[barmar]

So if dummy doesn't spread his hand at all, how would you categorize that?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-July-20, 08:52, said:

So if dummy doesn't spread his hand at all, how would you categorize that?

It's certainly an irregularity. The question is whether it's an infraction.

[lamford]

's

barmar, on 2016-July-19, 11:41, said:

As he frequently does, he's making use of an extremely broad interpretation of "could have been aware" that practically no one else would adopt.

I think the main thrust of SB's argument is that there was an infraction for which there is no prescribed penalty. Whether or not dummy could have been aware, SB thinks an adjustment is normal. If a card is dropped during the auction, we apply the penalty whether or not the person could have been aware it would benefit his side. We only need to apply Law 23 when someone drops the ace of trumps, and this benefits his side despite the penalty being applied. Law 23 is there for when the penalty is not sufficient. When no penalty is prescribed for an infraction, that does not mean the player needed to be aware.

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-July-21, 06:05, said:

's
I think the main thrust of SB's argument is that there was an infraction for which there is no prescribed penalty. Whether or not dummy could have been aware, SB thinks an adjustment is normal. If a card is dropped during the auction, we apply the penalty whether or not the person could have been aware it would benefit his side. We only need to apply Law 23 when someone drops the ace of trumps, and this benefits his side despite the penalty being applied. Law 23 is there for when the penalty is not sufficient. When no penalty is prescribed for an infraction, that does not mean the player needed to be aware.

On a point of order: The correct term here is "rectification".

Law 12 A1 said:

The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

For the Director to award an adjusted score in cases where the laws do not prescribe a rectification this law requires both:
a] that the irregularity is a violation of law (not just any irregularity), and
b] that opponents have been damaged by this violation.

When the laws in fact do prescribe a rectification the Director may still award an adjusted score if he finds that the prescribed rectification does not provide indemnity to the non-offending side.

I cannot see how the situation discussed in this thread can satisfy the condition(s) required for the application of Law 12A1.

[lamford]

pran, on 2016-July-21, 09:43, said:

For the Director to award an adjusted score in cases where the laws do not prescribe a rectification this law requires both:
a] that the irregularity is a violation of law (not just any irregularity), and
b] that opponents have been damaged by this violation.

It seems to me that dummy's actions are a clear violation of law (41D and 9A3). Once he put dummy down, he should not be participating in any way. And it is equally clear that the opponents were damaged. To what extent is up to the TD to judge.

[barmar]

So you and SB think that if dummy puts down his cards incorrectly, he's stuck with it unless some other player notices and calls attention to it.

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-July-21, 17:48, said:

It seems to me that dummy's actions are a clear violation of law (41D and 9A3). Once he put dummy down, he should not be participating in any way. And it is equally clear that the opponents were damaged. To what extent is up to the TD to judge.

Introduction to the laws said:

[...]'does' (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized)[...]

so dummy's action is an irregularity for which law 41D does not suggest penalization.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-July-21, 22:36, said:

So you and SB think that if dummy puts down his cards incorrectly, he's stuck with it unless some other player notices and calls attention to it.

Yes. Although if he notices an error in the act of putting dummy down, he can correct it, but not afterwards as he would be participating in the play.

[lamford]

pran, on 2016-July-22, 00:59, said:

so dummy's action is an irregularity for which law 41D does not suggest penalization.

Law 41D begins: "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him <snip>. It does not say "may spread his hand". "must spread his hand" or "should spread his hand". It says "spreads his hand", so the discussion of how strong is the requirement to spread his hand correctly is not relevant. He breached Law 41D. The opponents were damaged. Therefore we adjust. It is true that much of the time dummy transposes two cards such as the 3 and the 4, there will be no damage. That does not mean there was no infraction.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would also adjust if dummy had done nothing (other than the original sorting error), and declarer, thinking there had been AJ8x5 in dummy, had played low to the jack, successfully, provided I deemed that he would have taken the double finesse if dummy had arranged his cards correctly.

In addition, the requirement in 9A3: "When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period" uses "may not". The introduction states: Again, “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”. That suggests that there should be a PP for breach of "must not", an optional PP for breach of "may not", and no PP for breach of "shall not". On this hand I adjusted but did not give a PP.

When you are in a hole, pran, stop digging.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-July-22, 06:54, said:

When you are in a hole, pran, stop digging.

You might be misjudging the position of the hole here Paul.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-July-20, 08:52, said:

So if dummy doesn't spread his hand at all, how would you categorize that?

A breach of 41D. WTP?

You might equally ask what happens if one of the players does not follow
7B1: Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-July-28, 07:04, said:

You might be misjudging the position of the hole here Paul.

Indeed there are so many holes in the laws that I do not know where to start digging.

[pigpenz]

blackshoe, on 2016-July-20, 10:38, said:

It's certainly an irregularity. The question is whether it's an infraction.

I thought everyone was responsible for dummy?
Say a singleton spade is in with the clubs, a spade is lead and declarer ruffs but no one notices that a spade is in with the clubs until the end of the hand..
whats the ruling?
A clever dummy could be doing this on purpose not accidentally, how do you prove or rule?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-July-19, 04:41, said:

Dummy committed an infraction.

However, was there any reason for Dummy to be aware of how the spade suit should be handled? Was there any reasonable link between his infraction and Declarer's subsequent successful handling of this suit?

I doubt it; consequently I vote for a possible PP on Dummy but to rule no damage to the defense caused by this infraction and thus no adjustment of the result.

