[VixTD]

Club game, matchpoints:

---

North was declarer in 3♥. West had bid spades, and East led queen and another.

Declarer ruffed and drew three rounds of trumps, then played king, queen and another diamond. Dummy placed the ace unbidden in the played position, and West discarded a spade.

At this point, North said, "Not the ace, I wanted to play the nine.". EW scoffed: "Of course you do now!"

The director was called.

How would you rule?

[pran]

 VixTD, on 2018-June-06, 12:13, said:

Club game, matchpoints:

---

North was declarer in 3♥. West had bid spades, and East led queen and another.

Declarer ruffed and drew three rounds of trumps, then played king, queen and another diamond. Dummy placed the ace unbidden in the played position, and West discarded a spade.

At this point, North said, "Not the ace, I wanted to play the nine.". EW scoffed: "Of course you do now!"

The director was called.

How would you rule?

Law 45D1 is clear and unconditional. The nine is played and West (but not East) may change his card played to that trick.

[gordontd]

I find it hard to see why Law 72C should not apply.

[Cyberyeti]

 pran, on 2018-June-06, 14:02, said:

Law 45D1 is clear and unconditional. The nine is played and West (but not East) may change his card played to that trick.

Is there not a blanket provision that covers dummy committing an irregularity that he should know could benefit his side ?

I think Gordon just posted it while I was typing

[pran]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-June-06, 14:08, said:

Is there not a blanket provision that covers dummy committing an irregularity that he should know could benefit his side ?

I think Gordon just posted it while I was typing

This is a question of involving Law 12A1 (justified by Law 72C)

However, I have a feeling that Law 12B2 inhibits this possibility here.

(An alert West would delay his own play to the trick until Declarer actually called a card from Dummy)

[Cyberyeti]

 pran, on 2018-June-06, 14:29, said:

This is a question of involving Law 12A1 (justified by Law 72C)

However, I have a feeling that Law 12B2 inhibits this possibility here.

(An alert West would delay his own play to the trick until Declarer actually called a card from Dummy)

I think it's reasonable that when dummy plays a card W would assume he merely missed a call or gesture from declarer, denying redress for that reason alone would be silly.

There is no restitution in the laws, 45D1 gives the procedure, but I would NOT describe what it says as restitution, 72C should apply.

[steve2005]

Is the death penalty still in force? <sarcasm>

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-June-06, 16:03, said:

I think it's reasonable that when dummy plays a card W would assume he merely missed a call or gesture from declarer, denying redress for that reason alone would be silly.

Yes, and some declarers will sometimes designate a card via finger gesture as well. This could not be a clearer Alcatraz Coup.

[VixTD]

I allowed North to change dummy's card, and West to change theirs if they wanted to, and warned the table that I may have to award an adjusted score at the end of play if any damage ensued from dummy's action.

North finished with eleven tricks, and I couldn't really see that the infraction had caused any damage, as there was no way for East to regain the lead to make the diamond, so I didn't adjust the score. (If there had been a small chance of a third defensive trick, I could of course have awarded a weighted score.) A procedural penalty may well have been appropriate, especially as South wasn't particularly contrite at causing all this kerfuffle. ("He should have waited until my partner called for a card" and "I thought it was OK because I hadn't let go of the card"), but South is a very inexperienced player, and I'll content myself with a warning.

It did occur to me that this was a version of the Alcatraz Coup by dummy. I'm glad Vampyr agrees. When I mention it it may help to make it a memorable learning experience.

[pescetom]

 pran, on 2018-June-06, 14:29, said:

This is a question of involving Law 12A1 (justified by Law 72C)

This is clear to me.

 pran, on 2018-June-06, 14:29, said:

However, I have a feeling that Law 12B2 inhibits this possibility here.

(An alert West would delay his own play to the trick until Declarer actually called a card from Dummy)

This is not, please could you explain further?
I agree that an alert West should delay his own play, but I don't see the relevance of 12B2:
2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

[pescetom]

 VixTD, on 2018-June-07, 06:46, said:

South is a very inexperienced player, and I'll content myself with a warning.

It looks like he obtained his own punishment in the bidding anyway.

[barmar]

If the ♣K were offside this would be a more difficult problem. But since declarer takes 11 tricks with or without the diamond finesse, the irregularity had no impact on the result and caused no damage, and your ruling was fine. With any luck the warning to South will stick with him, although an actual penalty might have been necessary to make this a real teachable moment.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2018-June-07, 07:50, said:

With any luck the warning to South will stick with him, although an actual penalty might have been necessary to make this a real teachable moment.

If he does it again, the "actual penalty" ought to be the first thing the director gives.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2018-June-07, 14:49, said:

If he does it again, the "actual penalty" ought to be the first thing the director gives.

The problem with "warning on first offense" is that even idiots won't do it again right away (or if he does, it will probably not be in a situation where it matters and someone calls the TD). "Again" is likely to be months away, and the TD may not remember that he's already been warned (if it's even the same TD).

This isn't like when cops give you a warning for a minor traffic offense -- I assume the warning goes into a computer somewhere, so the next cop who pulls you over will see it and know to give you a real ticket.

[blackshoe]

It's not hard these days to put together a small database that would allow the TD to search by name and see if so-and-so ever got a warning. Or how many penalties he's already had. I do recognize that most directors won't make the effort. Perhaps that's a tool the RA should provide.

Nah. Never happen. Nobody cares.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2018-June-08, 15:29, said:

It's not hard these days to put together a small database that would allow the TD to search by name and see if so-and-so ever got a warning. Or how many penalties he's already had. I do recognize that most directors won't make the effort. Perhaps that's a tool the RA should provide.

Nah. Never happen. Nobody cares.

Anyway, I think this will be illegal under the new General Data Protection Regulation coming into force (at least within EU) now.

[blackshoe]

Probably. But I'm not in the EU, so I don't care.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2018-June-08, 16:54, said:

Probably. But I'm not in the EU, so I don't care.

No, but network providers with customers in Europe will quite likely have to care if they want to continue serving Europe.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2018-June-08, 16:09, said:

Anyway, I think this will be illegal under the new General Data Protection Regulation coming into force (at least within EU) now.

I don't see why, as long as you are clear that it is done and give the data subjects access to their record to correct if necessary. It strikes me as coming under "legitimate interests" for an organisation running a competitive mind sport.

[weejonnie]

 gordontd, on 2018-June-09, 01:19, said:

I don't see why, as long as you are clear that it is done and give the data subjects access to their record to correct if necessary. It strikes me as coming under "legitimate interests" for an organisation running a competitive mind sport.

That is my 1st impression as well - the GDPR doesn't prevent usage of data, only that there must be awareness by the data subject of how the data is used and be willing to apply their rights to have the data sent to them, corrected and, in some cases, removed. "Legitimate Interests as a bridge RA", would almost certainly include the right to record things such as psyches (which the EBU, and many clubs, do anyway) and activities subject to penalties at the bridge table. What it wouldn't include would be selling the database of members to,say, an insurance company, for marketing purposes (without the active consent of the members whose details are in the database), as that would be an unusual action.