[mink]

8 tricks have been played in an nt contract. The dummy has to lead for the last time, as there are no entries left. For trick 9 a diamond is ordered from the dummy and played by the dummy. RHO has been expecting that declarer would order the very last spade card and therefore discards a club. Now declarer recognizes his error - he had not seen the spade card in the dummy, as it was located a little separately from the other dummy cards. He is so puzzled that he does not notice that RHO takes his club back into his hand and replaces it by a diamond. Play continues without a director call because the dummy feels that he is not allowed to call the director.

Is this true? RHO committed 2 irregularities: The revoke and the correction of the revoke. Is the correction of the revoke an action that draws attention to the revoke and thereby enables the dummy to call the director? Or is this prohibited by the fact that the declarer does not pay attention as he is so puzzled?

If the dummy calls the director after the play has ended, what should the director do? (In reality, director was never called. Occurred in a club.)

Karl

[blackshoe]

mink, on 2012-July-18, 19:08, said:

8 tricks have been played in an nt contract. The dummy has to lead for the last time, as there are no entries left. For trick 9 a diamond is ordered from the dummy and played by the dummy. RHO has been expecting that declarer would order the very last spade card and therefore discards a club. Now declarer recognizes his error - he had not seen the spade card in the dummy, as it was located a little separately from the other dummy cards. He is so puzzled that he does not notice that RHO takes his club back into his hand and replaces it by a diamond. Play continues without a director call because the dummy feels that he is not allowed to call the director.

Is this true? RHO committed 2 irregularities: The revoke and the correction of the revoke. Is the correction of the revoke an action that draws attention to the revoke and thereby enables the dummy to call the director? Or is this prohibited by the fact that the declarer does not pay attention as he is so puzzled?

If the dummy calls the director after the play has ended, what should the director do? (In reality, director was never called. Occurred in a club.)

Karl

Dummy was correct — no one has drawn attention to an irregularity, so he cannot say anything until the hand is over. In my opinion he should then have called the director.

Dummy is not prohibited from calling by the fact that the declarer isn't paying attention — he's prohibited from calling by the fact that attention has not been called to the irregularity. On the contrary, it appears that declarer's RHO may have attempted to conceal the revoke. This is a violation of Law 73B3: "A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely". Of "may not" the laws say that this is the second strongest possible prohibition, just short of "must not". As such, this violation would almost certainly rate a PP. See below.

The correction of the revoke is not an irregularity. Law 62A says "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established". However, the player putting his club back into his hand is an irregularity (albeit one to which no one has drawn attention), for Law 62B says "to correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card" and Law 62B1 says "A card so withdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender’s unfaced hand".

As I said above, dummy should have called the director after the play ended. The director should investigate, and there will no doubt be pertinent facts not in your post - such as whether the declaring side were damaged (in the legal sense) by the defender's actions. Based on the facts available to me here, unless the defender is a new player and completely clueless about how revokes are handled, I would issue a PP. The standard ACBL PP is 25% of a top. If the player is very experienced, I would double that. If declarer might have obtained a better score had the club remained as a penalty card (perhaps it would give him an entry to dummy, for example) I would adjust the score.

It is dummy's responsibility to keep his hand organized, and declarer's responsibility to pay attention. That being so, declarer is stuck with the play of the diamond - he cannot change it to a spade. It was not an unintended designation. See Law 45C4.

[pran]

I definitely would not consider this an attempt by RHO to conceal a revoke. On the contrary he correctly rectified his revoke as soon as he became aware of it.

The only irregularity that calls for any action by the Director is RHO returning the exposed card to his hand instead of having the Director rule a Major penalty card. As nobody called attention to this irregularity I see no reason for any (subsequent) score adjustment or PP here.

Dummy was not allowed to call attention to the irregularity until end of play, and had he called attention at that time I would probably have ruled that the possible advantage for declarer from the existence of MPC was forfeited by failure to call the Director in time.

The question whether RHO rectifying his revoke is "calling attention to an irregularity" is interesting. If he had stated "Oh, I revoked" or words to that effect then that would certainly had been "calling attention", but I tend to believe that simply withdrawing the revoke card and following suit is not, it is just a separate irregularity.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-July-18, 23:43, said:

I definitely would not consider this an attempt by RHO to conceal a revoke. On the contrary he correctly rectified his revoke as soon as he became aware of it.

