[iviehoff]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-07, 03:09, said:

It seems to me that if a player puts a card in the played position, says "oops" or the like, picks up the card and puts it back in his hand, he has drawn attention to at least one irregularity. OTOH, he may not say anything, in which case he probably hasn't drawn attention to any irregularity. OTGH, if he tries, or appears to be trying, to change the played card surreptitiously, then he's probably in violation of 72B3. In the last two cases, I think dummy has to wait until the play is over before calling the director.

I think that's a sensible analysis. Pran argues that it isn't quite watertight, and he has a point. But I think with "oops" followed by a picking a card back up we have reached the point where the TD is likely to agree that dummy was not being unreasonable in believing that attention had been drawn to some irregularity.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2013-June-07, 08:19, said:

In any case, one irregularity is enough.

Precisely.

[barmar]

 GreenMan, on 2013-June-07, 02:30, said:

They may take notice or they may not. In an ideal world everyone at the table will be paying attention to what's going on, but that's not always the case in real life.

If they don't take notice, then obviously attention wasn't drawn. But if any of them do notice the connection, then the second action (withdrawing the card) has implicitly has drawn attention to the first action (lead out of turn).

Quote

IMNSHO we would do best to require actual attention-calling such as saying "Hey!" or waving and pointing to constitute drawing attention to an irregularity. Otherwise we may have a long list of gestures, grimaces, and long sighs that some would say constitute calling attention.

But as has been pointed out, the Law does not currently require that attention be drawn explicitly or actively. I think it's best for the game to interpret it liberally -- I think we should minimize the opportunities for players to get away with irregularities. I'm not sure I would even be against allowing dummy to draw attention to an irrgularity.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2013-June-09, 11:26, said:

[...]I'm not sure I would even be against allowing dummy to draw attention to an irrgularity.

That is a fair and reasonable opinion, and maybe this eventually will become allowed.

But presently the rule is that dummy may not in any way (except as explicitly permitted) participate in the play.

Now, to what extent is the argument valid that drawing attention to an irregularity implicitly draws attension also to a previous irregularity by the same player? In my opinion it never does.

Consider the following:

West revokes but nobody reacts.
West revokes again in the same suit in a later trick but now immediately exclaims that he has a card in the suit led.
Nobody says anything about the first revoke.

Is dummy now allowed to call the director for this first revoke? In my opinion of course not!

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2013-June-09, 16:39, said:

Is dummy now allowed to call the director for this first revoke? In my opinion of course not!

It is quite obvious that a case like this has no connection to the case under discussion.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2013-June-09, 17:00, said:

It is quite obvious that a case like this has no connection to the case under discussion.

You are quite right. But I would just as soon Dummy thought there might be a connection, sat there turning the cards called for by declarer, and butted out until the hand was over ---as a meta rule.

[blackshoe]

I would think the law implies that if dummy calls the director during the play in a case where someone else has drawn attention to an irregularity, he should report that irregularity, and nothing else. After the play, he can call about other irregularities. This may well result in a revised ruling on the first call.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-09, 17:52, said:

I would think the law implies that if dummy calls the director during the play in a case where someone else has drawn attention to an irregularity, he should report that irregularity, and nothing else. After the play, he can call about other irregularities. This may well result in a revised ruling on the first call.

Exactly.
And if a player changes his play then that is the irregularity.
The fact that he does so is not itself drawing attention to the irregularity (for instance a revoke) he tries to avoid or rectify by changing his play.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-June-10, 01:28, said:

Exactly.
And if a player changes his play then that is the irregularity.
The fact that he does so is not itself drawing attention to the irregularity (for instance a revoke) he tries to avoid or rectify by changing his play.

No, but I think it's highly likely that in the course of his investigation the TD will discover the revoke. There is also the possibility of a ruling that the player concerned, by simply attempting to change his card, has attempted to conceal a revoke, a heinous crime indeed. I do think that such a ruling would be rare, of course.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-10, 08:47, said:

No, but I think it's highly likely that in the course of his investigation the TD will discover the revoke. There is also the possibility of a ruling that the player concerned, by simply attempting to change his card, has attempted to conceal a revoke, a heinous crime indeed. I do think that such a ruling would be rare, of course.

Quite true.
But the fundamental question was (and still is) whether dummy may call the director on the previous irregularity (e.g. a revoke) because attention to this irregularity has already been drawn by the offender's subsequent irregularity.

My point has always been (and still is) that dummy may not do that.

(Dummy may not even call the director on the ground that the offender tried to change his play - or even did change it.)

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2013-June-10, 09:41, said:

But the fundamental question was (and still is) whether dummy may call the director on the previous irregularity (e.g. a revoke) because attention to this irregularity has already been drawn by the offender's subsequent irregularity.

