[RMB1]

This happened to me, as a player.

---

After 5♦, East asks and is told (by South) "one Ace or King of trumps".

North declares 5♥. At trick 3 or 4, the play has gone strangely from dummy's perspective and South realises that North does not have any key cards. South then remembers that their agreement is 40/31 (and knows this is on their card). North knew the agreement and had given the correct response, but forgot to correct the explanation at the end of the auction.

1. Should South call the TD and correct his explanation now (as required by Law 20F4) or should he say nothing until the end of play (Law 9A3)?

5♥ makes but the defence would probably have cashed the first three tricks if they knew declarer had no aces. The hand has taken a long time and the round finished some minutes ago. South suggests that the defence have been damaged and are due another trick, but East/West just want to move.

2. Should South call the TD now?

[aguahombre]

I know what I would do...acceed to E/W wishes, then let the TD in on the secret later.

Again, By which Law? Will let the TD decide that if he wants to. That is what I should do.

[nigel_k]

20F4: "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately."

43A1a: "Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play."

Obviously the two quoted passages are in direct conflict but I would call the director immediately.

[AlexJonson]

I would definitely not call the TD as dummy during the play of the hand.

But subsequently I would, as the implicated player.

[blackshoe]

"Must" is stronger than "should". I think even dummy needs to comply with 20F4.

You will of course get the TD who thinks dummy is not permitted to call the TD.

I do not think "we're running late" is sufficient reason to decline to call the TD when the laws otherwise require it.

[AlexJonson]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-28, 15:08, said:

"Must" is stronger than "should". I think even dummy needs to comply with 20F4.

You will of course get the TD who thinks dummy is not permitted to call the TD.

I do not think "we're running late" is sufficient reason to decline to call the TD when the laws otherwise require it.

You have a clear notion of 'must' and no notion of 'subsequently'?

[blackshoe]

Attacking my intelligence will get you nowhere Alex.

[barmar]

AlexJonson, on 2011-September-28, 16:51, said:

You have a clear notion of 'must' and no notion of 'subsequently'?

You seem to be misreading which verb "subsequently" applies to, and/or no notion of "immediately".

[BunnyGo]

AlexJonson, on 2011-September-28, 16:51, said:

You have a clear notion of 'must' and no notion of 'subsequently'?

Considering that the law with the word "must" also has the word "immediately" I don't care about the word "subsequently" in this case.

[iviehoff]

It seems fairly clear that 20F4 has precendence; thus we conclude, what was in any case should have been fairly obvious, that 43A1a is intended to apply to irregularities that occur subsequent to the player becoming dummy.

[wyman]

iviehoff, on 2011-September-29, 03:12, said:

what was in any case should have been

[jallerton]

iviehoff, on 2011-September-29, 03:12, said:

It seems fairly clear that 20F4 has precendence; thus we conclude, what was in any case should have been fairly obvious, that 43A1a is intended to apply to irregularities that occur subsequent to the player becoming dummy.

Why does that seem fairly clear? It seems fairly clear to me that it is impossible for Dummy in this case to comply with both Laws; there is nothing to indicate that it is acceptable to violate one of these Laws just to comply with the other: hence Robin's original question.

[iviehoff]

jallerton, on 2011-October-12, 15:01, said:

Why does that seem fairly clear?

Because I can conceive of no sensible reason that could have been intended by the law-makers for the alternative interpretation.

[AlexJonson]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-13, 04:11, said:

Because I can conceive of no sensible reason that could have been intended by the law-makers for the alternative interpretation.

I agree with you - even though mere agreement is generally disparaged on the Forums.