[lamford]

---

Matchpoints. Table Result 4S? Lead ♦Q

SB was quick to take advantage of a technical infraction here at a North London club this week. West, SB, led the queen of diamonds against the spade game and declarer ducked twice but to no avail. East won the third diamond and exited with a heart and South won and paused for thought. At this point dummy noticed that the nine and eight of spades were transposed, and corrected his original error. [Bridgebase does not allow the two cards to be in the wrong order, so you will have to use your imagination.-Ed]

Declarer now led the queen of spades, covered perforce, and it was obvious on returning to hand to take the percentage play of finessing the nine. This was worth around 75% to North-South as other declarers missed the percentage line (and a couple had made nine in 3NT) but SB was unhappy. "Director!" he called out in his usual boorish manner. The TD arrived and SB began, "Dummy participated in the play. In addition he breached Law 9A3: When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded." He paused for breath, clearly warming to his task. "Dummy breached 41D: "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy’s right."

"The effect of dummy drawing attention to the original infraction, by interchanging the eight and nine of spades after trick four, was to prompt declarer into finding the winning line of the double finesse. If dummy had AJ865 or AJ875, then the percentage line would be low to the jack, by a narrow margin, and declarer might well have played before noticing the nine under the eight." He paused again for breath. "Furthermore, dummy, a strong player, could have been aware that his infraction of interchanging the eight and nine of spades was a breach of Law 23 ..."

The TD was, by now, getting fed up with this diatribe from SB, and said, "score it as played please, and I will go away and consult". How do you rule?

[nige1]

 lamford, on 2016-July-18, 16:30, said:

Matchpoints. Table Result 4S? Lead ♦Q
SB was quick to take advantage of a technical infraction here at a North London club this week. West, SB, led the queen of diamonds against the spade game and declarer ducked twice but to no avail. East won the third diamond and exited with a heart and South won and paused for thought. At this point dummy noticed that the nine and eight of spades were transposed, and corrected his original error. [Bridgebase does not allow the two cards to be in the wrong order, so you will have to use your imagination.-Ed]
Declarer now led the queen of spades covered perforce, and it was obvious on returning to hand to take the percentage play of finessing the nine. This was worth around 75% to North-South as other declarers missed the percentage line (and a couple had made nine in 3NT) but SB was unhappy. "Director!" he called out in his usual boorish manner. The TD arrived and SB began, "Dummy participated in the play. In addition he breached Law 9A3: When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded." He paused for breath, clearly warming to his task. "Dummy breached 41D: "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy’s right."

---

"The effect of dummy drawing attention to the original infraction, by interchanging the eight and nine of spades after trick four, was to prompt declarer into finding the winning line of the double finesse. If dummy had AJ865 or AJ875, then the percentage line would be low to the jack, by a narrow margin, and declarer might well have played before noticing the nine under the eight." He paused again for breath. "Furthermore, dummy, a strong player, could have been aware that his infraction of interchanging the eight and nine of spades was a breach of Law 23 ..."

The TD was, by now, getting fed up with this diatribe from SB, and said, "score it as played please, and I will go away and consult". How do you rule?

IMO the director should rule in favour of SB. Dummy broke the law and his infraction could well have alerted everybody to the fact that dummy's ♠ were headed by AJ9 rather than AJ8.

[Cyberyeti]

I would disagree, the correction could easily also NOT benefit partner and throw him off the winning line (give W a stiff K or Kx). I think it's close enough that dummy unless he's a calculating machine probably a) didn't think and just corrected it when he noticed b) is very unlikely to have done the maths, so would not pass the "could have known" test. Also how good a player is S ? unless a beginner, I would assume he's seen the 9 even if he hasn't corrected it.

Of course all this changes if dummy has seen the W hand, but blind I wouldn't rule against him.

[blackshoe]

Nor would I.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-July-18, 18:44, said:

I would disagree, the correction could easily also NOT benefit partner and throw him off the winning line (give W a stiff K or Kx). I think it's close enough that dummy unless he's a calculating machine probably a) didn't think and just corrected it when he noticed b) is very unlikely to have done the maths, so would not pass the "could have known" test. Also how good a player is S ? unless a beginner, I would assume he's seen the 9 even if he hasn't corrected it.

