[Graham_Suf]

West played in 3♠ doubled by North who held ♠QJ73. Declarer leads a small club, a suit in which both North and Dummy are void. Dummy's trumps are three small headed by the 6. North ruffs with the ♠7 and declarer calls for the ♠8!. Dummy's trumps were 6 8 2 and North, seeing the top card to be the six, believed he was ruffing above dummy's highest trump. TD ruled that notwithstanding rule 41D, it is incumbent on the defenders to study dummy and no substitution of a card by North was allowed. How should the appeal be handled?

[gordontd]

Was L23 considered?

[RMB1]

I am not sure how I would rule: I do not think North can change his card but we might adjust.
But if I did not adjust the score I would certainly issue a procedural penalty on dummy.

[gordontd]

 RMB1, on 2012-August-03, 03:57, said:

I am not sure how I would rule: I do not think North can change his card but we might adjust.
But if I did not adjust the score I would certainly issue a procedural penalty on dummy.

I agree with all of this. I'm trying to decide whether the "could well damage" condition of L23 is met.

[Graham_Suf]

Law 23 was not considered at the time but interestingly, declared was well aware of the error in dummy's trump layout as he told the TD that the 8 was out of alignment and should have been noticed by North. Thank you for your thoughts and opinions.

[iviehoff]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-03, 04:01, said:

I'm trying to decide whether the "could well damage" condition of L23 is met.

I think it is self-evident that putting dummy's cards down in a mixed up order always has the potential to damage the opposition, because they might they fail to spot it.

[axman]

 Graham_Suf, on 2012-August-03, 03:28, said:

West played in 3♠ doubled by North who held ♠QJ73. Declarer leads a small club, a suit in which both North and Dummy are void. Dummy's trumps are three small headed by the 6. North ruffs with the ♠7 and declarer calls for the ♠8!. Dummy's trumps were 6 8 2 and North, seeing the top card to be the six, believed he was ruffing above dummy's highest trump. TD ruled that notwithstanding rule 41D, it is incumbent on the defenders to study dummy and no substitution of a card by North was allowed. How should the appeal be handled?

L90 provides for the assessment of PPs for irregularities. By assessing PPs for irregularities such as this, players are encouraged to not infract, as well as players are encouraged to be vigilant to collect such PPs thereby avoiding such whining [not to mention the assessment of PPs].

[gordontd]

 iviehoff, on 2012-August-03, 05:23, said:

I think it is self-evident that putting dummy's cards down in a mixed up order always has the potential to damage the opposition, because they might they fail to spot it.

Of course. So "could damage" would be met. I'm not so sure about "could well damage".

[gordontd]

 Graham_Suf, on 2012-August-03, 05:20, said:

Law 23 was not considered at the time but interestingly, declared was well aware of the error in dummy's trump layout as he told the TD that the 8 was out of alignment and should have been noticed by North.

I think L9A4 protects declarer in this, so it's only dummy's infraction we can adjust/penalise for.

[blackshoe]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-03, 06:33, said:

Of course. So "could damage" would be met. I'm not so sure about "could well damage".

Is it less than "very likely" that this defender would notice? Is this a "class of player" situation?

A lot of the people I play with — and against! — are very likely not to notice a card out of place, or even missing, in dummy. They have enough trouble figuring out what's in their own hands. Some of the people I play with and against I would expect to almost always notice a card out of place.

[gordontd]

It's about the likelihood of them being damaged, of which the likelihood of them noticing is only a part. However, if others are satisfied that it "could well damage" I'd be happy to go along with that.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-03, 07:28, said:

Is it less than "very likely" that this defender would notice? Is this a "class of player" situation?

A lot of the people I play with — and against! — are very likely not to notice a card out of place, or even missing, in dummy. They have enough trouble figuring out what's in their own hands. Some of the people I play with and against I would expect to almost always notice a card out of place.

Does "could well damage" require the player to consider the actual opponents or the least common denominator?

[iviehoff]

 barmar, on 2012-August-03, 07:51, said:

Does "could well damage" require the player to consider the actual opponents or the least common denominator?

First on the assumption that your question does not have a misprint, though I suspect it does.

The criterion does not require consideration by the player, rather it is a criterion for the director to apply in deciding whether the opposition should benefit from an adjustment. From the perspective of the player thinking about committing an irregularity, the "could well damage" issue doesn't make that irregularity any less of an irregularity; and if he is thinking about it at all he is a cheat. And in many cases the irregularity will in practice have been inadvertent, and thus beyond his ken.

Now assuming you actually meant director. We had a similar question recently on the forum and did not come to a strong conclusion. I argued that the director should consider the actual situation, ie actual player, actual opponents, but the law is not clear.

[barmar]

Sorry, not a misprint, I think I was just confused.

The law says "an offender", not "the offender", which suggests a more general interpretation. Then they throw in a couple of "could"s. It seems like this is designed to make it easier to invoke Law 23, but then making one of them "could well" pulls back a bit.

The result is a law that I suspect many directors find confusing. And since it's by definition a judgement call, it's likely that whenever it comes up, someone is going to feel wronged, no matter how the director decides. Luckily, I suspect few players know about this law, and the director doesn't have to mention it to them if he decides not to make the adjustment authorizes.

