[Zelandakh]

I have been thinking about this ruling and wonder how it would work in combination with a revoke. For example, partner leads a heart and Dummy plays a small heart instead of putting their cards down. If I now play the spade ace before someone objects, even though I have some hearts, what is the result? The revoke laws say that the ♠A becomes a major penalty card but 45D says that the card can be put back in the hand. 45D would seem to have priority but that would lead to some very uncomfortable situations where we can "force" declarer to take a 2-way finesse the wrong way or to play for a failing squeeze rather than taking a simple finesse. Not to mention the signalling possibilities. So it seems logically that this cannot be correct. Surely there is a point where deliberately taking advantage crosses a line, especially in rules like this which (to me) seem to have been written primarily to cover Declarer's RHO accidentally playing a card out of turn due to Dummy's mistake. Perhaps this is a situation that should be flagged up for a more complete definition in the next rules?

[iviehoff]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-11, 01:36, said:

I have been thinking about this ruling and wonder how it would work in combination with a revoke. For example, partner leads a heart and Dummy plays a small heart instead of putting their cards down. If I now play the spade ace before someone objects, even though I have some hearts, what is the result?

I think you meant to post on the dummy-playing-whist thread.

Taking advantage of an opponent's irregularity and the known rules of rectification deliberately to give the opponents UI and thus constrain their actions, is, as you suggest, not a very nice thing to do, though the laws do not say it is illegal.

The basic problem is that the law has been written to protect players from actions taken inadvertently in the context of an irregularity, given that one does not have a duty to spot and protect oneself from such irregularity. When you start acting deliberately acting to take advantage of those legal protections to the inadvertent, this is unpleasant behaviour. But a difficulty is distinguishing the deliberate from the inadvertent. It is worth mentioning, at this point, Law 23.

Law 23 applies in the case of irregularities committed, and damage from those irregularities that is nor protected by their normal rectifications. If the irregularity is indeed inadvertent, then often such effects are entirely random and unpredictable and can be called rub of the green. Sometimes we can foresee that the irregularity (like the Alcatraz coup - which can be committed inadvertently) can work to our advantage. Law 23 therefore absolves the director from deciding whether it is deliberate, and protects the opposition whether it is deliberate or not.

Now in the specific case of the revoke you mention, that is an irregularity, even though it follows the earlier irregularity. Thus Law 23 applies, and, provided the damage is sufficiently foreseeable it could have been a deliberate trick, then Law 23 protects whether it was deliberate or not. This applies even though he is given the privilege of withdrawing the revoke card, and thus suffers none of the rectifications that normally attend a revoke.

More difficult is the player who follows suit, say with the HQ, and takes advantage of his privilege to later withdraws it and play something else, thus giving the opponent UI. This is not an irregularity, and Law 23 does not apply. I cannot think of any possible analogy of Law 23 that one could write which would be a fair law in this situation, since those who behave inadvertently deserve protection, and it is only the deliberate nature of the action that potentially makes it unfair; I wouldn't like to have a law whose application depended upon deciding whether something was deliberately done. Law 11 does offer some protection, but the nature of the protection there may be insufficient. Nevertheless, as things stand, the player who does this deliberately can say that as things stand what he did was not illegal, and although it isn't very nice he had done nothing wrong. At the end of the day, this is a very rare situation.

[c_corgi]

iviehoff, on 2012-July-11, 02:42, said:

Law 11 does offer some protection, but the nature of the protection there may be insufficient. Nevertheless, as things stand, the player who does this deliberately can say that as things stand what he did was not illegal, and although it isn't very nice he had done nothing wrong. At the end of the day, this is a very rare situation.

I think Law 11 gives the director wide and discretionary scope to restore equity that the offending side has lost through the failure of the non-offending side to summon him before taking action following the irregularity. Here dummy's LHO has followed suit either oblivous to the infraction, or knowing dummy's holding was irrelevant to the card they played, or trying to gain advantage. In the first two cases it is unlikely that he will wish to change the card unless sight of dummy provides material reason to do so e.g. Qxx sitting under KJx would argue in favour of withdrawing the King and playing the Jack instead after dummy continues to play low. If he changes the card for non material reasons, I think the director should invoke Law 11 to protect the declaring side against AI/UI manipulations caused by dummy's LHO acting after the irregularity.

[iviehoff]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-11, 07:56, said:

I think Law 11 gives the director wide and discretionary scope to restore equity that the offending side has lost through the failure of the non-offending side to summon him before taking action following the irregularity.

It doesn't give the director power in general to restore equity. It only permits the director to deny rectification of the (first) irregularity. However in the particular case mentioned, that would suffice. Picking the card up without penalty and making it UI to the opposition are rectifications you could deny to the NOS. In the specific cases mentioned, denying one or both of those rectifications would be adequate. But you'd have to be on pretty firm ground in relation to the non bona fide nature of the play after dummy.