[pescetom]

As things are quiet, an unusual Director call which you might have seen differently (although I doubt it).

"I am Declarer in 4♠. When it was his turn to play to the 12th trick, my RHO placed his two cards face down on the table and asked me to pick which to play. I picked wrongly and he took the final trick. Had he followed legal procedures he might well have got it wrong, I am damaged".

Your Decision (and comment) ?

[mycroft]

"Well, next time you'll say 'no, they're your cards, you pick one', won't you?"

I will admit that's a new one for me.

[jillybean]

Was it an over inflated on Masterpoints club player intimidating a newer player?
Or just one of the obnoxious players who get away with this cra* because no one likes to call the Director?
Does the player have a reputation for these type of antics?
Many questions to ask

Yes, a new one!

[axman]

pescetom, on 2024-December-09, 16:27, said:

As things are quiet, an unusual Director call which you might have seen differently (although I doubt it).

"I am Declarer in 4♠. When it was his turn to play to the 12th trick, my RHO placed his two cards face down on the table and asked me to pick which to play. I picked wrongly and he took the final trick. Had he followed legal procedures he might well have got it wrong, I am damaged".

Your Decision (and comment) ?

Here's a few things to mull over.

When a defender has multiple PC declarer has the right to designate; here there are two non exposed cards with no compulsion to play a particular one.

which begs the question: Is it untoward for defender to delegate to declarer to select (a non exposed) one? ( To me on the surface it is not repugnant to do so) It conveys no information to the partner other than the card to be played is not a revoke. This is sufficient to discover that doing so is repugnant, after all.

Doing so has L16 consequences. This is not a good way for RHO to start the day. As for that claim of disadvantage it seems that you have (extra) data that you can choose to use (to your advantage). It being your judgment that leads you to do otherwise- not the opponent's delegation of the choice- as you otherwise would still have had your own choice (the cause of your dismay) sans extra data.

[mycroft]

I will admit, I'd almost certainly bring the snark unless it's a really new player, but I do see the unfortunate nature of what the defender did.

I'm sure he thought "I can't remember the count, I'm just going to discard one at random, and hope I guess right or it doesn't matter. Here's a funny way to randomize, let's do that." And he's not wrong, it is a great way to get randomness (and from the outside, it is funny). But it did matter, and declarer picked wrong, and now she's (justifiably) upset. Even though there isn't a real difference between this and shuffling the cards and picking the top one, it *feels* different because now someone else is "responsible" for the decision.

So I think I'd have a little chat with the joker too. However, note that nothing he did was an infraction - except perhaps of the proprieties - so this was as much "done by legal means" as looking at his watch and playing the left card if the seconds were odd (or my "two-card monte" above).

[blackshoe]

An infraction of the proprieties is an infraction of law - unless you're talking about "proprieties" that aren't in the law book.

[sanst]

As mycroft wrote, there's no infraction if you put your cards on the table. But it could be an infraction on Law 74, especially of 74A2, if you do it in this way. If the declarer wasn't sure what to do, (s)he should gave called the director, both cards becoming PC's and the declarer probably making the same choice with the same outcome.
I would let the result stand, but the player who put the cards on the table might be told not to do such things again. Maybe even a penalty, but that's dependent on the circumstance like, was it done jokingly or was this an attempt to intimidate or what.

[mycroft]

I put my hand on the table, face down. Not a problem, right? I'm just getting to my coffee.
I put my hand on the table separated, but face down. Not a problem, right? Just confirming I have 13-tricks cards left.
I put my last two cards on the table face down, and guess which one to turn up and play for my turn. Is this a problem?
I put my last two cards on the table face down, and have declarer guess which one to turn up and play for my turn. Okay, yes, there's a problem with the proprieties as discussed, but where is the thing that makes them PCs? They are *never visible*, and *never played* (until one is turned over).

I just can't see how anything becomes a PC, except in a way that would make normal things that happen at the bridge table "double dummy". Please tell me where anything gives the director the right to have the cards become PCs (I assume that means faced, too).

Obviously, if they were faced, then by Law declarer has the right (but not the obligation) to select which one is played.

