[ahydra]

So tonight at the club we almost had a very weird TD call... I made a heart opening lead and dummy played the H6.

What's so interesting about that, you say? Well, dummy actually played the H6 (placed it on the table face up, still holding the rest of his cards up to his chest), rather than tabling his entire hand Law 41D-style. Partner then followed with a small heart, I said "could we have the entire dummy please?" at which point dummy woke up and tabled his hand, which included a singleton heart.

We just carried on as usual, but suppose either of the following happened, how would you rule?

1) Dummy tables more than one heart. Declarer wants to change the card played from dummy. (I imagine this one is easy)

2) Dummy tables the singleton heart, but partner wants to change his card (eg to give a suit preference signal rather than whatever signal he intended originally).

3) More exciting: Declarer wins with the heart ace, then I request the dummy be put down, at which point declarer and/or my partner want to change their cards.

ahydra

[c_corgi]

Law 45D:
If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer’s RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick. (See Law 16D.)


So, in none of your cases is dummy's card played. In all cases partner can change his card and (only) if he does then so can declarer. It seems wrong for partner to be considered "not offending" having failed to notice that dummy was not tabled (hopefully this is not contradicted by law/regulation), so there would be a lot of UI to the defenders from partners change of card. Since neither side is non offending, information from opponents withdrawn cards is authorised (16D2 doesn't state this but implies it).


Law 16D:
When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide:

1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’.

2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

[iviehoff]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-04, 19:56, said:

It seems wrong for partner to be considered "not offending" having failed to notice that dummy was not tabled (hopefully this is not contradicted by law/regulation)

If you are going to say a player is offending, you had better demonstrate an offence he has committed. Bridge is not an Orwellian world where you are offending unless you can find some law that says you aren't.

Whilst it is specifically an offence to take action if attention has been drawn to an irregularity (L9B), there is no offence in playing on if no attention has been drawn to an irregularity, which we conclude from the absence of any wording making that an offence or irregularity. Nor is a player bound to draw attention to an irregularity, which again we conclude by lack of any wording compelling a player to draw attention to an irregularity. So partner has committed no offence in playing on after the irregularity, so long as no attention has been drawn to it.

What he has done, however, by taking action subsequent to the irregularity before calling the director, is prejudice his right to obtain rectification of the irregularity (L11). That, rather than UI, might be the grounds for not allowing the defenders the rights in L45D to change their plays on this occasion. However in view of the full wording of L11, I do not think it would be adequate grounds for disapplying those rectifications on this occasion.

[c_corgi]

I suppose I should have said "hopefully this is supported by law/regulation". The only difference it makes whether the defence is non-offending or offending is whether information relating to the defender's withdrawn card is UI to the defence. If the defender is not considered offending (which seems unclear rather than wrong to me) then probably the AI relating to his withdrawn card should count as rectification that is forfeit under law 11, with the same outcome as if the defender were offending (although I suppose the TD could judge that the UI to declarer was also part of the forfeit rectification). But I am in danger of deciding how I want to rule and then looking for laws to justify it!

[iviehoff]

I suppose you are thinking as follows. The defender could deliberately play a card after dummy's whist-like effort, knowing that dummy's failure to put his hand down is very likely to be spotted and complained about by someone before both sides play to the next trick. Provided that happens, then dummy's card must be withdrawn, and then the defender will get to play again to the first trick, with his first card AI to partner. You would like that to rule that it is not allowed deliberately to take advantage of dummy's offence in that way.

But I can't think of anything that makes it illegal, or even immoral. The law does not make it illegal to take full advantage of the opponents' irregularities and rectifications thereto, subject to the limits in Law 11. Law 10C even explicitly says something along those lines, though it doesn't cover the precise situation here. Nevertheless, Law 10C is in a sense redundant, because it merely says (as an exception) that something is appropriate, even though nowhere else is there any suggestion that it is illegal or a breach of proprieties. So I don't find the fact that Law 10C doesn't cover this precise situation any inhibition.

[c_corgi]

To your first paragraph: yes.

I don't think L10C is relevant because it discusses options, which the defender does not have: dummy's card is simply not played, he cannot decide accept it.

[blackshoe]

Which law is unclear to you, corgi?

