bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings

Ray Crowe

dummy calls director ( 01:22:16 ThuJul 31 2003 )

Country: New Zealand

As a playing Director, you are called to a table where a defender has a Major penalty card on the table and his partner is on lead.
You were not called at the time of the original infraction.
Now you are told that it is dummy ( he knew all about law 50D2 :smile:

who called the Director.
How do you rule?

Jon

Re: dummy calls director ( 02:12:44 ThuJul 31 2003 )

Under Law 9B1b, "Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity." You say that one of the defenders has a major penalty card on the table, so it seems likely that, at some earlier point in the hand, that defender revoked, called attention to his own revoke, corrected it, and on his own initiative determined the card wrongly played to be a major penalty card (this is a common practice where I play although of course the Director should really be called at the time of the revoke). Assuming this to be the case, attention has been drawn to an irregularity and dummy is as entitled as any other player to call the Director, so the fact that it was dummy who called the Director does not affect the ruling. But of course you should ascertain the facts as there are other possible explanations as to how that major penalty card got there.

That still leaves the question of how to rule, given that you were not properly summoned at the time of the initial irregularity. Some Directors I know get very prickly about this point in this precise situation, but if the facts are as hypothesized above, and assuming the revoker's partner is on lead but has not yet led, I would apply Law 50D2 as usual; that is, declarer may require or forbid the lead of the suit of the penalty card (in which case the penalty card is picked up) or declarer may allow allow any lead (in which case the penalty card remains a penalty card).

bluejak

426 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: dummy calls director ( 06:48:50 ThuJul 31 2003 )

Sorry, Jon, I do not agree with your answer at all. Attention was drawn to an irreguarity, you postulate, all four players were required to call the TD, and none of them did.

Now at a later stage dummy calls the TD at a time when it is likely to be advantageous to his side. The fact that declarer did not call even at this later stage means he may easily be unaware of his options, and dummy is trying to play the hand for him.

I would issue a large procedural penalty to dummy, at least half a top, designate the card as not a peanlty card at all under Law 50 [first sentence], tell the player to pick it up, and tell all four players in future to call the TD at the correct time.

It is very important to stop dummies from playing declarer's cards for him: you must strongly discourage this.

Even if declarer had called I would not allow declarer his lead options. The defenders had a right to know them before they played on after the penalty card. Declarers who do not call the TD until they want their lead options are trying to gain an unfair advantage and must be stopped.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

Ray

Re: dummy calls director ( 23:19:28 SatAug 2 2003 )

Country: New Zealand

I don't think shooting the messenger is the way to go.
How do you rule if dummy had waited until the end of play to call you? Probably 40/40.
Calling the Director when he did was not the correct thing for dummy to do, but waiting until the end of play was only going to esculate the problem. Less visual evidence and more arguement for the Director to cope with.
As Jon pointed out with his analises and ruling, the Director actually has the opportunity to restore some sort of equity at this point and let the game of bridge carry on.
By all means throw in a pp. if you wish, but why just pick on poor old dummy.
The defenders, in their own right, have already breached Laws 9B1, 10A and 50D2.
This has to be a consideration in any ruling by the Director.

172 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: dummy calls director ( 00:27:16 SunAug 3 2003 )

This isn't a case of shooting the messenger. Dummy commited an infraction. If he "knew all about Law 50D2", it seems likely he also knew about Law 43A1. So I think David's right about the PP, at least.

You can't rule "40/40". A result will be obtained at the table (you're not gonna just stop play right there), so you cannot award an artificial adjusted score. As for escalating the problem, well, maybe and maybe not, but the director is required to deal with that, if it happens, because he is required to direct the game in accordance with the laws. He can't accept a violation of those laws just because he thinks it'll be easier for him.

All four players have breached 9B1. The defenders are no more guilty of that than are the declaring side. And if the defenders have breached 10A, so have their opponents. As for 50D2, I don't see how they can be held to have breached that, since the PC is only now at the point of disposition.

Law 81C6 requires the TD to rectify an irregularity of which he becomes aware, regardless how he becomes aware. So the TD has to deal with the "penalty card". We don't know how it got there. We should ask. :biggrin:

David rules that it's not a penalty card, and he does so because, I gather, he believes dummy has gone way too far in his efforts to help declarer. On reflection, so do I. But an investigation might turn up some reason to let the PC stand, and make a Law 50D2 ruling. So, like I said, the TD should investigate.

Ray

Re: dummy calls director ( 03:18:57 SunAug 3 2003 )

Country: New Zealand

My intentions of this post is to for me to understand the reasons for David's ruling and sort out a few unanswered questions
(a) The initial infraction is the MPC. How did it get there? We are not told.
The fact that play has continued means that both sides have breached Laws 9B1 and 10A and so are equally guilty at this point. That's where the first infraction was and that's where I believe the Director should focus on for his ruling. Anything after that was a consequence.
David may have his reasons for not starting at the beginning of the events.

(b) If dummy had not called the Director,would it be consisered an irregularity for the declarer not to have stated his options, as allowed under Law 50D2, before the defender lead to the next trick?

172 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: dummy calls director ( 06:52:39 SunAug 3 2003 )

Well, these are my thoughts on your questions.

The initial infraction is not the MPC - it's whatever led to the MPC. The irregularities here are:

1. whatever led the players to decide that the card was an MPC.
2. failure to call the TD when attention was drawn to (1).
3. players making their own ruling, without calling the TD
4. dummy calling the TD at a later point.

Once the TD is called, though, he has to make a ruling. Since it seems that dummy, at least, wants declarer to take advantage of law 50D, and since dummy is not allowed, and should not be allowed, to make that happen, I would deal, as David did, with the original irregularity (1) above, by taking the option allowed to me by Law 50, and designating the "MPC" as no penalty card at all. And I would, as David did, issue a significant PP to the declaring side to deter dummy from trying this again. As for irregularities #s 2 and 3, I consider those less serious than #4. David did not suggest a PP for them, and he tells me that I'm too free with PPs for those kinds of infractions, but I think at least a warning would be appropriate, again hoping to deter further "player rulings". As for David's reasons, I'm sure he'll explain them himself.

In answer to your second question, for declarer to "state his options" is for him to make his own ruling, which he cannot do. So it would be an irregularity for him to do so, rather than for him not to do so as you suggest.

bluejak

426 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: dummy calls director ( 02:08:50 MonAug 4 2003 )

I do not understand what the TD would have to "sort out at the end". If there was an MPC without the TD's knowledge, and if everyone assumed it had to be played at the first legal opportunity, which is what a lot of players assume, and if this is what happened then if the TD was called at the end he would do nothing. 40/40 is unnecessary: score stands is clear.

But the disadvantage of not calling the TD at the right time is the additional options when partner gets on lead. Players often are ignorant of this bit of the Law. Occasionally the declarer's side know about them and the defenders do not, and if they cannot be bothered to call the TD then we do not allow these options at a later date - see Law 11A.

This case is much worse: dummy wants to play the hand! That is awful!

The best use for dummy is to send him to the bar where he can do no harm. :smile:

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

5 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 4 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union