[bixby]

After the opening lead of a spade, dummy comes down with a singleton ♠A. Declarer thinks for a while and then, hauling out the old joke, says "play low." Then one of the defenders points out that dummy has only 12 cards. The ♠5 is discovered hidden behind dummy's clubs.

Has declarer irrevocably called a card? If so, which one?

Would it make any difference if the ♠5 was not hidden behind the clubs but rather was visible among the clubs?

What if declarer had said, "play the Ace"? Would that be binding or could he call for the ♠5 instead?

[RMB1]

 bixby, on 2012-January-26, 13:18, said:

Has declarer irrevocably called a card? If so, which one?

I think declarer has called for the Ace, that was his intention and there is the bit in Law 46 "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)" which means his intention wins.

 bixby, on 2012-January-26, 13:18, said:

Would it make any difference if the ♠5 was not hidden behind the clubs but rather was visible among the clubs?

No, for the same reason (if declarer's intent can be established).

 bixby, on 2012-January-26, 13:18, said:

What if declarer had said, "play the Ace"? Would that be binding or could he call for the ♠5 instead?

"Ace" would be binding: that was his intention when he said it. He can not change his mind even though he did not know what cards were in dummy, or because dummy has been put down wrong (Law 47F1).

[ahydra]

I think RMB1 is right - declarer has nominated the Ace. One way to look at it is if dummy had left the table, leaving declarer to play the cards for himself. He would have pulled out the Ace (and the table would have been spared the worn-out joke).

ahydra

[wank]

i don't think declarer's intention can be obvious without quizzing him.

when dummy was putting his cards on the table, even if the low spade was subsequently hidden, it would be common enough for declarer to have seen the missing card.

[CSGibson]

Can't we just use a sensible solution, like giving declarer his choice of the two cards now that both are on view? Why must we be a slave to the exact letter of the law without allowing for common sense? I mean, if a defender has played, that's one thing, but here it appears they have not.

[iviehoff]

 CSGibson, on 2012-January-30, 18:37, said:

Can't we just use a sensible solution, like giving declarer his choice of the two cards now that both are on view? Why must we be a slave to the exact letter of the law without allowing for common sense? I mean, if a defender has played, that's one thing, but here it appears they have not.

Because
(1) enforcement reminds them that they have to do things right, let them off and they think they can get away with not doing things right
(2) it's for opponents not directors to let you off - if you commit an irrelevant revoke (eg reverse the order of playing two losing cards), and the director is called, he will and should and must transfer a trick according to the laws; opponents on the other hand can decide to overlook it and not call the director

[CSGibson]

 iviehoff, on 2012-January-31, 05:02, said:

Because
(1) enforcement reminds them that they have to do things right, let them off and they think they can get away with not doing things right
(2) it's for opponents not directors to let you off - if you commit an irrelevant revoke (eg reverse the order of playing two losing cards), and the director is called, he will and should and must transfer a trick according to the laws; opponents on the other hand can decide to overlook it and not call the director

Yes, but it is not only declarer's responsibility to look after dummy - its all of the players. For that reason, there is no penalty for a revoke by dummy because of a hidden card (let's say a last spade is hidden behind another suit). So I am wondering, who is going to learn a lesson from this? Who are we afraid of going on a spree of hiding dummy cards because we made a sensible decision to restore equity instead of being punitive to keep them from thinking "they can get away with not doing things right".

[blackshoe]

Maybe nobody will learn from it. But at least the director will know, if he hasn't done as you suggest, that he has acted as the laws require him to do. See Law 81B2, which does not say "the Director is bound by these laws, unless he feels like doing something else".

[CSGibson]

These replies are personally frustrating; they tend to confirm that people can know everything about the law and nothing about justice.

Laws in general should be used to facilitate justice; in bridge, the laws are generally meant to restore equity, and are only supposed to be punitive when an advantage is gained which can't be undone, so to speak, or to discourage flagrant abuses.

Here, there is no advantage gained and no flagrant abuse. We should use what laws are available as tools to restore equity.

I realize that by saying this I will be a herectic to the secretary birds that abound in both the bridge world and outside of it, because it places some additional burden of interpretation and judgment in the hands of directors.

[blackshoe]

No, you're not a heretic, as bridge is not a religion, and the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is not Scripture. However...