[iviehoff]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-05, 07:25, said:

I don't think L10C is relevant because it discusses options, which the defender does not have: dummy's card is simply not played, he cannot decide accept it.

I agree 10C does not apply, I was simply mentioning it as a similar situation to explore the ethics.

Here's another situation which may perhaps clarify why I don't find the defender's action unethical or illegal.

Suppose the opponent plays a card which, having counted, you are pretty sure is a revoke. You may say to your opponent "having none", thus enabling the revoke to be corrected, but I think you would agree you have absolutely no obligation to do so, and I am sure you would consider it perfectly ethical simply to play on (without undue haste or slowness). Now when you do this, you are aware that it is still in time for the revoke to be corrected, and if that happens you will be allowed to change your card, and it will be AI to partner. Is it at all unethical or illegal to take that into account in choosing your play, even to take advantage of changing your card if it does happen? I think not. There are specific differences between that situation and the present one - a revoke may become established and you never get to change your card, whereas you can be fairly certain dummy-whist isn't going to last very long. But I think the general ethical point, you may choose not to draw attention, and having made that decision you may choose your play in the knowledge of likely rectifications that may follow if and when attention is drawn, is the same.

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-05, 08:15, said:

Which law is unclear to you, corgi?

It is unclear to me whether the laws as a whole permit, preclude or require the defender who followed to dummy's card in this situation to be considered as an offender or non-offender.

[c_corgi]

iviehoff, on 2012-July-05, 08:21, said:

There are specific differences between that situation and the present one - a revoke may become established and you never get to change your card, whereas you can be fairly certain dummy-whist isn't going to last very long.

Indeed: the OP situation would be more akin to playing your card after the revoke, with the intention of then drawing attention to the revoke yourself and having the opportunity to change your card. I don't know what the legalities of this would be, but it isn't a manoeuvre to be proud of.

[blackshoe]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-05, 08:22, said:

It is unclear to me whether the laws as a whole permit, preclude or require the defender who followed to dummy's card in this situation to be considered as an offender or non-offender.

The laws as a whole permit — and where they permit, they require — that a contestant who has committed an irregularity be considered an offender. The laws preclude considering a contestant who has committed no irregularity being considered an offender. So unless you can find an irregularity in what dummy's LHO has done — and I don't think you can — he is not an offender.

[iviehoff]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-05, 08:32, said:

Indeed: the OP situation would be more akin to playing your card after the revoke, with the intention of then drawing attention to the revoke yourself and having the opportunity to change your card. I don't know what the legalities of this would be, but it isn't a manoeuvre to be proud of.

What it is, is deliberately delaying drawing attention to an irregularity to take best advantage. If you delay drawing attention to a revoke, the revoke may become established and that can be to your advantage, and no one would criticise you, even though it is ultimately you who draw attention to the revoke at the end of the hand. Where's the moral/legal difference?

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-05, 08:38, said:

So unless you can find an irregularity in what dummy's LHO has done — and I don't think you can — he is not an offender.

I suspect you are right.

iviehoff, on 2012-July-05, 09:16, said:

What it is, is deliberately delaying drawing attention to an irregularity to take best advantage. If you delay drawing attention to a revoke, the revoke may become established and that can be to your advantage, and no one would criticise you, even though it is ultimately you who draw attention to the revoke at the end of the hand. Where's the moral/legal difference?

Unless I am mistaken the purpose of the laws is to restore equity rather than to penalise or rectify beyond the point of equity. The purpose of Law 11 is clearly to prevent angle-shooting for excessive penalties. In many cases, such as revokes, the situation is usually too complex to restore equity and instead penalties are prescribed for rectification. The same standards should not be applied to revokes as to situations where equity can be restored. In the case of revokes, determining whether a non-offender knew/should have known that it was a revoke would be too impractical to consider. It is not impractical to determine whether dummy's LHO should have known that dummy should not have been playing whist.

[barmar]

It seems like there should be a law prohibiting 3rd hand from playing before dummy is spread (thus treating it as a Law 49 violation), but apparently there isn't, so 45D is the most applicable. I guess once dummy is inattentive enough to "play" instead of spreading his cards, his LHO is allowed to be similarly oblivious.

[blackshoe]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-05, 10:20, said:

Unless I am mistaken the purpose of the laws is to restore equity rather than to penalise or rectify beyond the point of equity.

