement) that draws attention to the irregularity.

We have discovered an old American past time called Catch22. Dummy sees X play two cards of different suits to a trick, the second card being the suit of the trick. By playing the second card X has drawn attention to his revoke which opens the door for Dummy to summon the TD about the revoke. However, by summoning the TD Dummy is first to draw attention to X's additional irregularity of playing two cards to the trick- something he may not do. And not being allowed to do the one, he is neither allowed to pursue the other. So, he may do neither- at this time.

[blackshoe]

A revoke is not itself an irregularity (unless it is clear that it indeed is a revoke).

I disagree.

 

Chapter One of the Laws, Definitions:

Irregularity: A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.

Infraction: A player’s breach of law or of lawful regulation.

Law 44C: Requirement to Follow Suit

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

Law 61A: Definition of a Revoke

Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply, see Law 59.)

 

A revoke is an irregularity and an infraction of Law 44C.

[pran]

I disagree.

A revoke is an irregularity and an infraction of Law 44C.

Maybe I should have used the words "apparent" irregularity ?