[sanst]

mycroft, on 2024-December-10, 11:31, said:

I put my hand on the table, face down. Not a problem, right? I'm just getting to my coffee.
I put my hand on the table separated, but face down. Not a problem, right? Just confirming I have 13-tricks cards left.
I put my last two cards on the table face down, and guess which one to turn up and play for my turn. Is this a problem?
I put my last two cards on the table face down, and have declarer guess which one to turn up and play for my turn. Okay, yes, there's a problem with the proprieties as discussed, but where is the thing that makes them PCs? They are *never visible*, and *never played* (until one is turned over).

I just can't see how anything becomes a PC, except in a way that would make normal things that happen at the bridge table "double dummy". Please tell me where anything gives the director the right to have the cards become PCs (I assume that means faced, too).

Obviously, if they were faced, then by Law declarer has the right (but not the obligation) to select which one is played.

Sorry, I missed the "face down" in the OP. You're absolutely right. But it makes the complaint even more incomprehensible.

[pescetom]

Thanks to all who replied.

I don't understand axman's assertion that there are L16 consequences: his partner has only one card remaining.

I agree with mycroft that there is a violation of proprieties, in that Declarer could be disturbed to be asked or be distressed by an unlucky choice (not that this could cause her to make a mistake, as she too holds one card).

FWIW I said that there was no reason to change the score and told the joker to stop messing around. I didn't think it merited more than that. It would have been a different story had Declarer been a beginner or the two cards both winners to the last trick.

[mycroft]

I'm not sure there was a violation of proprieties. The closest I can get is "might interfere with [declarer's] enjoyment of the game." (74A2), or possibly "showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal" (or an equivalent action to this "example") (74C6).

This was a joker playing a game. A game that he didn't realize might affect declarer as badly as it did - it's quite possible that he thought his cards were in fact irrelevant and was shocked to find himself winning the last trick. One that, in hindsight, he probably realized was a really bad idea rather than just "not normal, but just joking around".

This kind of situation I am (as regular readers here are probably too well aware) quite familiar with, having done it in a spectacularly embarrassing fashion on at least one occasion. As I am sure has pretty much every bridge player of longevity. "Yeah, that was really dumb, I really should not have done it, I won't do it again." (and at least in my case, I still remember the embarrassment 20 years later. So the punishment - which again was a "good talking to", not an IMP penalty, because it was clear I got it - did its job.)

For an example of a similar "joke" that worked (even if the declarer got the poor end of it), someone on The Other Site has told his story (at least twice) of playing against a married couple, the man of which was clearly getting on his wife's case when it was him that couldn't play. So she put two cards face down, flipped the first one up after dummy played, which won the trick and she led the second. Then put another two cards face down. And repeated this pattern through the play, for 1NT-1. Just as "improper", but worth a penalty?

I'm still telling declarer that next time, they shouldn't play along. Maybe even call the director in case there's something else there besides "they want me to join in on a game that isn't bridge, that I don't really want to play" (for example, if it had happened with 3 tricks left and now declarer's LHO has a choice on what to pitch, "knowing" partner thinks his hand is useless). And if declarer wasn't a new player, my tone might have some of the "well, that was a dumb thing to do. Why would you go along?" in it of my first response.

[pescetom]

I think in this case the joker knew that both his cards were winners in their respective suits, but didn't know which of the two Declarer was forced to lead to last trick. So the joke was more on himself (for not having counted better) than on Declarer. But it evidently did interfere with Declarer's enjoyment of the game, even if perhaps more than was due.

Perhaps another possible infraction is not making every possible effort to win the trick, as he still must have had enough information to guess better than chance.

[barmar]

While I suppose this could be a 74A2 violation, I think we should be pretty conservative when applying that law. One player's overreaction to a minor issue doesn't mean that this is something that could be expected to interfere with enjoyment in general. Do we really want to let that law stifle everyone's enjoyment?

There's one player at our club who has an annoying (to me) habit of giving bits of "color commentary" during the hand, like "Barry leads the deuce". Theoretically I could complain to the director and he could give him a PP if he continues doing this after a warning. But I also know that this is the kind of habit people don't even realize they're doing, and it's hard to stop. I don't want to drive him away from the club (we only get 4-5 tables, we can't afford to lose regulars).

It's only a game, try not to let little things like this upset you.