[VixTD]

 Vampyr, on 2013-September-23, 21:01, said:

Is telling the declarer to pick up his card, to go ahead and change it, drawing attention to the irregularity? I mean, think of someone who had his back to the table and heard this comment. He would know that something irregular was taking place.

I think there has to be an awareness that it is an irregularity. If the auction goes: 1♠ - 1♥ and the next player asks offender to move the 1♥ bidding card to a position where he can see it better, that is drawing attention to the 1♥ bid, but not to the irregularity of the insufficient bid. If one player invites another to change a card and no one recognises this as an irregularity, attention has not been drawn to the irregularity.

[blackshoe]

 VixTD, on 2013-September-26, 06:19, said:

I think there has to be an awareness that it is an irregularity. If the auction goes: 1♠ - 1♥ and the next player asks offender to move the 1♥ bidding card to a position where he can see it better, that is drawing attention to the 1♥ bid, but not to the irregularity of the insufficient bid. If one player invites another to change a card and no one recognises this as an irregularity, attention has not been drawn to the irregularity.

Anyone who's been playing bridge for more than a week should recognize that when an opponent tells declarer to pick up her card, something's not right. So I disagree with you - attention has been called to an irregularity.

[nige1]

 VixTD, on 2013-September-26, 06:19, said:

I think there has to be an awareness that it is an irregularity. If the auction goes: 1♠ - 1♥ and the next player asks offender to move the 1♥ bidding card to a position where he can see it better, that is drawing attention to the 1♥ bid, but not to the irregularity of the insufficient bid. If one player invites another to change a card and no one recognises this as an irregularity, attention has not been drawn to the irregularity.

IMO... if other players don't notice the irregularity, that may be so but

• If a player apologises for an insufficient bid and the next player says "No infraction, just change your bid", then he has drawn attention to a possible irregularity and suggested a ruling.
• Similarly if a player apologises for playing a wrong card and the next player says "Put it back in your hand, declarer cannot have a penalty card" (as in the OP) then he has drawn attention to a possible irregularity and suggested a ruling.

When drawing attention to a putative irregularity, it should not matter whether the player correctly describes it -- or whether any ruling he gives is correct (although I suppose a player-ruling is an infraction).

[VixTD]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-26, 06:51, said:

Anyone who's been playing bridge for more than a week should recognize that when an opponent tells declarer to pick up her card, something's not right. So I disagree with you - attention has been called to an irregularity.

I agree with your first sentence, but not with your second. There are plenty of players out there who have been playing for years and think that they can change a card played in error if they do it without pause for thought, or so long as it hasn't been covered, or so long as they're declarer and are not subject to penalty for exposed cards. They don't recognise it as an irregularity.

[mycroft]

Oddly enough, I agree with the second sentence, but not the first.

Attention has been drawn to the irregularity. But I believe there are some "everybodys" who know that "declarer can just pick up her card", and so while something went wrong, this is the right solution (they don't understand Law 9 either).

Interesting.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2013-September-26, 11:44, said:

Oddly enough, I agree with the second sentence, but not the first.

Attention has been drawn to the irregularity. But I believe there are some "everybodys" who know that "declarer can just pick up her card", and so while something went wrong, this is the right solution (they don't understand Law 9 either).

Interesting.

What is the right solution? For the director to do nothing since the players have made a ruling themselves? If this is what you mean, I agree. Though any experienced players at the table should get a PP.

[nige1]

Suppose a defender plays a wrong card, the other defender says it's OK to correct it, and declarer doesn't demur. Should dummy immediately call the director?
Obviously, the ruling could polarise, depending on which director arrives. Judging from the consensus here, dummy would be well advised to say nothing until the end of play (even if doing so is a deliberate infraction of dummy's literal reading of the law). Another case of over-complex law punishing or inhibiting those who want to do the right thing.

A simpler rule -- that dummy is le mort -- would remove some of these problems. During the play, dummy mustn't comment on any putative irregularity (wrongly awarded trick, revoke, trick with the wrong number of cards, blatant cheating, or whatever), whether or not he believes attention has been drawn to it. If worried about something, dummy should call the director, at the end of play.

[mycroft]

The SB solution as dummy is to wait until the end of the hand and then call the TD and explain what happened. The likeliest result of that is two confused opponents, one battered novice declarer, one score stands and 80% of the population slightly more annoyed than before at the other 20%.

The probably righter solution is to wait until the end of the round, and explain to partner with no opponents present that that *isn't* the ruling, but they were being nice. Don't expect it from anyone else, and don't get caught being told you have to do it when it happens against you (unless you feel that's the right thing to do). And, of course, what the opponents had confused this situation with (declarer revoked, and caught it immediately).

But then again, consider the source of this comment (or at least, his self-opinion)