BBO Discussion Forums: Out of Order - BBO Discussion Forums

 Vampyr, on 2016-August-20, 06:44, said:

Well, then his ever-escalating disciplinary penalty should currently be at about the level of 6 tops.

 blackshoe, on 2016-August-20, 10:34, said:

And yet he still comes to play.

 Vampyr, on 2016-August-20, 12:19, said:

And still continues to call the TD over the most minor irregularity ...

 Trinidad, on 2016-August-20, 01:07, said:

Hmm, the lawbook is full of laws that say when something should happen, but almost none of them specify when it should be completed.

I think the general understanding is that we should treat these things as essentially atomic actions. West does this, then North does that, then East does something else, etc., without overlap unless explicitly allowed.

 Trinidad, on 2016-August-20, 01:07, said:

Let us look at those in turn.

It is clearly an infraction, or Law 41D would not include the phrase "in order of rank".

I don't think a TD needs to be present to correct it. Any of the three players other than dummy can ask for it be corrected. But dummy can't.

It would not normally lead to penalties or score adjustment. It could, for example, if a crucial card was hidden or in the wrong column. Or, as here, when it could have changed declarer's line of play.

 lamford, on 2016-August-21, 11:51, said:

Nice that you reply. You are reading the laws correctly.

But can you now also tell where it says when declarer can call a card from dummy (and when opponents can start playing) or when dummy is supposed to have finished the spreading of the hand? After all, that was the key question that I asked from SB.

Don't tell me that "everybody understands" (like Barmar and Vampyr), because everybody - except for SB - does indeed understand. We all understand because we know what bridge looks like. However, for the SB bridge is defined by the Laws and the Laws only.

So, normal people I treat how they would like to be treated: I would be very understanding... but normal people wouldn't even get the idea of asking for a ruling in such a situation.

And SB I treat how he would like to be treated: By taking the Lawbook literally. SB wouldn't want it any other way ("is there any other way?").

In this case, it is obvious that dummy hadn't yet finished putting his hand down in accordance with law 41D (otherwise the cards would have been in order of rank, wouldn't they?). The fact that the other players started playing before he was finished is not dummy's fault.

Poor dummy! He is supposed to play the cards that declarer calls, keep track of the play to be able to quit the tricks correctly and continue spreading his hand, all at the same time! No wonder it took him four tricks, after the initial confusion, before he caught up. It must have been quite an unpleasant experience. Perhaps declarer and opponents should be penalized under law 74A2, but I'll let them off the hook with a warning. (I know: SB thinks that I am too lenient.)

Rik

Hm. If you did decide not to let folks off the hook for the 74A2 violation, would you give the declarer a PP (10% of a top, say) and also the same to each defender, for a total of 20% of a top to the defending side? After all, each of these three players violated that law. What would SB say to that?

 Trinidad, on 2016-August-21, 12:59, said:

Why do you insist that this is what happened? It is not what happened. If this situation interests you, perhaps you could start a new thread about it.

 Vampyr, on 2016-August-21, 18:13, said:

It did happen. The cards were not in order of rank until trick 4 (or do you dispute that?), hence the spreading of the dummy (according to the Law) was not finished until trick 4.

It follows straight from the Lawbook (if you would read it like a SB).

Rik

 blackshoe, on 2016-August-21, 14:55, said:

I actually wanted this to be an individual. Then I could penalize each player individually.

Rik

 Trinidad, on 2016-August-22, 00:06, said:

Was Dummy's activity with spreading his cards continuous until after trick 4, or was there one or more breaks during which the other players could well believe that he had completed his activity (and that he resumed rather than ontinued this activity after the break)?

 Trinidad, on 2016-August-22, 00:06, said:

As TD responsible for the finding of facts, I found:
a) that dummy completed his 41D obligations (with an error) before declarer played to trick one.
b) that dummy's correction of his error while declarer was thinking after trick four was a clearly separate action. Dummy had played four requested cards in the meantime.
c) that it is always possible for dummy to be aware that the infraction of drawing attention to an original 41D violation in contravention of 9A3 could work to his advantage in that it is usually better for declarer to have a correctly arranged dummy than one with a misplaced card. Dummy should have remained ... a dummy.

 lamford, on 2016-August-22, 06:27, said:

I am looking at SB and he is shaking his head.

If you would think like SB (and when dealing with the SB that is the only way to think) you would know that this is a contradiction in terms: One cannot have completed one's Law 41D obligations if the cards are not in order of rank.

You can keep trying to fit the square peg into the round hole. It won't work.

Rik

 pran, on 2016-August-22, 04:06, said:

Pran, what the other players believed is not relevant. They could all see that the cards were not sorted in rank and that, therefore, spreading the dummy was not completed. Only if they were ignorant of the Laws, or blind, could they believe that spreading the dummy had been completed. Given that SB was playing (with impeccable knowledge of the Laws and a terrific eyesight), it is simply impossible that SB would truely believe that dummy had completed the spreading of the hand.

And, of course, there were breaks: dummy did have to play the cards. But he did an excellent job, since he had already caught up at trick 4!

Rik

 Trinidad, on 2016-August-22, 07:45, said:

OK, have it your way. But in a different thread please, so you can stop causing a distraction in this one?

 Trinidad, on 2016-August-22, 07:36, said:

Drivel, like pretty much everything else you have written on this thread. On that basis the player who does not have 13 cards is still in the act of counting them to make sure that he has thirteen. There is therefore no need for any provision for a missing card, as the person with 12 has not yet finished counting them.

 lamford, on 2016-August-22, 07:58, said:

The real problem with Trinidad's scenario is that while dummy has been supplying cards at the rate of roughly three per trick, it is likely that he has revoked several times. The director will be far too busy attempting to restore equity to have any time to worry about the issue discussed in this thread.

No, the real problem with Rik's scenario is that he is suggesting the TD abdicate his responsibilities to the SB. It is not the SB's job to tell the TD what the laws are. It is not the SB's job to tell the TD how to rule. It is the SB's job to report the facts pertinent to the case, and only those facts. His blustering expositions are neither useful nor desired.

 Trinidad, on 2016-August-22, 07:36, said:

The Law describes the proper procedure, it doesn't define the procedure in general. If you lay out dummy in the wrong order you have completed your 41D obligations, but you did it wrong. Doing something incorrectly is not the same as not completing it. If that weren't true, we couldn't issue PPs for mistakes like this, we would just wait for you to finish doing it correctly.

In the case where one contestant (defenders) has committed two infractions (two separate violations of Law 74A2) it is certainly within the power of the TD to give two PPs to that contestant. That it's not an individual event is irrelevant.