No, he did not, as you yourself noted. He incorrectly rectified his revoke, as he put the revoke card back in his hand. As to whether he deliberately attempted to conceal the revoke, I'd ask him why he put the card back in his hand instead of assuming.

pran, on 2012-July-18, 23:43, said:

The only irregularity that calls for any action by the Director is RHO returning the exposed card to his hand instead of having the Director rule a Major penalty card. As nobody called attention to this irregularity I see no reason for any (subsequent) score adjustment or PP here.

And if the dummy (who was not permitted to call attention to the irregularity during play) did so after the play, would you rule the same way for the same reason?

pran, on 2012-July-18, 23:43, said:

Dummy was not allowed to call attention to the irregularity until end of play, and had he called attention at that time I would probably have ruled that the possible advantage for declarer from the existence of MPC was forfeited by failure to call the Director in time.

Apparently you would rule the same way, but for a different reason. If dummy calls at the earliest legal opportunity, it seems to me that ruling that rectification was forfeited "by failure to call the Director in time" is mind-bogglingly wrong.

[ahydra]

mink said:

In reality, director was never called.

ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!

<deep breath>

I agree declarer can't change his play to the spade. However, on the score adjustment thing I am going to side with blackshoe. The score should be adjusted if the MPC would help declarer, even if it was dummy who first drew attention to the revoke (provided he did it at the end of the hand, of course). A PP is perhaps a bit harsh, except if the player was very experienced.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2012-July-19, 08:01, said:

A PP is perhaps a bit harsh, except if the player was very experienced.

Perhaps. If investigation reveals the player was just having a senior moment, or some such, I might give only a warning, but I believe it's important in these cases to make sure the player knows not to do it again.

[axman]

pran, on 2012-July-18, 23:43, said:

I definitely would not consider this an attempt by RHO to conceal a revoke. On the contrary he correctly rectified his revoke as soon as he became aware of it.

The only irregularity that calls for any action by the Director is RHO returning the exposed card to his hand instead of having the Director rule a Major penalty card. As nobody called attention to this irregularity I see no reason for any (subsequent) score adjustment or PP here.

Dummy was not allowed to call attention to the irregularity until end of play, and had he called attention at that time I would probably have ruled that the possible advantage for declarer from the existence of MPC was forfeited by failure to call the Director in time.

The question whether RHO rectifying his revoke is "calling attention to an irregularity" is interesting. If he had stated "Oh, I revoked" or words to that effect then that would certainly had been "calling attention", but I tend to believe that simply withdrawing the revoke card and following suit is not, it is just a separate irregularity.

Having given some thought towards the effect of withdrawing the club I came to the following conclusion:

the withdrawal of the club occasions two effects [1] it draws attention to an irregularity [which will be discovered to be a revoke] as the card having been played remains faced until quitted and [2] the withdrawal of the club is its own irregularity

The disentagling of [1] and [2] is a curiosity; as well as the effect of dummy calling the TD (attention having been drawn to an irregularity by its perpetrator).

[nigel_k]

I wouldn't say this is 'attempting to conceal a revoke'. There is no suggestion of any attempt to deceive and the words 'concealing a card involved in a revoke' IMO refer to a defender concealing the card(s) he ought to have played to make it seem as if there was no revoke.

The infraction is simply the failure to leave the club on the table as a penalty card.

However, I've always been a little uncertain about the reason that dummy cannot call the director. The comments in this thread suggest that, in any case where dummy is prevented from calling the director if they notice an irregularity, they can call the director at the end of the hand instead. The practical effect of this is the director still gets called, except that some of the information is no longer available, and some of the opportunities for rectification are no longer possible. Can this really be what the lawmakers intended?

[pran]

nigel_k, on 2012-July-19, 13:50, said:

I wouldn't say this is 'attempting to conceal a revoke'. There is no suggestion of any attempt to deceive and the words 'concealing a card involved in a revoke' IMO refer to a defender concealing the card(s) he ought to have played to make it seem as if there was no revoke.

The infraction is simply the failure to leave the club on the table as a penalty card.

However, I've always been a little uncertain about the reason that dummy cannot call the director. The comments in this thread suggest that, in any case where dummy is prevented from calling the director if they notice an irregularity, they can call the director at the end of the hand instead. The practical effect of this is the director still gets called, except that some of the information is no longer available, and some of the opportunities for rectification are no longer possible. Can this really be what the lawmakers intended?

