In which situations can the defenders confer over a ruling?

[pescetom]

A more relevant example: condoning irregular behavior by a player who attempts to "prevent" an infraction. e.g.

[*]Dummy trying to prevent declarer leading from the wrong hand. Often the attempt is belated, causing resentment, or worse, as here.

The Law doesn't condone such irregular behaviour, although it is rarely punished. The root cause here is that Dummy despite his many limitations may attempt to prevent an infraction, which is both unnecessary (except perhaps in refusing to revoke) and an obvious source of problems.

 

[*]Player asking "having none", ostensibly to try to prevent a revoke., This helps careless or unethical players to count the hand

Luckily nobody does this here, nor would dream that it is legal. It was forced on WBF by ACBL as I heard it - certainly should be scrapped.

[Vampyr]

By that logic, the experienced defender should refuse the lead - he has no reason to think that declarer will not retry legally after entering with some Queen.

 

Unfortunately, Aces and Kings beat Queens.

[pescetom]

Unfortunately, Aces and Kings beat Queens.

 

Of course, but as I said defender has no reason to expect that entering with some Queen will not be possible.

[weejonnie]

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt9876hakdakcak&w=skhjt9876DJT9CJT9&n=SQ32HqQ432DQ32CQ32&a=2CP2DP2SP4SP6S]300|300| A typical case, where the director might consider a PP.

 

Against South's 6♠, West leads ♥J, won by declarer's ♥A.

 

At trick 2, declarer nominates dummy's ♠Q. Defenders are experienced players but neither objects.

 

Dummy hastens to point out "You are in hand".

 

Coming to his senses, declarer, eschews the ♠ finesse, playing safely to make his contract. He is rewarded with an overtrick :)

 

Defenders call the director. IMO he should adjust to 6♠-1 and impose a PP for Dummy's interference in the play.[/hv]

it is also question as to whether 'dummy could have known' at the time of the infraction that it might damage the NOS. Law 23 oops 72C. A good evil player might well realise that a heart ruff is threatened and declarer should play Ace and another (even if the king does not drop) to circumvent it.

[axman]

I think I can use Law 55B2 by ruling that the lead from dummy is the "correct hand" if the defenders exercise their right to accept it.

 

Making declarer follow with the card they were intending to lead just seems strange and punishing - it's another situation where declarer can't gain an advantage.

I believe that the situation described is that dummy (lead) and declarer (play) have played to a trick (both OOT). I should think that accepting the lead requires that the played card is required to be played even if a revoke (a revoke can be corrected).

[barmar]

it is also question as to whether 'dummy could have known' at the time of the infraction that it might damage the NOS.

If Lamford and SB are to be believed, whenever damage actually occurs, the offending player "could have known" that it might, so that Law licenses always adjusting.

[Vampyr]

I believe that the situation described is that dummy (lead) and declarer (play) have played to a trick (both OOT). I should think that accepting the lead requires that the played card is required to be played even if a revoke (a revoke can be corrected).

 

I think so too. The law is not very clear.

[pran]

I think so too. The law is not very clear.

Are you serious?

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

and is very clear!

(My enhancement)

[sanst]

That is one of the more nonsensical rules in the Laws. Why would this have precedence over the prohibition of cheating? Why would that be a worse offence than being violent?

I agree with nige1 that the laws are in dire need of a thorough cleanup. There’s a discussion over here with Ton Kooijman, chair of the WBFLC, about the last part of the last sentence of 17D3. According to him only the player who passed OOT commited an infraction, the subsequent ones passed in turn. But why is the information given by these passes UI? That he can’t make clear.

[pran]

That is one of the more nonsensical rules in the Laws. Why would this have precedence over the prohibition of cheating? Why would that be a worse offence than being violent?

.......

Can you see any possible conflict in the laws here? I can't.

[gordontd]

That is one of the more nonsensical rules in the Laws. Why would this have precedence over the prohibition of cheating? Why would that be a worse offence than being violent?

The laws are not there to deal with cheating or violence.

[sanst]

The laws are not there to deal with cheating or violence.

Law 73B2: “The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.” I do call that cheating. And I encountered more than once oral and psychological violence, which certainly is a breach of law 74A2 “A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.”

Besides, since it happens and not so rarely as to be neglectable, the Laws should deal with it.

[gordontd]

Law 73B2: “The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.” I do call that cheating. And I encountered more than once oral and psychological violence, which certainly is a breach of law 74A2 “A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.”