That is the primary purpose of the laws, true. It's not the only purpose.

[bluejak]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-05, 10:20, said:

Unless I am mistaken the purpose of the laws is to restore equity rather than to penalise or rectify beyond the point of equity. The purpose of Law 11 is clearly to prevent angle-shooting for excessive penalties. In many cases, such as revokes, the situation is usually too complex to restore equity and instead penalties are prescribed for rectification. The same standards should not be applied to revokes as to situations where equity can be restored. In the case of revokes, determining whether a non-offender knew/should have known that it was a revoke would be too impractical to consider. It is not impractical to determine whether dummy's LHO should have known that dummy should not have been playing whist.

Following what Ed says, it is unfortunate that people have read the Scope, have learnt the primary purpose of the Laws is to restore equity, and then make two major mistakes.

First, they forget the word "primary". In many situations, the aim of the Laws is to stop people doing things wrong, thus there are penalties attached to certain Laws. Some people think it is the only purpose, but it is not, merely the primary.

Second, the Scope of the Laws states the intentions of the lawmakers in writing the Laws. That's all. It is not the job of individual TDs, ACs, or even people writing on forums to invent Laws that they believe follow the Scope. Their job is to follow the Laws as written.

In this case, a player played a card in order after his RHO had played a card. That is not against the Laws. So he is not an offender. He is not responsible for his opponents' actions. Too many people these days want to blame non-offenders. I cannot think why, the Laws do not support it. If a player cannot be bothered to follow the simplest of Laws, like putting dummy down [or even putting dummy down correctly] then he is at fault, not his opponents.

[c_corgi]

bluejak, on 2012-July-06, 10:21, said:

Following what Ed says, it is unfortunate that people have read the Scope, have learnt the primary purpose of the Laws is to restore equity, and then make two major mistakes.

First, they forget the word "primary". In many situations, the aim of the Laws is to stop people doing things wrong, thus there are penalties attached to certain Laws. Some people think it is the only purpose, but it is not, merely the primary.

I was a bit surprised that the missing word got so much reaction, but looking again at what I wrote it maybe comes across as patronising when instead it was intended to suggest a lack of research on my part, so in that case apologies all round.

bluejak, on 2012-July-06, 10:21, said:

Second, the Scope of the Laws states the intentions of the lawmakers in writing the Laws. That's all. It is not the job of individual TDs, ACs, or even people writing on forums to invent Laws that they believe follow the Scope. Their job is to follow the Laws as written.

In this case, a player played a card in order after his RHO had played a card. That is not against the Laws. So he is not an offender. He is not responsible for his opponents' actions. Too many people these days want to blame non-offenders. I cannot think why, the Laws do not support it. If a player cannot be bothered to follow the simplest of Laws, like putting dummy down [or even putting dummy down correctly] then he is at fault, not his opponents.

Trying to discuss an interesting topic rather than invent new laws, but yes I was approaching the subject from the wrong angle as acknowledged upthread and also having railed against doing exactly that in another thread. Having said that, law 11 still seems perfectly applicable here.

[bluejak]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-06, 12:20, said:

I was a bit surprised that the missing word got so much reaction, but looking again at what I wrote it maybe comes across as patronising when instead it was intended to suggest a lack of research on my part, so in that case apologies all round.

Part of the reason for the reaction, in my case anyway, is that here and on rec.games.bridge there seem to be well over twenty posts a year that misquote this bit of the Scope. In all such cases the word "primary" is omitted: in nearly all such cases it is followed by a suggestion or ruling that does not accord with the actual Laws.

[KayRo]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-05, 08:38, said:

The laws as a whole permit — and where they permit, they require — that a contestant who has committed an irregularity be considered an offender. The laws preclude considering a contestant who has committed no irregularity being considered an offender. So unless you can find an irregularity in what dummy's LHO has done — and I don't think you can — he is not an offender.

Hasn't dummys LHO played out of turn, thus violating L44B?
The ♥6 is AFAIK not a played card until declarer calls for it.

[blackshoe]

KayRo, on 2012-July-10, 16:05, said:

Hasn't dummys LHO played out of turn, thus violating L44B?
The ♥6 is AFAIK not a played card until declarer calls for it.

No. Read Law 45D. The infraction was dummy's, not dummy's LHO's.