[eagles123]

Hi guys,

I know this is probably painfully obvious!

my partner was declaring in 4♠ and a few tricks into the contract the opponents lead a club and my partner ruffed. However the oppo's didn't realise in time that my P had ruffed and lead KH. It was a hand with 4 obvious losers and the K heart was the fourth of them. However having been played out of turn should it now not be a penalty card? If that was the case P could very easily play another trump forcing op to play the KH and then he had solid hearts below the K so the contract would make easily.

the KH player just put the card back in the hand and apologised but obviously it's the difference between the contract making and not.

So my question is, my P didn't mention anything, could I as dummy call declarer on my p's behalf?

Sorry guys if this doesn't make any sense!

Cheers,

Eagles123

[aguahombre]

Attention must already have been called to the irregularity, and Dummy is just being the person calling on behalf of the table. See Laws 42 and 43 for Dummy's rights and limitations.

He may not call attention to an irregularity during the play; but after play has concluded, he may do so.

[mycroft]

Somebody pointed out that it wasn't his lead after he had led. That's drawing attention to an irregularity. Call the TD, if nobody else does. Maybe a comment of "I'm not sure that's what we should be doing here" - and be prepared to explain to the TD that you did wait until someone else pointed out the lead out of turn.

If someone commented when he put the card back, that's also drawing attention to an irregularity. If nobody did, then you should call the TD at the end of the hand. That might change the ruling, and you may not get the make.

[nige1]

 eagles123, on 2013-May-30, 16:46, said:

the KH player just put the card back in the hand and apologised but obviously it's the difference between the contract making and not.

As usual, the law could be much clearer but if you did call the director and the director judged that your opponent drew attention to his own infraction by apologising, then you might be in business.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2013-May-30, 18:08, said:

As usual, the law could be much clearer but if you did call the director and the director judged that your opponent drew attention to his own infraction by apologising, then you might be in business.

Can't people just give the Law?

42A1(a)

a) Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play.

9

B. After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity

1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

(b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

Taking back a card and replacing it with another surely calls attention to the irregularity. So dummy may call the director. Why, by the way, didn't declarer do so?

[blackshoe]

Some folks just don't call the director.

I see no way to construe taking back one's played card and playing another while apologising as anything but drawing attention to an irregularity. The only way I can see that "you may not get the make" is if declarer plays from the ♥K's hand's LHO before the director is called. OTOH, if the declarer plays from the hand that ruffed (whichever one it was) then we apply 53C, that's the lead, and the ♥K is a MPC.

[mycroft]

I was in exactly this situation once, and I chose not to call the TD (random stupid club game, and the TD is - okay), but mentioned to partner afterward "so, you would have made [3NT] in a tournament, right?" She said with total befuddlement "but I have 4 spade losers and the ♦A". I repeated, "but you would have made it at the tournament?" which should have been a clue (especially because I won't allow our side to "hide" revokes even if they're not mentioned; of course, I don't let their revokes slide either, even if they're "no matter" ones). After the next befuddlement, I explained that if it mattered, she should call the TD on the Lead out of turn, ban a spade lead from his partner, the real leader, and wrap up her 10 tricks before letting them back in again. "Oh."

The reason declarer didn't call the TD is that she truly didn't know that there was an issue here - never mind that it was an issue she could take advantage of. Yeah, she doesn't *need* to know the latter, and knowing the former should be "bridge 101" - but it isn't. And in some cases, at least, knowledge of the Law is in fact a bridge skill.

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 20:35, said:

Can't people just give the Law?

Unfortunately, some players and directors don't know the law Others, like the OP, are unsure how to interpret it.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2013-May-31, 14:24, said:

Unfortunately, some players and directors don't know the law Others, like the OP, are unsure how to interpret it.

People meaning, like you above...

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2013-June-01, 02:09, said:

People meaning, like you above...

I'm here to learn but I know this law from practical experience. At a recent Brighton congress, as dummy, I called the director in similar circumstances.The case was posted in BBF.

[barmar]

 nige1, on 2013-May-31, 14:24, said:

Unfortunately, some players and directors don't know the law Others, like the OP, are unsure how to interpret it.

He was talking about here in the forum, not at the table. When you're posting here, you can take you time and find the law on the web site.

And while there are some laws that are not always clear how they should be interpreted and applied, this one is pretty straight forward. This really is a "Simple Ruling": just quote the law and move on.

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2013-June-01, 21:36, said:

He was talking about here in the forum, not at the table. When you're posting here, you can take you time and find the law on the web site. And while there are some laws that are not always clear how they should be interpreted and applied, this one is pretty straight forward. This really is a "Simple Ruling": just quote the law and move on.

Fair enough -- I suppose it depends on local practice. (In Scotland, directors usually carry the law-book with them and and read out the relevant law at the table)

[blackshoe]

The first ruling I ever made I pulled out the law book and started flipping to the page so I could read the ruling. Declarer bellowed "we don't have time for that!" and made his own ruling.

[paulg]

 nige1, on 2013-June-02, 06:30, said:

In Scotland, directors usually carry the law-book with them and and read out the relevant law at the table

You must live in a different Scotland to me.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2013-June-01, 21:36, said:

He was talking about here in the forum, not at the table. When you're posting here, you can take you time and find the law on the web site.

"His" name is on his website. I normally check. Anyway, I find it much easier to flip through the book than find the law on the onlne version.

Quote

And while there are some laws that are not always clear how they should be interpreted and applied, this one is pretty straight forward. This really is a "Simple Ruling": just quote the law and move on.

Yes, I thought so.

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-02, 11:10, said:

The first ruling I ever made I pulled out the law book and started flipping to the page so I could read the ruling. Declarer bellowed "we don't have time for that!" and made his own ruling.

DP to him and a ruling that is extra-favourable to his opponents.

It is a shame that the Drafting Committee were too idle to include a Table of Contents in the current version of the Laws. I got a table of contents off someone who produced one, and some people have coloured tabs at certain commonly-needed Laws.

[aguahombre]

Apparently the incompetent, illiterate, and otherwise much maligned ACBL were able to produce a table of contents.

They might have spent their time more productively writing a new book which restates the laws for those of us who don't like the way they are written.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2013-June-03, 13:43, said:

They might have spent their time more productively writing a new book which restates the laws for those of us who don't like the way they are written.

You mean there is someone who does like the way they are written?

Apparently at the last revision a member of the drafting committee suggested that the book be rewritten and reorganised, but the other members refused. (This member is, I believe, a great admirer of Kaplanese, so for him to make this suggestion shows that he felt quite strongly that the book in its current form is not fit for purpose, no matter how elegantly it is written).

[jallerton]

 aguahombre, on 2013-June-03, 13:43, said:

Apparently the incompetent, illiterate, and otherwise much maligned ACBL were able to produce a table of contents.

They might have spent their time more productively writing a new book which restates the laws for those of us who don't like the way they are written.

Don't worry, they did that as well. See this thread

[iviehoff]

 Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 20:35, said:

Taking back a card and replacing it with another surely calls attention to the irregularity.

I don't believe it does. Rather it is committing another irregularity which has not been drawn attention to. The second irregularity was not necessarily consequent upon a prior irregularity, (the card withdrawn could have been played legally) so I don't think you can say it was an action that could be considered as drawing attention to an irregularity.

[barmar]

In practice, the manner in which the player takes back and replaces the card usually makes it clear why they're doing it, which calls attention to the original irregularity. The OP said he "put the card back in his hand and apologized". I think the apology calls attention to the lead out of turn.