Besides, since it happens and not so rarely as to be neglectable, the Laws should deal with it.

I think your quote from Law 73B2 is effectively arguing my point: despite (or because of) defining it at the gravest possible offence, no sanction is provided for it.

 

From the Introduction to the Laws: "They are

designed to define correct procedure and to provide an

adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are

designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify

situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. "

[Vampyr]

Are you serious?

 

and is very clear!

(My enhancement)

 

Whatever. It is more interesting when both dummy and declarer have played legally to the trick.

[pran]

Whatever. It is more interesting when both dummy and declarer have played legally to the trick.

In what way?

Sample scenario(s) please.

[Vampyr]

In what way?

Sample scenario(s) please.

 

Post #10.

[blackshoe]

Also many players and some directors actually think that the instruction in §42B2 "He may try to prevent any irregularity" (Dummy's rights) is valid in this case. Of course it's not (the irregularity has already happened), but it doesn't seem like an action deserving a PP, even if it is a player with some knowledge about the laws.

Law 43A1{b}: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained regarding “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), ”shall” do (a violation will incur a penalty more often than not), and “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong, but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”.

It seems to me that the "may not" provision implies, given this quote from the introduction to the laws, that a PP is appropriate no less often (and probably more often) than "more often than not".

 

Law 43A1{c}: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

This one is even more serious.

 

Argue all you want about "the players are just trying to have a little fun" or "It's a club game" or other such nonsense. The Law is clear.

 

I haven't yet seen an answer to the question posed in the title of this thread. I suspect the correct answer is "none".

[pran]

Post #10.

Post #10 was rather general so it appears to me that the situation was similarly clarified in the following posts?

[Vampyr]

It seems to me that the "may not" provision implies, given this quote from the introduction to the laws, that a PP is appropriate no less often (and probably more often) than "more often than not".

 

 

This one is even more serious.

 

Argue all you want about "the players are just trying to have a little fun" or "It's a club game" or other such nonsense. The Law is clear.

 

I haven't yet seen an answer to the question posed in the title of this thread. I suspect the correct answer is "none".

 

In the second post I showed an example of where the defenders can confer.

 

Post #10 was rather general so it appears to me that the situation was similarly clarified in the following posts?

 

OK, here’s what happens. Declarer leads a card from dummy. Dummy says, “you’re in your hand”. Declarer now plays a card of the same suit from his hand. Declarer’s RHO has decided to accept the lead from the wrong hand and plays a card. Is Declarer allowed to change the card played from his hand? I really don’t think so. Dummy’s comment that declarer is in his hand is not relevant or even legal.

 

This is different to the situation when the lead from the wrong hand is not accepted.

[pran]

OK, here’s what happens. Declarer leads a card from dummy. Dummy says, “you’re in your hand”. Declarer now plays a card of the same suit from his hand. Declarer’s RHO has decided to accept the lead from the wrong hand and plays a card. Is Declarer allowed to change the card played from his hand? I really don’t think so. Dummy’s comment that declarer is in his hand is not relevant or even legal.

 

This is different to the situation when the lead from the wrong hand is not accepted.

I must assume that the Director was not called until after RHO plays to the trick (after declarer has made his lead from his own hand)?

A. [.....]

B. After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity

1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

(b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

© Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.

(d) The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents.

2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

C. Premature Correction of an Irregularity

Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26B).

Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

 

But RHO then just playing his card to the trick is a serious violation of Laws 9B1 and 9B2, he should instead have summoned the Director.

 

The Director could then (and probably would) have cancelled the (now incorrect) "lead" from Declarer and let RHO play his card in turn to the trick.

 

Instead the Director must now use his judgement and find a ruling that best possible protects both sides. Note that both sides are now "at fault"!

[KingCovert]

I must assume that the Director was not called until after RHO plays to the trick (after declarer has made his lead from his own hand)?

 

Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

 

But RHO then just playing his card to the trick is a serious violation of Laws 9B1 and 9B2, he should instead have summoned the Director.

 

The Director could then (and probably would) have cancelled the (now incorrect) "lead" from Declarer and let RHO play his card in turn to the trick.

 

Instead the Director must now use his judgement and find a ruling that best possible protects both sides. Note that both sides are now "at fault"!

