[mycroft]

Another mea culpa, but it's a common issue, and I'd love ideas on how it should be handled, so I can teach other players.

I was dummy and the usual "see declarer pull a card (being on dummy), try to stop her, but it hits the table" happens.

Now at the table I did everything "wrong" - I did finish my statement with "oh well" (probably calling attention to the irregularity), and then called the director (which definitely did).

Having said that, there was nothing having the TD at the table would do to *benefit* my side, and there are so many versions of card hits the table, then "you're in your hand", so I don't feel that guilty about it - but yes, I should have got a talking to from the director.

Having said *that*, I do know what usually happens - somebody mentions it, the card goes back into declarer's hand and the dummy is asked for a card, and the opponents continue throughout unaware of their rights. Which seems worse than what I actually did, even if it's "legal" as far as dummy's actions.

So - what should happen?

[jillybean]

Card should stay on table, Director should be called and LHO asked if they accept the lead?

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-March-20, 14:50, said:

Card should stay on table, Director should be called and LHO asked if they accept the lead?

Almost - either opponent may accept or reject the lead out of turn, but they can't consult with each other about their choice. If they choose different options, the choice of the next opponent to play (after the lead out of turn, not the one who would have been the next to play) takes precedence.

[jillybean]

Never happens. Sometimes I have been able to jump in and say I accept the lead, it is good to know I can legally do this as L or R HO

What should happen? It seems very simple, Dummy SB tells the opponents that they can accept or reject the lead?
This is similar to my side has revoked, we get on lead and tell declarer to call the Director because there could be lead restrictions.
Yes, we should call the Director when attention is drawn to the revoke, but this never happens.

[blackshoe]

A demonstrated knowledge of certain aspects of the rules of the game ought to be part of the requirements for Life Master. :-)

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2023-March-20, 16:21, said:

Almost - either opponent may accept or reject the lead out of turn, but they can't consult with each other about their choice. If they choose different options, the choice of the next opponent to play (after the lead out of turn, not the one who would have been the next to play) takes precedence.

Which I always thought is a rather odd pantomime, with the diseducating message that you can't consult but can reach an agreement (in the usual non-verbal ways, but with the blessing of law). It would be better IMO that next to play has the right to decide but may defer the decision to his partner (or that his partner states his preference and then next to play decides).

But then I'm a heretic, as I wouldn't allow dummy to try to prevent anything in the first place. Dummy should be an agent, not a guardian (with a possible exception for refusing to revoke).

[axman]

mycroft, on 2023-March-20, 14:42, said:

Another mea culpa, but it's a common issue, and I'd love ideas on how it should be handled, so I can teach other players.

I was dummy and the usual "see declarer pull a card (being on dummy), try to stop her, but it hits the table" happens.

Now at the table I did everything "wrong" - I did finish my statement with "oh well" (probably calling attention to the irregularity), and then called the director (which definitely did).

Having said that, there was nothing having the TD at the table would do to *benefit* my side, and there are so many versions of card hits the table, then "you're in your hand", so I don't feel that guilty about it - but yes, I should have got a talking to from the director.

Having said *that*, I do know what usually happens - somebody mentions it, the card goes back into declarer's hand and the dummy is asked for a card, and the opponents continue throughout unaware of their rights. Which seems worse than what I actually did, even if it's "legal" as far as dummy's actions.

So - what should happen?

M>> I'd love ideas on how it should be handled

Improve the law by making PCs a possible remedy for all players- thereby incentivizing avoidance of POOT rather than incentivizing the declaring side to POOT.

As for dummy being first to draw attention it should now be clear that when dummy does not complete his warning prior to facing** the card he has drawn attention rather prevent and that warrants a reduction in score to incentivize dummy accurately utilizing judgment as to when he can avoid the penalty.

** the threshold for a played card is its exposure/naming, not its touching the table

[mycroft]

Thanks, but from the answers I think I asked the wrong question.

• Okay, assume I know the Law :-) I didn't follow it this time, I realize that.
  
• As dummy, if I do it right - "you're in your" and stop, wait for the world to resolve - if it's going to resolve the "expected" way, what do I do to protect the opponents, or at least ensure that next time it happens, the opponents know they have rights?

IOW, this is not a Legal question, this is a tactical, or procedural, or ethical question.