(I bet we all have many times seen Dummy re-arranging his cards after facing them in order to fully comply with Law 41D. I expect we all would feel very much annoyed if Dummy in each such case should first call the Director to the table?)

As much sympathy as I have for the NOS, I think that I would go Pran's route and let the result stand with a PP to dummy.

And no, I have never seen dummy rearrange her cards except immediately after (closer to while) facing the dummy or at declarer's request.

[Vampyr]

pigpenz, on 2016-August-19, 12:31, said:

I thought everyone was responsible for dummy?
Say a singleton spade is in with the clubs, a spade is lead and declarer ruffs but no one notices that a spade is in with the clubs until the end of the hand..
whats the ruling?
A clever dummy could be doing this on purpose not accidentally, how do you prove or rule?

An important principle of ruling is that we never call someone a cheat. The ruling here is therefore the same whether the infraction was committed accidentally or intentionally (unless, of course, we somehow gain the knowledge that the infraction was committed intentionally). A revoke by dummy does not incur the usual penalty; but the director will, if necessary, restore equity at the end of the hand.

[Trinidad]

Law 41D clearly establishes when dummy should start spreading his hand ("After the opening lead"). It also establishes clearly how dummy should spread his hand. But it doesn't establish at all when dummy is supposed to be finished spreading the hand or when the rest of the play is started.

In this case dummy started spreading his hand after the opening lead. Then declarer and opponents started the play and then dummy finished spreading his hand.

Is it really dummy's problem that the other three players didn't have the courtesy to wait until he was finished? Mind you, no law says that the other players have to wait for dummy to be spread (and many players don't), but I would consider it the polite thing to do.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2016-August-19, 15:01, said:

Law 41D clearly establishes when dummy should start spreading his hand ("After the opening lead"). It also establishes clearly how dummy should spread his hand. But it doesn't establish at all when dummy is supposed to be finished spreading the hand or when the rest of the play is started.

In this case dummy started spreading his hand after the opening lead. Then declarer and opponents started the play and then dummy finished spreading his hand.

Is it really dummy's problem that the other three players didn't have the courtesy to wait until he was finished? Mind you, no law says that the other players have to wait for dummy to be spread (and many players don't), but I would consider it the polite thing to do.
Rik

I really think that in this case the Law is actually explicit enough. "After the opening lead is faced" does not mean "at any time as long as it is not before the opening lead is faced". It means right after, and the process should really not last four tricks into the play.

And anyway I understand from the OP that the dummy was not involved this whole time in spreading the dummy, but had completed this and afterwards noticed two spot cards out of order and changed them in a completely separate action. I am surprised that someone could read this in a different way.

[blackshoe]

Nowhere do the laws say "everyone is responsible for dummy" or anything like it. Each player is responsible for his own hand. See Law 7.

Agree with Vampyr regarding both what "after the opening lead is faced dummy spreads his hand" means and that dummy spread his hand at that time, and only some tricks later noticed that the 9 and 8 of spades were transposed. Don't agree with Rik's view - the "correction" of the transposed cards was not part of dummy spreading his hand, it was a separate and later action.

BTW, I would inform the SB that I do not want to hear expositions from him on how I should rule or what the laws say. If he wants to call me to report a problem, fine, but he should confine his statement to the facts of the case, and that's all. Also that if he fails to comply with this instruction in future, he will get a procedural penalty. Maybe that will shut him up. Or make him apoplectic. Or both.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2016-August-19, 18:43, said:

I really think that in this case the Law is actually explicit enough. "After the opening lead is faced" does not mean "at any time as long as it is not before the opening lead is faced". It means right after, and the process should really not last four tricks into the play.

If you deal with an SB then you need to reason like an SB. "After" is the opposite of "before". The laws don't specify when dummy should be finished. And we all know that dummies are often finished spreading the hand after the continuing play has started. HH often plays a card from dummy practically before he has seen it!

Vampyr, on 2016-August-19, 18:43, said:

And anyway I understand from the OP that the dummy was not involved this whole time in spreading the dummy, but had completed this and afterwards noticed two spot cards out of order and changed them in a completely separate action. I am surprised that someone could read this in a different way.

If truth needs to be told, that is how I originally interpreted it too. And without a doubt, that is what Lamford must have meant. But if you think like (Lamford's version of) an SB, what Lamford must have meant is irrelevant. An SB reasons: Lamford didn't specifically write it, so he didn't mean it, because if he would have meant that, he would have specified it.

In a similar way, if truth needs to be told, I think it is insane to read in the laws that a missorted dummy is:

• an infraction
  
• that may not be corrected without a TD present
  
• and that may lead to penalties or score adjustments

The fact that you could read the laws that way doesn't mean that it is the correct way to read them.

A long time ago, on Belgian TV there was a program called Rigoletto. Comedians made fun of every day things. In one episode they baked bread "according to food regulations". The food regulations contained a long list of how much of certain specified animals (insects, worms, ..) was allowed in the final product per unit of weight. Of course, for every bug they weighted in the maximum amount and then made up the total by adding a little bit of flour. They baked it into bread and offered it to the audience.

It demonstrated very nicely what happens if you read regulations while forgetting to place them in the context that they were written in: reality.

Rik

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2016-August-19, 23:28, said:

BTW, I would inform the SB that I do not want to hear expositions from him on how I should rule or what the laws say. If he wants to call me to report a problem, fine, but he should confine his statement to the facts of the case, and that's all. Also that if he fails to comply with this instruction in future, he will get a procedural penalty. Maybe that will shut him up. Or make him apoplectic. Or both.

Just assume that SB is told this every time.