 

I can't believe that this would be the "correct' course of action given what I'm reading here. What am I getting wrong? As I understand it:

 

1) Leading off of dummy is an irregularity, one that can be accepted by defenders

2) Declarer "correcting" their irregularity, without consulting the director, is yet another irregularity, and it's a lead that can be accepted by defenders. Which is to say, they can choose whether to allow declarer to make such a correction after having seen the card. This sucks for declarer, but they had no right to correct the irregularity without calling the director.

3) 9C and 9D combine to say that if any person now calls the director here, defenders cannot lose either of these two rights.

 

So, it seems to me that the only fair resolution is to allow defenders to select either lead to accept, but if the lead out of dummy is accepted then declarer's card is now a card played out of turn.

 

Where am I wrong?

[pran]

I must assume that the Director was not called until after RHO plays to the trick (after declarer has made his lead from his own hand)?

 

Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

 

But RHO then just playing his card to the trick is a serious violation of Laws 9B1 and 9B2, he should instead have summoned the Director.

 

The Director could then (and probably would) have cancelled the (now incorrect) "lead" from Declarer and let RHO play his card in turn to the trick.

 

Instead the Director must now use his judgement and find a ruling that best possible protects both sides. Note that both sides are now "at fault"!

 

 

I can't believe that this would be the "correct' course of action given what I'm reading here. What am I getting wrong? As I understand it:

 

1) Leading off of dummy is an irregularity, one that can be accepted by defenders

2) Declarer "correcting" their irregularity, without consulting the director, is yet another irregularity, and it's a lead that can be accepted by defenders. Which is to say, they can choose whether to allow declarer to make such a correction after having seen the card. This sucks for declarer, but they had no right to correct the irregularity without calling the director.

3) 9C and 9D combine to say that if any person now calls the director here, defenders cannot lose either of these two rights.

 

So, it seems to me that the only fair resolution is to allow defenders to select either lead to accept, but if the lead out of dummy is accepted then declarer's card is now a card played out of turn.

 

Where am I wrong?

OK, so let us look at some relevant laws:

1. A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely, and before rectification has been assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of that offence.

2. Once the right to rectification has been forfeited, the illegal play is treated as though it were in turn (except when Law 53B applies).

3. ...

and also

A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and if legal may not be withdrawn.

So RHO can avoid the accusation of having violated Law 9B by stating (and be heard) that he just followed suit to the lead from Dummy with no intention to accept that as a lead out of turn.

[KingCovert]

OK, so let us look at some relevant laws:

 

and also

 

So RHO can avoid the accusation of having violated Law 9B by stating (and be heard) that he just followed suit to the lead from Dummy with no intention to accept that as a lead out of turn.

 

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was assuming that:

 

1) Declarer called for a card from dummy (while declarer is on lead). An irregularity

2) Dummy informs declarer (illegally) that declarer has played from the wrong hand

3) Declarer then plays from their hand without calling the director. Another irregularity.

 

If defender's call the director now, you stated that:

The Director could then (and probably would) have cancelled the (now incorrect) "lead" from Declarer and let RHO play his card in turn to the trick.

 

Were you only talking about if RHO had played to the trick, and then they called the director? Or did you mean if the director was called in the situation that I've provided? Maybe I misunderstood your premise.

[pran]

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was assuming that:

 

1) Declarer called for a card from dummy (while declarer is on lead). An irregularity

2) Dummy informs declarer (illegally) that declarer has played from the wrong hand

3) Declarer then plays from their hand without calling the director. Another irregularity.

 

If defender's call the director now, you stated that:

 

 

Were you only talking about if RHO had played to the trick, and then they called the director? Or did you mean if the director was called in the situation that I've provided? Maybe I misunderstood your premise.

The way I read OP was:

1: Declarer called for a card from Dummy

2: Dummy stated "it is your lead" (or words to that effect)

3: Declarer played (i.e. led) a card from his own hand

4: RHO (with the apparent intention of accepting the lead out of turn from dummy) played a card

and eventually

5: The Director was summoned to the table

[Vampyr]

The way I read OP was:

1: Declarer called for a card from Dummy

2: Dummy stated "it is your lead" (or words to that effect)

3: Declarer played (i.e. led) a card from his own hand

4: RHO (with the apparent intention of accepting the lead out of turn from dummy) played a card

and eventually

5: The Director was summoned to the table

 

Something like that. RHO could have dozing followed to the lead, or just ignored Dummy’s illegal remark, or even had already begun to play his card when Dummy made the remark. The NOS should never be considered to be at fault in a situation like this.