BBO Discussion Forums: Two rules questions - BBO Discussion Forums

These came up tonight - a player who knows the laws much better than me made a couple of claims that seemed prima facie odd enough that I wanted to check:

1) Given an arrow switched table, do the laws (or the EBU regulations, if they might be relevant) require a specific reseating? Ie is the former North legally required to sit West?

2) If declarer, having won a trick in hand, calls for a card from dummy, a) what obligations/rights do the defenders have assuming declarer doesn't immediately realise his mistake, b) what rights does dummy have to point out the mistake, and c) assuming 'none' to b), what happens if dummy nonetheless points out declarer's mistake, assuming no-one else had commented on it?

The movement, which is ultimately the responsibility, and under the control, of the director, will specify how the arrow switch is to be accomplished. Instructions will be on the table card, or issued by the director. So North could end up as either East or West.

Dummy is permitted to attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer, but once the irregularity has happened, dummy is not permitted to call attention to it. So if declarer looks like he's about to call for a card from dummy when he is in his hand, dummy can attempt to stop him, but once the call is made, dummy can say nothing. If declarer calls out of turn from dummy, dummy's LHO has the right, without consultation with his partner, to accept the lead if he wishes. He may call the director, or he may simply play a (legal, one hopes) card. If he does not accept the lead, the director should be called. The director will instruct dummy to put the card, if he's moved it to a position indicating it is played, back amongst the unplayed cards, and then he will instruct declarer that he can lead anything he wants from his hand. Note that once the card is called, dummy is required to move it to a position indicating it is played unless one of the defenders calls attention to the irregularity. If dummy calls attention to the LOOT after it is made but before someone else points it out, then he should get a procedural penalty more often than not (Law 43A1{b} is a "may not" law) but there is no other penalty. The declarer will still rectify declarer's irregularity by asking declarer's RHO if he wishes to accept the LOOT, and following up as indicated above.

To extend the second question:

Declarer calls for a card from dummy, having just won in hand. Dummy tells declarer he's in hand - and now declarer's LHO rebukes dummy for getting involved, and demands that the card declarer had called for be played from dummy (RHO not having followed).

Suppose I (declarer) had now called the director (real life invariably made things messier, but let's play pretend), both on the objection that LHO shouldn't have been trying to assert laws at the table even if he were correct about them, and to clear up the other infractions. What now?

Jinksy, on 2017-October-21, 06:55, said:

RHO has the choice whether to accept the lead out of turn from Dummy or request that the lead be made from Declarer.

Law 10C2 said:

Law 73C1 said:

LHO's demand is outrageous.
I would rule that the play continues with whatever choice RHO selects, and eventually award an adjusted score if the actual choice by RHO turns out to having been unfortunate for the declaring side.

pran, on 2017-October-21, 09:39, said:

Indeed. LHO has violated several provisions of Law 74. I would issue him a PP in the form of a warning. If he does it again, he gets a PP in MPs or IMPs.

blackshoe, on 2017-October-20, 23:15, said:

Table card? This is mainly about Pianola, so players who care about it should insist that the former East play North, but I cannot imagine a regulation about it.

pran, on 2017-October-21, 09:39, said:

Why is it outrageous? Yes, his partner can overrule him, but if he has made a choice partner will usually agree. There may be a very good reason.

Vampyr, on 2017-October-21, 19:02, said:

Ah yeah, I'd forgotten but I think the claim was that Pianola determines this somehow. So what happens? Pianola generates a movement (consistently that players rotate anticlockwise)? What does it mean for players to insist on something if there's no corresponding regulation?

Jinksy, on 2017-October-21, 19:11, said:

Well, I am not sure, but I know that instruction has been given in the past to do it the pianola way. Nowadays it is not usually mentioned, but players tend to do it. I think that the instruction is implicit and applies, but that if the arrow-switch is done the other way no penalty would be assessed.

The direction issue also comes up in Howell movements, when players change direction when moving from table to table.

We use BridgeTab software (an application for Android tablets), and it assumes that North goes to East and vice versa. But AFAIK there's no regulation requiring this, and our players don't always follow it. The players who like to be North when they'reNS don't always make sure that they sit East if they're initially seated EW.

If we posted statistics about individual player results on our website I guess this would be more of a problem. But we just post pair results, so it doesn't matter which specific direction players sit as long as the pair is in the right direction.

Vampyr, on 2017-October-21, 19:02, said:

Observe Law 5

Vampyr, on 2017-October-21, 19:04, said:

Are you serious?

Vampyr, on 2017-October-21, 19:02, said:

I think there are two good reasons for having a regulation about this:

• If there is any dispute as to who sits where, you have method to resolve it
  
• It avoids a stronger player being able to select seats 1 or 2, or to sit over the stronger opponent, possibly differently on two different rounds when there are two rounds of arrow-switches

pran, on 2017-October-21, 22:25, said:

Doesn't L53A explicitly permit this?

Quote

Peter

pgrice, on 2017-October-22, 02:15, said:

It would indeed appear so, but not without first calling the Director.
Be aware of Law 11A. (LHO rebukes dummy for getting involved, and demands ....)

If for instance Declarer understands from the attitude that LHO has a good reason for accepting the lead out of turn from Dummy he (Declarer) may in this situation have a good case asking the Director to allow the lead be made from the correct hand!

pran, on 2017-October-22, 03:34, said:

LHO is mostly in the right here - dummy should not have said anything and LHO has the option to demand the lead stand. You are correct that it would have been optimal to call the director before any of this happened, but I don't see what grounds a director would have to deny them the option without having first called the director.

I'm confused. If pran's quotte that 'If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner' has no other caveats, then how can their partner make a demand about the selection? Or is this one of those cases where it's 'prohibited' without penalty for flouting the prohibition?

pran, on 2017-October-22, 03:34, said:

I, of course, in no way would condone LHO rebuking dummy. I had in mind declarer calling for a card in dummy when the lead is in hand and LHO saying "I wish to accept the irregular lead" If (when) the director is called, which law might he use to refuse this and require the lead to be made from the correct hand? We should assume that LHO thinks it is to his sides advantage for the irregular lead to stand.

This seems to be a change in the 2017 laws … previously if defenders disagreed about accepting an irregular lead from dummy then RHO's choice prevailed … or have I missed something.

Peter

Jinksy, on 2017-October-22, 10:17, said:

The difference is that Law 53 55 (thanks Gordon) provides both defenders with the option. So either defender can accept it, but they cannot consult. If either accepts, then the card is played.

This post has been edited by sfi: 2017-October-23, 00:23

pgrice, on 2017-October-22, 15:57, said:

I looked back in my archives and found (to my surprise) that the current Law 53 received its present form already in 1975! Before 1975 the only way a lead out of turn from dummy or declarer could be accepted by the defence is by the (incorrect) leader's LHO playing in turn to that lead. If attention was called to the LOOT the lead was to be rectified and Declarer would have to lead a card in the same suit (if he had one) from the correct hand.

(I distinctly remember a rule about which defender's choice prevailed if they disagreed, but I was unable to find such a rule in any of my old law books now.)