Of course all this changes if dummy has seen the W hand, but blind I wouldn't rule against him.

I don't think that the "could have known" test is needed here. The TD adjusts because dummy breached Law 9A3, in that he committed an infraction and the defender was damaged. There seems to be a school of thought that one only adjusts for an infraction if someone "could have known" that it would benefit one's side. That is an additional Law designed to cater for infractions where the prescribed penalty is insufficient or there is no prescribed penalty".

In my opinion, although not I understand in the opinion of several leading TDs, the first port of call for the assiduous TD should be 12B1.
Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred <snip, not relevant here>.

That is clearly a much more specific Law than Law 23, and therefore, under WBFLC minutes (I do not have them to hand) it takes priority over the catchall Law 23. In this example, there was an infraction. There is no prescribed penalty for dummy rearranging cards after the start of play. Therefore the TD adjusts based on his opinion of what would have happened without the infraction. He might, for example, give 50% of making and 50% of one off. Law 23 is a potential route but I think it is the wrong one here.

And, for completeness, SB has no obligation to draw attention to the mis-sorted dummy, nor does he lose any rights by failing to do so.

[pran]

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?)

[lamford]

 pran, on 2016-July-19, 04:41, said:

Was there any reasonable link between his infraction and Declarer's subsequent successful handling of this suit?

That is for the TD to judge how declarer would have played Qxx opposite AJ8x5 without dummy's infraction. I polled three strong players (I was the TD) and asked them how they would play AJ8xx opposite Qxx for five tricks. All three, after a little thought, said things like: "I think it is low to the jack, isnt' it. Running the queen only seems to pick up stiff 10, stiff 9 and T9 offside (and I don't think you can pick the last of these), while low to the jack picks up Kx (three instances), K9 and KT onside. They assumed, without asking, that the card below the eight was not relevant (correctly if the adverb is "below"). Dummy knew that the correct adverb was "above", and pointed this out to declarer.

And, I don't think there needs to be a link, in the mind of dummy, between the infraction and the damage. There has to be a link, in that law 12B1 states:
<snip>"Damage exists when, because of an infraction,<snip>". There is no requirement in that law for the damage to be foreseeable.

[barmar]

Law 45F says that dummy is allowed to touch his cards without declarer's instruction if the purpose is just arrangement. Doesn't fixing an incorrect layout fall within that? Or is that overridden by the fact that this calls attention to his original infraction?

If SB hadn't brought it up, I'd never have thought of fixing the misarrangement as "drawing attention" to the infraction. I usually think that requires something more overt, like saying "Oops, I didn't sort the spades correctly."

[lamford]

 pran, on 2016-July-19, 04:41, said:

(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 bet we all have many times seen the last to speak pick up his bidding cards after the auction 1NT-Pass-3NT-Pass-Pass. That is irrelevant. It is still an infraction.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-July-19, 06:58, said:

Law 45F says that dummy is allowed to touch his cards without declarer's instruction if the purpose is just arrangement. Doesn't fixing an incorrect layout fall within that? Or is that overridden by the fact that this calls attention to his original infraction?

If SB hadn't brought it up, I'd never have thought of fixing the misarrangement as "drawing attention" to the infraction. I usually think that requires something more overt, like saying "Oops, I didn't sort the spades correctly."

SB does not claim that dummy infringed 45F. He claims that dummy originally breached 41D, and that he was not now entitled to change the original order. The same would apply if he had a club among his spades (or for that matter [qv] if the Chimp who was spectating had pointed out that the nine and eight of spades were the wrong way round). An infraction by dummy, who is on declarer's side, should be treated MORE harshly than an "infraction" by a spectator.

[pran]

 pran, on 2016-July-19, 04:41, said:

(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?)

 lamford, on 2016-July-19, 07:07, said:

I bet we all have many times seen the last to speak pick up his bidding cards after the auction 1NT-Pass-3NT-Pass-Pass. That is irrelevant. It is still an infraction.

And you do of course call the Director every time you see this?