[gnasher]

 iviehoff, on 2012-August-03, 08:38, said:

From the perspective of the player thinking about committing an irregularity, the "could well damage" issue doesn't make that irregularity any less of an irregularity; and if he is thinking about it at all he is a cheat.

I don't think that applies in general, if that's what you're saying. We all knowingly break the rules sometimes, and before doing so it may be necessary to consider the consequences of such an intentional breach.

For example, I sometimes choose not to call the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. Sometimes I also think about whether that might damage the opponents. I'm not cheating by doing so, because I'm not trying to gain an advantage, but just making sure that I don't.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-August-03, 09:19

[iviehoff]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-03, 09:16, said:

I don't think that applies in general, if that's what you're saying. We all knowingly break the rules sometimes, and before doing so it may be necessary to consider the consequences of such an intentional breach.

You are quite right, it depends what the law is, some can be benignly broken deliberately to mutual convenience. But anyone thinking out in advance how Law 23 might operate if they induce their LHO to follow to their deliberate lead out of turn, and there is a subsequent complaint, is a cheat.

[campboy]

I don't think this "could well" gain, particularly if you take into account the possibility that declarer also fails to notice.

[Zelandakh]

I agree with you in principle Andy, but 72B1 is pretty clear that infringing a Law intentionally is not allowed. If a Law requires us to call the TD and we know this then we are technically cheating, or at the very least sailing close to the wind, even if this is not done to gain an advantage. I also agree with ivie that there is a major difference between merely "violating rules or regulations" and "practicing fraud or deceit", both of which are meanings of cheating.

[gnasher]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-August-06, 05:55, said:

I agree with you in principle Andy, but 72B1 is pretty clear that infringing a Law intentionally is not allowed. If a Law requires us to call the TD and we know this then we are technically cheating, or at the very least sailing close to the wind, even if this is not done to gain an advantage. I also agree with ivie that there is a major difference between merely "violating rules or regulations" and "practicing fraud or deceit", both of which are meanings of cheating.

I think you should take your dictionary back to the shop and ask for a better one. I know of no meaning of the verb to "cheat" that doesn't imply fraudulent or deceitful intent.

Do you ever pick up your bidding cards before the opening lead is made, lead face-up, pick up your Stop Card after 5 seconds rather than 10, say "alert" rather than using the Alert Card, not arrange your quitted cards in an orderly overlapping row, call for a card from dummy using an incomplete designation, or alert non-alertable calls because you want to make sure that your opponents aren't misled? These are all violations of the rules (in England), often committed knowingly, and generally fairly harmless. I don't do all of these, but I certainly do some of them, and I wouldn't be pleased to be called a cheat for doing so.

[Zelandakh]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-06, 08:10, said:

Do you ever pick up your bidding cards before the opening lead is made,

Nope, though it took a little getting used to to stop this. Where I play it is standard to pick up the bidding cards immediately after the final pass. I happen to think this is a silly regulation and much prefer the EBU version.

 gnasher, on 2012-August-06, 08:10, said:

lead face-up,

Never. I cannot remember ever doing this. Indeed I used to do it automatically in pub bridge, drawing suitable derision from the other players.

 gnasher, on 2012-August-06, 08:10, said:

pick up your Stop Card after 5 seconds rather than 10,

I leave the Stop card out for between 8 and 10 seconds to the best of my ability, even if LHO has called immediately.

 gnasher, on 2012-August-06, 08:10, said:

say "alert" rather than using the Alert Card,

I have done this once or twice when the bidding box did not have an alert card. In the aforementioned pub bridge I simply tapped the table.

 gnasher, on 2012-August-06, 08:10, said:

not arrange your quitted cards in an orderly overlapping row,

I am probably one of the most anal person you will ever meet about the way I arrange quitted tricks.

 gnasher, on 2012-August-06, 08:10, said:

call for a card from dummy using an incomplete designation,

This one I do. I use low, spade, high, etc on occasion. On the other hand I do not use any form where the meaning is not "incontrovertible". The exception to this is that I occasionally get the local words for hearts and diamonds mixed up. In this case I am certainly not intentionally infringing.

 gnasher, on 2012-August-06, 08:10, said:

or alert non-alertable calls because you want to make sure that your opponents aren't misled?

I did this for the first time earlier this year, alerting a redouble after 1NTX which was weak, even though no redoubles may be alerted here. After thinking about it some more I realised this was a bad idea and the next time it came up I did not alert. This led to the ridiculous situation where I asked about an opponent's bid and they answered that it obviously had to be weak because after a 1NT opening, a penalty double, and a strong redouble there was nothing left for partner. And this was against one of the better pairs in the field!

 gnasher, on 2012-August-06, 08:10, said:

and I wouldn't be pleased to be called a cheat for doing so.

I certainly would not call you a cheat for doing these things either, partly because while someone who breaks the rules can be described as a cheat, the word generally does carry some measure of fraudulence and self-profit to it. Therefore it is inappropriate for 99% or more of irregularities that occur in bridge. Indeed, let us put aside the word for the time being and simply get back to the wording of Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept."