[PeterAlan]

blackshoe, on 2023-February-08, 23:38, said:

Until attention is called to an irregularity, dummy is not permitted to call the director except, or so I was told by somebody at rulings@acbl.org, in case of a Zero Tolerance violation. It seems like dummy should not be calling the director here. Did anyone (not dummy) remark on West's unusual action in pulling a card out of his quitted tricks? That would have opened the door for dummy to call the TD.

Indeed - as we've already noted, the revoke was not the only irregularity here.

But I don't see a problem with dummy calling the TD. There's more than one way to 'draw attention'. Even if whole charade had been played out in silence (and I would have expected either W to have said "Sorry, I revoked" or N or E to have said "What's going on?"), W's actions alone draw attention to his revoke, as well as to his violation of the quitted tricks law.

[blackshoe]

PeterAlan, on 2023-February-10, 08:08, said:

Indeed - as we've already noted, the revoke was not the only irregularity here.

But I don't see a problem with dummy calling the TD. There's more than one way to 'draw attention'. Even if whole charade had been played out in silence (and I would have expected either W to have said "Sorry, I revoked" or N or E to have said "What's going on?"), W's actions alone draw attention to his revoke, as well as to his violation of the quitted tricks law.

Perhaps so, but I'm not certain that's the case. It seems like an argument that any irregularity automatically draws attention to itself.

[PeterAlan]

blackshoe, on 2023-February-10, 09:06, said:

Perhaps so, but I'm not certain that's the case. It seems like an argument that any irregularity automatically draws attention to itself.

I see your point, and I might agree over the quitted tricks point (and to a play out of turn; we're really concerned with irregularities during the play period). But the circumstances of most revokes don't draw attention to themselves; they typically go un-noted at the time.

Here, however, the action of subsequently replacing a revoke card by a card of the revoked-on suit surely draws attention to the revoke itself: bear in mind that a revoke is defined in Law 61A as the "Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 (etc)", ie it is just that failure that constitutes the revoke, and W's subsequent actions draw attention to his earlier failure.

[blackshoe]

Would you then, as dummy, feel secure in calling the director?

[PeterAlan]

blackshoe, on 2023-February-10, 10:18, said:

Would you then, as dummy, feel secure in calling the director?

Let's approach it this way. If I, as TD, was called by dummy and W objected to this as violating 43A1(a), then I'd reply "You've drawn attention to your revoke by your subsequent actions." As dummy, I'd call the TD and be prepared to say this if asked why I'd done so: it's the TD's call as to whether (s)he accepts this interpretation.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough.

[pescetom]

PeterAlan, on 2023-February-10, 10:39, said:

Let's approach it this way. If I, as TD, was called by dummy and W objected to this as violating 43A1(a), then I'd reply "You've drawn attention to your revoke by your subsequent actions." As dummy, I'd call the TD and be prepared to say this if asked why I'd done so: it's the TD's call as to whether (s)he accepts this interpretation.

As previously implied, I would reply that Declarer cannot have failed to understand that West has revoked and messed with his quitted cards, even if it was improper for Dummy to call me.