For example, I think if the opponents say "pick it up" or otherwise make it clear they are mentioning the LOOT, I can say "wait, let's get the Director over to resolve this." But if declarer just hears my attempt to correct, picks her card up herself and calls for a card, I have no window (or does picking it up draw attention to the irregularity?). What then?

On the topic of the answers:

• Jilly, I applaud your intention, but don't tell declarer to call the Director (I agree, call when the revoke is corrected, and I agree, it never happens). Just do it yourself. My source-of-ethics (and bridge teacher) frequently has me over: "I have a card on the table from a fixed revoke, and partner's on lead. Does declarer have options?" (knowing full well that they [-] well do, but again, that's my job to tell them). There is no Law saying only the non-offenders can all the Director - don't play the waste-of-time game of telling them they might want to, and waiting for them to decide or not, and then...
  
• PesceTom, I see nothing in the Laws saying they can come to any agreement, verbal or otherwise. The quote is "must make the selection without consulting partner." (10C2) I certainly do not believe that consultation requires words. Sure it happens, but still. My usual line is "Either opponent may, without partner's assistance, accept or refuse the lead. If no one makes a choice, the lead will be refused." (paraphrase of last bit of 53A)
  
• Axman, I know you have strong feelings about this, and I know they require a massive change in the Laws and the theory behind them to implement - one that, if completed in one shot, would IMHO trigger Zimmer Frame Riots. But ICBW, and Mr. Kelso and his committee are welcoming ideas for the next Laws revision as we speak - feel free to pitch! But also, in this particular case, 55C should cover most of your issues? (except the procedural one, which seems even more punitive than even Blackshoe's usual wont).

But on that note, apart from the technical violation of (one of the most important) Laws, is there any way that what I did could be of benefit to my side rather than protecting the opponents? I don't see it, but I'm Biased™.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2023-March-21, 03:51, said:

Which I always thought is a rather odd pantomime, with the diseducating message that you can't consult but can reach an agreement (in the usual non-verbal ways, but with the blessing of law). It would be better IMO that next to play has the right to decide but may defer the decision to his partner (or that his partner states his preference and then next to play decides).

But then I'm a heretic, as I wouldn't allow dummy to try to prevent anything in the first place. Dummy should be an agent, not a guardian (with a possible exception for refusing to revoke).

How does dummy legally refuse to revoke under current law? (Granting that the law could be changed).

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2023-March-21, 09:11, said:

On the topic of the answers:
[list][*]Jilly, I applaud your intention, but don't tell declarer to call the Director (I agree, call when the revoke is corrected, and I agree, it never happens). Just do it yourself. My source-of-ethics (and bridge teacher) frequently has me over: "I have a card on the table from a fixed revoke, and partner's on lead. Does declarer have options?" (knowing full well that they [-] well do, but again, that's my job to tell them). There is no Law saying only the non-offenders can all the Director - don't play the waste-of-time game of telling them they might want to, and waiting for them to decide or not, and then...hink

Of course you are right and as you know, I have no aversion to calling the Director. I think it is unfortunate that players are unaware of their rights and these same players are often reluctant to call the Director, and "cause all that fuss". My intent here is to give my opponents the chance to call the Director in a pleasant, unchallenged environment. If they decline to do so, I will.

[axman]

pescetom, on 2023-March-21, 03:51, said:

But then I'm a heretic, as I wouldn't allow dummy to try to prevent anything in the first place. Dummy should be an agent, not a guardian (with a possible exception for refusing to revoke).

I am thinking that there is merit in an admonition against preventing an irregularity yet there is merit in preventing irregularities though I am not decided about it. The important argument being just what does preventing an irregularity entail. I can visualize justifying various behaviors in the name of prevention that could even turn the stomach of the staunchest cheat let alone those of good morals. However the case for permitting dummy to prevent a POOT seems to have better merit than its forbidding (minimize litigation while minimal effect on the fall of the cards) for the reason that it would seem helpful to the other side if it were the opponent preparing to infract while if declarer it likely aids his side only if declarer was about to make a bridge error.

Also, I am thinking that the principle that dummy is declarer's agent is right headed and probably is sound enough to carry all the way through: so speaking to the notion that it is right for dummy to choose to stop being an agent of declarer to be his own free agent (and not carry out declarer's instruction to revoke) would break the principle. And for a principle that is a good principle it is a bad thing when breaking the principle is not necessary and - notably in that situation it is not necessary.