I think that everyone else finds it not so "previous", because the revoke card is still visible while the attempted correction is being made.

Of course this discussion has gone beyond the OP case, in which, if I recall correctly, the offender said something like "sorry".

[PeterAlan]

 pran, on 2013-June-09, 16:39, said:

Consider the following:

West revokes but nobody reacts.
West revokes again in the same suit in a later trick but now immediately exclaims that he has a card in the suit led.
Nobody says anything about the first revoke.

Is dummy now allowed to call the director for this first revoke? In my opinion of course not!

At risk of extending the diversion, and since this is a relatively substantial point in its own right, in my opinion Yes. W's exclamation not only draws attention to the fact that he has revoked on the second occasion, it also (and for the first time) draws attention to the fact that he did so earlier, and I see no reason why dummy should not now be able to call the director on that.

[pran]

 PeterAlan, on 2013-June-14, 08:13, said:

 pran, on 2013-June-09, 16:39, said:

Consider the following:

West revokes but nobody reacts.
West revokes again in the same suit in a later trick but now immediately exclaims that he has a card in the suit led.
Nobody says anything about the first revoke.

Is dummy now allowed to call the director for this first revoke? In my opinion of course not!

At risk of extending the diversion, and since this is a relatively substantial point in its own right, in my opinion Yes. W's exclamation not only draws attention to the fact that he has revoked on the second occasion, it also (and for the first time) draws attention to the fact that he did so earlier, and I see no reason why dummy should not now be able to call the director on that.

Do you maintain your opinion if the first revoke (unnoticed) happened in (say) trick 3 and the second revoke in (say) trick 9?

[PeterAlan]

 pran, on 2013-June-14, 09:49, said:

Do you maintain your opinion if the first revoke (unnoticed) happened in (say) trick 3 and the second revoke in (say) trick 9?

And do you maintain your opinion if the two revokes happened on successive tricks? The laws aren't drafted in terms of some arbitrary gap between events. It seems to me that either attention has also been drawn to the previous revoke or it hasn't, and that it's more satisfactory to adopt the interpretation that it has.

[blackshoe]

It is certainly true that when attention is drawn to the current revoke, that may cause a player to remember an earlier one. Whether that constitutes "drawing attention" to the earlier revoke is I suppose debatable, but on balance I agree with Peter.

[pran]

 PeterAlan, on 2013-June-14, 10:14, said:

And do you maintain your opinion if the two revokes happened on successive tricks? The laws aren't drafted in terms of some arbitrary gap between events. It seems to me that either attention has also been drawn to the previous revoke or it hasn't, and that it's more satisfactory to adopt the interpretation that it has.

Sure I do.
We are talking about two separate irregularities, and if neither of the other three players draws attention to the first then why should dummy be allowed to do so at the time attention is (legally) drawn to the second?

But I believe what you probably forget here (in the interest of justice) is that nothing prevents dummy from drawing attention to any irregularity that has occurred during play at the end of the play period.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-June-14, 14:10, said:

Sure I do.
We are talking about two separate irregularities, and if neither of the other three players draws attention to the first then why should dummy be allowed to do so at the time attention is (legally) drawn to the second?

But I believe what you probably forget here (in the interest of justice) is that nothing prevents dummy from drawing attention to any irregularity that has occurred during play at the end of the play period.

Some have suggested that if no one calls the TD until after the play, even if dummy can't do anything until then, the NOS might lose their legal redress. Personally, I think that's ridiculous. Dummy calls w/o attention being called: TD rules "no redress, because dummy violated the rules". Dummy calls at the end of play: TD rules "no redress, because nobody called earlier". BS, I say.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-14, 10:22, said:

It is certainly true that when attention is drawn to the current revoke, that may cause a player to remember an earlier one. Whether that constitutes "drawing attention" to the earlier revoke is I suppose debatable, but on balance I agree with Peter.

Sure the second revoke may cause the players to become aware of the first revoke, but is that relevant if neither of them (other than dummy) draws attention to the first revoke as well as to the second?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-14, 14:15, said:

Some have suggested that if no one calls the TD until after the play, even if dummy can't do anything until then, the NOS might lose their legal redress. Personally, I think that's ridiculous. Dummy calls w/o attention being called: TD rules "no redress, because dummy violated the rules". Dummy calls at the end of play: TD rules "no redress, because nobody called earlier". BS, I say.

No rights are ever forfeited by dummy drawing attention to an irregularity at his first legal opportunity.

(But rights can be forfeited if dummy is the first player drawing attention to an irregularity when he does so before play is completed.)

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-June-14, 14:16, said:

Sure the second revoke may cause the players to become aware of the first revoke, but is that relevant if neither of them (other than dummy) draws attention to the first revoke as well as to the second?

Yes.