Quote

The Scope of the Laws: The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty or rectification graciously or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the tournament director. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.

Two things: "primarily" does not mean "exclusively", and you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you like. However, one thing you should keep in mind is Law 81B2, which I mentioned above but, since you apparently haven't read it, here it is:

Quote

The director applies and is bound by these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

(The emphasis is mine) So whatever your opinion, or mine, or anyone else's, the director is bound by the laws. It is unethical, IMO, for a person to accept the role of director, and then make rulings that are not within the law, even when he argues that he's "only trying to facilitate justice".

If you, as a player, feel that a particular legal remedy against an opponent is an injustice in a particular case, you are completely within your rights to refrain from calling attention to the opponent's irregularity, or if attention is called to it to ask the director to waive the rectification. Tell him why. He may well do so. But in general you, as a player, do not get to decide when the laws will be applied and when not.

[CSGibson]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-31, 19:43, said:

No, you're not a heretic, as bridge is not a religion, and the Laws of Duplicate Bridge is not Scripture. However...


Two things: "primarily" does not mean "exclusively", and you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you like. However, one thing you should keep in mind is Law 81B2, which I mentioned above but, since you apparently haven't read it, here it is:
(The emphasis is mine) So whatever your opinion, or mine, or anyone else's, the director is bound by the laws. It is unethical, IMO, for a person to accept the role of director, and then make rulings that are not within the law, even when he argues that he's "only trying to facilitate justice".

If you, as a player, feel that a particular legal remedy against an opponent is an injustice in a particular case, you are completely within your rights to refrain from calling attention to the opponent's irregularity, or if attention is called to it to ask the director to waive the rectification. Tell him why. He may well do so. But in general you, as a player, do not get to decide when the laws will be applied and when not.

I certainly accept that when there is a clear infraction for which there is a specific treatment called for by law, then the director should apply the laws. I'm not intentionally disputing that. But it seems to me that in these areas which have not been specifically covered in the law book, like this situation, then what you quoted as the scope of the law should be the general guide for our actions. In this case, do you dispute that the remedy for this irregularity that best follows the scope of the law is to give the declarer his choice of cards to call for?

Once you come to the conclusion that there is a clear "best" solution, then I would search the laws for a reasonable avenue towards implementing that solution.

Now, its true that I am not a director, and that I have never actually read the ACBL law book all the way through. I genuinely respect the people who make an honest attempt to rule this game, but I have no desire to join them. I do, however, believe that making the laws a tool to apply the best remedy is better than trying to find the closest law to your situation that applies any remedy.

[iviehoff]

 CSGibson, on 2012-January-31, 10:47, said:

Yes, but it is not only declarer's responsibility to look after dummy - its all of the players. For that reason, there is no penalty for a revoke by dummy because of a hidden card (let's say a last spade is hidden behind another suit).

I think you are drawing an unwarranted conclusion from just that particular revoke law. The general conclusion that all players are equally responsible for dummy is not correct. The only specific responsibility that defenders have in relation to dummy is not to touch its cards (L7B3).

It is declarer's partner's specific responsibility to spread the cards of dummy so that they are all visible, (L41D) and if he fails to do so then that is an irregularity for which declarer's side is offending and the defence is non-offending. And that is the issue here: declarer's side has committed an irregularity, and so must suffer the consequences, only the defence have redress, if in fact they are damaged. Of course this is not the only reason that a card of dummy may become concealed - a defender may disarrange it for example, confusing a card from dummy for one of his own played cards, or knocking it off the table with his sleeve. If that was the reason for a hidden card in dummy, then declarer would be able to seek redress because of the irregularity by the defence. If we cannot tell why the card is concealed, then things can be murkier.

[iviehoff]

 CSGibson, on 2012-January-31, 18:43, said:

These replies are personally frustrating; they tend to confirm that people can know everything about the law and nothing about justice.

Laws in general should be used to facilitate justice; in bridge, the laws are generally meant to restore equity, and are only supposed to be punitive when an advantage is gained which can't be undone, so to speak, or to discourage flagrant abuses.

Laws in games exist for reasons other than facilitating justice. They exist to create an environment of certainty, in which one can best devise one's strategy. A game is a situation where the rules are clearly set out, and you have a legitimate expectation that the consequences will follow from the specific application of those rules.