[pran]

 barmar, on 2016-July-19, 06:58, said:

Law 45F says that dummy is allowed to touch his cards without declarer's instruction if the purpose is just arrangement. Doesn't fixing an incorrect layout fall within that? Or is that overridden by the fact that this calls attention to his original infraction?

If SB hadn't brought it up, I'd never have thought of fixing the misarrangement as "drawing attention" to the infraction. I usually think that requires something more overt, like saying "Oops, I didn't sort the spades correctly."

I (for one) would say that Dummy may certainly rectify his incorrect layout without any consequences so long as his action has no other apparent purpose than that.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2016-July-19, 07:21, said:

I (for one) would say that Dummy may certainly rectify his incorrect layout without any consequences so long as his action has no other apparent purpose than that.

I suggest you read the Laws again and point out where it says dummy can do this, whatever the intent.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2016-July-19, 07:14, said:

And you do of course call the Director every time you see this?

No, I only call the director when they now lead a short suit, and on previous occasions when they have completed the auction with a third pass they made a normal lead. Standard F-S methods I believe.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2016-July-19, 07:13, said:

SB does not claim that dummy infringed 45F. He claims that dummy originally breached 41D, and that he was not now entitled to change the original order. The same would apply if he had a club among his spades (or for that matter [qv] if the Chimp who was spectating had pointed out that the nine and eight of spades were the wrong way round). An infraction by dummy, who is on declarer's side, should be treated MORE harshly than an "infraction" by a spectator.

Law 45F said:

After dummy’s hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested.

Are you really saying that Law 45F does not apply "after dummy's hand is faced" in spite of these first five words in the paragraph because the need for re-arrangement was a consequence of sloppy facing of the hand originally?

[lamford]

 pran, on 2016-July-19, 07:31, said:

Are you really saying that Law 45F does not apply "after dummy's hand is faced" in spite of these first five words in the paragraph because the need for re-arrangement was a consequence of sloppy facing of the hand originally?

Often dummy closes up cards or suits as the play proceeds, but the Law does not allow dummy to correct an original error of arrangement. In any case, dummy's action draws attention to an original infraction, so is disallowed under Law 9A3. Dummy should be "le mort". Clearly swappping the nine and eight of spades is "drawing attention" to the original breach of Law 41D.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2016-July-19, 07:35, said:

Often dummy closes up cards or suits as the play proceeds, but the Law does not allow dummy to correct an original error of arrangement. In any case, dummy's action draws attention to an original infraction, so is disallowed under Law 9A3. Dummy should be "le mort". Clearly swappping the nine and eight of spades is "drawing attention" to the original breach of Law 41D.

This action by Dummy is explicitly mandated in Law 65A.

Please show cases where in your opinion Dummy is allowed to touch his cards for the purpose of arrangement (without instruction from declarer) after his hand has been faced.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2016-July-19, 08:59, said:

This action by Dummy is explicitly mandated in Law 65A.

65A only deals with the quitted trick, it doesn't say anything about straightening out dummy's cards that aren't quitted, e.g. to close up the gap left by the card that was played.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2016-July-19, 07:31, said:

Are you really saying that Law 45F does not apply "after dummy's hand is faced" in spite of these first five words in the paragraph because the need for re-arrangement was a consequence of sloppy facing of the hand originally?

What he's saying is that dummy is usually allowed to rearrange the cards, but not if doing so would violate Law 43A. So you can generally just neaten them, but not if doing so would draw attention to the fact that you violated 41D when originally laying it out, or if doing so is deemed to have participated in the play (e.g. by helping declarer notice an important card).

Of course, this is the kind of thing only SB could make an issue of. 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.

[blackshoe]

Not all irregularities are infractions. Law 41D says "dummy spreads his hand…" The introduction to the laws says "Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized). So violating a "should" law is clearly an infraction. Is violating a "does" law an infraction, or just an irregularity? The definitions say "Irregularity: A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player" and "Infraction: A player’s breach of law or of lawful regulation".

If violating the procedure specified by a "does" law is an infraction, then the only irregularities that are not infractions involve not doing what one "may" do ("failure to do it is not wrong").

There are 104 pages in the law book on which the word "may" appears. Some of them are "player may do" laws, many of them are not. Still, there are more cases than I thought there were. :-)