[TylerE]

mycroft, on 2023-March-21, 09:11, said:

PesceTom, I see nothing in the Laws saying they can come to any agreement, verbal or otherwise. The quote is "must make the selection without consulting partner." (10C2) I certainly do not believe that consultation requires words. Sure it happens, but still.

How about this. Add three new small cards to the bidding box. They should be blank on white side, with a thick blank border on the other, with say, a checkmark on one, an x on another, and a question mark on the 3rd.

TD instructs the players to take the that matches their preference from the box and place it on the table face down simultaneously. TD flips the cards. ? = No preference, defer to partner. If both defer, that's a no.

[blackshoe]

This has rapidly come to "what should the laws say?" rather than "what do the laws say?" I'm probably going to split the thread... tomorrow. I'm too tired right now.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-March-21, 11:28, said:

How does dummy legally refuse to revoke under current law? (Granting that the law could be changed).

He doesn't, which is ironic given how much more apppropriate it seems than the ill-conceived powers to meddle that he is currently conceded (such as attempting to stop Declarer from making a POOT or asking about his potential revoke).
My point was the irony of this contrast, rather than a request to allow him to refuse to revoke.
I don't have strong feelings either way on not revoking: on the one hand it would be logical to allow him to refuse to revoke (or better, make it an infraction to comply with Declarer's request) but on the other hand it creates a perhaps dangerous exception to the desirable principle of being a passive agent, as axman points out.

axman, on 2023-March-21, 12:07, said:

Also, I am thinking that the principle that dummy is declarer's agent is right headed and probably is sound enough to carry all the way through: so speaking to the notion that it is right for dummy to choose to stop being an agent of declarer to be his own free agent (and not carry out declarer's instruction to revoke) would break the principle. And for a principle that is a good principle it is a bad thing when breaking the principle is not necessary and - notably in that situation it is not necessary.

Stop there, we actually agree up to this point

[pescetom]

TylerE, on 2023-March-21, 21:39, said:

How about this. Add three new small cards to the bidding box. They should be blank on white side, with a thick blank border on the other, with say, a checkmark on one, an x on another, and a question mark on the 3rd.

TD instructs the players to take the that matches their preference from the box and place it on the table face down simultaneously. TD flips the cards. ? = No preference, defer to partner. If both defer, that's a no.

Neat idea. TD could use the existing Green Pass (Yes), Red X (No), Blue XX (Defer) cards as traffic lights, without any unlikely new cards.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-March-21, 09:11, said:

[*]PesceTom, I see nothing in the Laws saying they can come to any agreement, verbal or otherwise. The quote is "must make the selection without consulting partner." (10C2) I certainly do not believe that consultation requires words. Sure it happens, but still. My usual line is "Either opponent may, without partner's assistance, accept or refuse the lead. If no one makes a choice, the lead will be refused." (paraphrase of last bit of 53A)

The quote is that they must not consult, but then somehow we reach the point when one or both has expressed a choice, possibly conflicting. Exactly how is not defined and the only certainty is that it is likely to be neither quick nor pretty. Even if we are only talking about an a priori agreement between the defenders that after Declarer's POOT parther on right speaks first and then partner on left has the final word (which seems smart, given the law) then remember that such an agreement may not be legal in many RAs (in any case, why not just make it the prescribed procedure in the first place?).

mycroft, on 2023-March-21, 09:11, said:

But on that note, apart from the technical violation of (one of the most important) Laws, is there any way that what I did could be of benefit to my side rather than protecting the opponents? I don't see it, but I'm Biased™.

I would say that it is very unlikely. Maybe if you know opponents are not alert and you think Declarer's POOT accepted would actually benefit them?

[axman]

pescetom, on 2023-March-22, 10:00, said:

Stop there, we actually agree up to this point

Against your admonition I have this compulsion to point out that right headed ideas/good ones do not exist in a vacuum. When nestled against wrong headed ideas the infection rarely never goes in a desirable direction so the good idea turns into a bad one.

[mycroft]

Ah, we handle that with a "first to speak rules" comment, which I didn't include in my quoted patter. Sorry.

Yes, there will be the "you go, no you go" silence, and sure, technically consultation, but that's why we wait sufficiently long for the "I don't know if I'm wearing a green or red hat" game to finish and then say "okay, nobody has stated a preference, we're refusing the lead."