As I understand it: YES

[bluejak]

nigel_k, on 2012-July-19, 13:50, said:

However, I've always been a little uncertain about the reason that dummy cannot call the director. The comments in this thread suggest that, in any case where dummy is prevented from calling the director if they notice an irregularity, they can call the director at the end of the hand instead. The practical effect of this is the director still gets called, except that some of the information is no longer available, and some of the opportunities for rectification are no longer possible. Can this really be what the lawmakers intended?

Definitely. The lawmakers do not want dummy getting involved.

[Vampyr]

nigel_k, on 2012-July-19, 13:50, said:

However, I've always been a little uncertain about the reason that dummy cannot call the director. ?

Dummy can call the director if someone else has already drawn attention to the irregularity.

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2012-July-20, 10:50, said:

Dummy can call the director if someone else has already drawn attention to the irregularity.

Contemplate the following:

A defender commits irregularity X.

Query: is dummy, by law, prohibited from drawing first attention to irregularity X? I should think the law does so prohibit.

Query: dummy draws attention to irregularity X- what is the effect? A PP [43A1B1], additionally, the TD remedies X [81C3]

Query: prior to irregularity X the defender committed irregularity C, whereby irregularity X draws attention to irregularity C; given that dummy is prohibited from drawing attention irregularity X (while the prohibition against summoning the TD for irregularity C has become null) does dummy infract by summoning the TD because it whatever else it does it draws attention to X?

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2012-July-20, 12:43, said:

Contemplate the following:

A defender commits irregularity X.

Query: is dummy, by law, prohibited from drawing first attention to irregularity X? I should think the law does so prohibit.

Query: dummy draws attention to irregularity X- what is the effect? A PP [43A1B1], additionally, the TD remedies X [81C3]

Query: prior to irregularity X the defender committed irregularity C, whereby irregularity X draws attention to irregularity C; given that dummy is prohibited from drawing attention irregularity X (while the prohibition against summoning the TD for irregularity C has become null) does dummy infract by summoning the TD because it whatever else it does it draws attention to X?

1. Yes, of course it does. Laws 9A3 and 43A1{b}.
2. I think you mean 43B1, but other than that I agree.
3. IMO, no. Dummy is not calling attention to irregularity X, even if it is certain that the TD's investigation of irregularity C will bring X to light.

[mink]

Thanks for your posts. I have forwarded the thread to the players involved.

Karl

[Vampyr]

bluejak, I have just read, in Mr Bridge, your comment which agrees with axman above. To wit, that replacing the card with another calls attention to the irregularity.

[blackshoe]

Which irregularity? The revoke?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-26, 15:38, said:

Which irregularity? The revoke?

Yes

[TimG]

It would be my opinion that withdrawing and replacing a played card draws attention to the irregularity.

I suspect that the reason dummy is not permitted to draw attention to an irregularity is in part because he might be waking declarer up and in part because he might be wrong. For instance, dummy might recognize that a defender has not followed suit when he could because dummy has a count on the hand. If dummy says "I believe there has been an irregularity, east must surely have a diamond left to play" he may wake declarer up to the fact that west had earlier not followed suit. Or, he may just be wrong and the attempt to correct the mistaken dummy could lead to giving declarer information.

[blackshoe]

I'm not quite sure what people are saying here. It seems they're saying "when a player revokes, and then withdraws the revoke card and replaces it with another, the withdrawal and replacement calls attention to the revoke". I disagreed with that earlier, but I can see that I might have been wrong. I also said earlier that I did not (and I still do not) believe that dummy is still prevented from calling the director about a revoke to which attention has been called, on the grounds that doing so will reveal a second irregularity (the placing of the revoke card back in the revoker's hand). I'm not sure if the rest of you agree with that.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-27, 08:11, said:

I also said earlier that I did not believe that dummy is still prevented from calling the director about a revoke to which attention has been called, on the grounds that doing so will reveal a second irregularity (the placing of the revoke card back in the revoker's hand). I'm not sure if the rest of you agree with that.

I'm not 100% confident that you've said what you mean.

I believe that once attention has been drawn to an irregularity, dummy may call the director. I do not believe that concern that such a director call might draw attention to another irregularity should preclude dummy being permitted to call the director.