[pran]

 jvage, on 2017-August-18, 07:20, said:

I had an interesting problem where this distinction was important. I was Dummy against a very good pair. Partner (who I think sort of believed I was the one in the partnership who knew about the laws and the one to take responsibility for such things...) led towards my (dummys) AKJ in clubs. He asked for the Ace and my LHO played the Q and then quickly changed this to a low club without saying anything...

My partner (declarer) looked at me with a glance that said: "What do we do now?" also without saying anything.

I knew about my limitations as dummy, but at the table I chose to say (after a short break, but still before anyone else had said anything): "Maybe we should call a director?"

After which both opponents started almost screaming about "Dummy is not allowed to call the director", which is not the case and was not my main problem....

Quite interesting situation.
Maybe the best choice of yours would have been to say nothing at the time but make it clear to your opponents that as soon as the play ends you would exercise your right to call the director and explain everything that happened (including your partner's bewilderment)?

[pran]

 barmar, on 2017-August-18, 08:17, said:

If the original card was a revoke, I think withdrawing it and replacing it with a card in the correct suit draws attention to the revoke. The withdrawal is not calling attention to itself.

But you're probably right if the irregularity is replacing one legal card with another, as in jvage's example.

A revoke is not itself an irregularity (unless it is clear that it indeed is a revoke).
Playing a second card to the trick (for whatever reason) is indeed an irregularity on it's own but cannot in addition be taken (legally) as drawing attention to a possible irregularity in playing the first card.

[axman]

 pran, on 2017-August-18, 04:22, said:

My understanding is that an irregularity cannot "draw attention" to itself.

The act of withdrawing a played card is as such not "drawing attention" to it, but any person (including the offender himself and spectators) can react in some way (e.g. with a statement) that draws attention to the irregularity.

We have discovered an old American past time called Catch22. Dummy sees X play two cards of different suits to a trick, the second card being the suit of the trick. By playing the second card X has drawn attention to his revoke which opens the door for Dummy to summon the TD about the revoke. However, by summoning the TD Dummy is first to draw attention to X's additional irregularity of playing two cards to the trick- something he may not do. And not being allowed to do the one, he is neither allowed to pursue the other. So, he may do neither- at this time.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2017-August-18, 10:55, said:

A revoke is not itself an irregularity (unless it is clear that it indeed is a revoke).

I disagree.

Quote

Chapter One of the Laws, Definitions:
Irregularity: A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.
Infraction: A player’s breach of law or of lawful regulation.

Quote

Law 44C: Requirement to Follow Suit
In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

Quote

Law 61A: Definition of a Revoke
Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity constitutes a revoke. (When unable to comply, see Law 59.)

A revoke is an irregularity and an infraction of Law 44C.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2017-August-18, 16:12, said:

I disagree.
A revoke is an irregularity and an infraction of Law 44C.

Maybe I should have used the words "apparent" irregularity ?

[blackshoe]

How about "a revoke does not call attention to itself"? But I do think that the act of playing another card to the trick, and moving the first card aside, leaving it face up on the table, does call attention to the revoke. So when a player does that, the director should be called.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2017-August-19, 08:29, said:

How about "a revoke does not call attention to itself"? But I do think that the act of playing another card to the trick, and moving the first card aside, leaving it face up on the table, does call attention to the revoke. So when a player does that, the director should be called.

Which was the point I was trying to make.

I suppose if the revoker were a sleight-of-hand artist and he managed to do the card swap without anyone noticing, he could avoid this. But we're told that dummy did notice his replacement, so the replacement drew attention to the revoke.

In Toronto, while we were waiting for a midnight zip to start, up-and-coming junior Kyle Rockoff entertained us with some card tricks, so I suspect he could pull this off if he wanted.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Yeah, he probably could.

Once, as dummy, I called the director (club game) because one of the opponents was badgering my partner, a ZT violation. The director got about ten feet from the table, saw I was dummy, said "Ed, you know dummy's not allowed to call the director", turned around, and started to walk away. I immediately said, again, "Director, please". He came back and somewhat testily asked "what?" I told him. He said "oh", told the opponent something to the effect of "don't do that" and walked away. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2017-August-19, 08:29, said:

How about "a revoke does not call attention to itself"? But I do think that the act of playing another card to the trick, and moving the first card aside, leaving it face up on the table, does call attention to the revoke. So when a player does that, the director should be called.

I favour great care when applying laws, whether they are gamelaws, penal code, civil laws or whatever.

And my legal thinking here tells me that playing another card to the trick is a separate irregularity. Dummy may not be the first to call attention to this irregularity, nor may he use this second irregularity as a permission to call the Director on the first irregularity (which is now disclosed but not yet called attention to by anybody).