In soccer, the "offside" rule was brought in to eliminate "goal-hanging", ie, loitering in the vicinity of the other side's goal. Whether or not you were morally "goal-hanging", the opposition has a legitimate expectation that the offside rule will be scrupulously applied in all situations, and will determine their own strategy accordingly. So if the law of a game says something is not allowed, or something must be done, then the other side has a legitimate expectation of that, regardless of what was the purpose of that law in the first place.

In chess, if you touch a piece you have to move it. If you touch a piece and suddenly notice that your opponent has a mate-in-1 that you cannot prevent by moving this piece you just touched, you are stuffed. That's the rules of chess. In backgammon you can touch pieces and not move them. In fact, you can even move them and then move them back again, and move something else, until you pick up your dice. That's just how it is in backgammon. In bridge, if you call for a card from dummy, it is irrevocably called for (except in the case of a mis-speak). A concealed card in dummy that was your side's fault is not a satisfactory reason to have that rule disapplied. It is a satisfactory reason for the defence to ask to have their plays back, if it is not too late to correct them as a result the opponent's irregularity.

Justice in games demands rigorous application of the rules, because that is one's legitimate expectation. Now there are judgment rulings - adjusted scores where irregularities are too late to correct, but that's different. Also there are complicated messes that the laws never foresaw how to deal with, where you just have to do your best, and then you have some guiding principles to help you. But in general, in a game, rigid application of what the law says is the best thing for the game and its players. If the players themselves want to conspire to have another outcome, then that's OK so long as it isn't a conspiracy to defraud others (eg, the rigged score of a match not played, so that both teams qualify for the next stage.)

[blackshoe]

Going back to the original situation, the opening lead was a spade. Declarer saw singleton ♠A in the dummy, and facetiously called "low". Then third seat pointed out that dummy apparently had only twelve cards. A search was instituted, and the thirteenth card, a low spade, was found underneath dummy's clubs. Are we agreed so far?

Given that scenario, has there been an irregularity? Yes, and it was pointed out by third seat. The director should have been called, but never mind that. He would have applied Law 14, which first says "find the missing card" and the players did that. However, not calling the director has meant that the players are probably unaware of other provisions of that law - specifically that the missing card is deemed to have been part of dummy's hand all along, and so further penalties might apply. BTW, Law 41D tells dummy how to spread his hand, and dummy did not comply with that law (because a card was hidden) so dummy has definitely committed an infraction.

Now we have to deal with declarer's designation of which spade to play from dummy. He called "low", but he was clearly joking — his intention at the time was to play the ace. So clearly the ace must be played (Law 45C4a). Can the director allow him to retract his play now that another spade has been discovered? No. Law 47F2: Except as this law specifies, a card once played may not be withdrawn. There is no provision elsewhere in Law 47 that would allow what you want to do.

It is not the case, then, that this situation is not covered in the law book. It is covered, there is a specific remedy in the laws, and the TD is required to apply it.

I say again, deciding what you want to do, and then finding some law you can bend to justify that — or just doing it, whatever the law says — is not the way to go. And I don't agree that your solution is "best" anyway.

[barmar]

The fact that you may be punished for infractions that are inconsequential in that particular case serves as a reminder that you have to maintain concentration and observe proper procedure at all times. We're not just worried about people committing infractions on purpose, we want to ensure that the game is always competitive. There's even a law that essentially says that you must play to do your best, you can't give up or play randomly.

[bluejak]

 CSGibson, on 2012-January-31, 10:47, said:

Yes, but it is not only declarer's responsibility to look after dummy - its all of the players. For that reason, there is no penalty for a revoke by dummy because of a hidden card (let's say a last spade is hidden behind another suit). So I am wondering, who is going to learn a lesson from this? Who are we afraid of going on a spree of hiding dummy cards because we made a sensible decision to restore equity instead of being punitive to keep them from thinking "they can get away with not doing things right".

It is not the defender's responsibility to look after dummy at all. The Law you cite proves nothing about unrelated cases.

Who is going to learn from this? If you apply the Laws, possibly the player who did not bother to make sure he put down the dummy correctly.

If you do not apply the Laws, everyone learns that you do not need to bother at all with the rules.

I think your approach makes bridge less fair and far less enjoyable.