I still understand the clause "call attention to an irregularity" as referring to an action (usually a statement) by a player to the effect that there has been an irregularity.
An attempt to prematurely rectify an irregularity is not as such calling attention to that irregularity.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2017-August-19, 10:58, said:

I favour great care when applying laws, whether they are gamelaws, penal code, civil laws or whatever.

And my legal thinking here tells me that playing another card to the trick is a separate irregularity. Dummy may not be the first to call attention to this irregularity, nor may he use this second irregularity as a permission to call the Director on the first irregularity (which is now disclosed but not yet called attention to by anybody).

I still understand the clause "call attention to an irregularity" as referring to an action (usually a statement) by a player to the effect that there has been an irregularity.
An attempt to prematurely rectify an irregularity is not as such calling attention to that irregularity.

Sloppy of me. When a defender whose turn it is to play puts a card face up on the table, presumably he's playing to the trick. When he puts a second card on the table, he may be playing a second time to the current trick (Law 45E1), leading to the next trick (Law 53A if it's out of turn), or correcting a revoke (Law 62A). The context, in particular the lead to the trick and the first card the player in question played, may give us a clue. If he's correcting a revoke, then his second play is not a second irregularity.

If attention is called to the second card played to this trick by someone other than dummy, dummy can certainly call the director. When the director arrives, dummy can certainly give the facts to the declarer, including which card was led to the trick, which card the defender played first, and the precise sequence of events, including any comments or facial expressions or other physical mannerisms by any of the players.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2017-August-19, 13:21, said:

Sloppy of me. When a defender whose turn it is to play puts a card face up on the table, presumably he's playing to the trick. When he puts a second card on the table, he may be playing a second time to the current trick (Law 45E1), leading to the next trick (Law 53A if it's out of turn), or correcting a revoke (Law 62A). The context, in particular the lead to the trick and the first card the player in question played, may give us a clue. If he's correcting a revoke, then his second play is not a second irregularity.

If attention is called to the second card played to this trick by someone other than dummy, dummy can certainly call the director. When the director arrives, dummy can certainly give the facts to the declarer, including which card was led to the trick, which card the defender played first, and the precise sequence of events, including any comments or facial expressions or other physical mannerisms by any of the players.

Absolutely

[nige1]

As usual, the law is as clear as mud. Nevertheless, IMO, as far as dummy is concerned, attention is drawn to the infraction

• neither by the defender's failure to follow suit
• nor by his immediate correction thereof

.

It would be interesting to discover whether there's an official interpretation. Or is this another situation where the director is free to rule on a whim?

[blackshoe]

Using one's judgement to try to decide what's best is hardly "ruling on a whim".

[barmar]

 pran, on 2017-August-19, 10:58, said:

I still understand the clause "call attention to an irregularity" as referring to an action (usually a statement) by a player to the effect that there has been an irregularity.

While I think this is what the lawmakers probably intended, we've had lots of threads here where people have tried to interpret the vague phrase fairly liberally.

I wonder what language would make it clearer, without being too specific to a particular action. Maybe something like "inform the other players that an irregularity has occurred".

[pran]

 barmar, on 2017-August-19, 22:50, said:

While I think this is what the lawmakers probably intended, we've had lots of threads here where people have tried to interpret the vague phrase fairly liberally.

I wonder what language would make it clearer, without being too specific to a particular action. Maybe something like "inform the other players that an irregularity has occurred".

To me there is nothing vague about that phrase. "Calling attention" means just that - raising an alarm.

But then all my training as Director has been to understand (the intention of) the laws rather that finding ways to bend them.

[weejonnie]

At my TD training we were given the scenario:

1) LHO shows dummy his hand - dummy calls director - who issues a PP to defender.
2) Dummy draws attention to revoke by declarer - later in hand Is this an established revoke?

[pran]

 weejonnie, on 2017-August-21, 10:02, said:

At my TD training we were given the scenario:

1) LHO shows dummy his hand - dummy calls director - who issues a PP to defender.
2) Dummy draws attention to revoke by declarer - later in hand Is this an established revoke?

1) A defender may not show dummy his hand and dummy may not be the first to call attention to this irregularity.
Therefore PPs may be imposed both on Dummy for calling the Director and/or on the defender for showing his hand to dummy.

2) Dummy has not violated neither 2007 Law 42A2c nor 2017 Law 43A1 or 43A2, so regardless of which laws aew in force Dummy has not lost any of his rights.
Consequently Dummy has only executed his right under Law 61B to ask about a possible revoke so the revoke is not established.