[barmar]

 pran, on 2018-March-26, 02:12, said:

When I passed my exams as district TD back in 1980 and further as national TD in 1984 the difference was said to be:
A district TD is assumed capable to apply the laws while a national director is assumed to also understand the laws.

Yeah, I suspect there's some actual training for ACBL-employeed TDs. But the vast majority of directors are club directors, for which the bar is very low.

I took the class 15-20 years ago, and at that time they spent a decent amount of time on matchpointing by hand. I suspect these days much of the class is devoted to learning how to get around ACBLScore, not the Laws.

[bixby]

 pran, on 2018-March-24, 11:47, said:

If Dummy, before Declarer indicates any intention to lead to a trick, reminds Declarer which hand (Dummy or Declarer) has the lead then Dummy is not preventing an irregularity, he is violating [Law 43A1C].

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I don't see where you're getting that. Leading from the wrong hand is an irregularity, and reminding declarer where the lead is therefore constitutes trying to prevent an irregularity. You have not cited any law that requires that an irregularity be likely before dummy may try to prevent it. All you have cited is the law that says that dummy may not participate in the play or communicate anything about the play to declarer, but that law is necessarily limited by dummy's right to try to prevent an irregularity, so I don't see how that law gets us anywhere. We're just back to the question of whether dummy was trying to prevent an irregularity.

If, as dummy puts down his cards, dummy says, "remember, play proceeds clockwise," then dummy is trying to prevent an irregularity. Not a very likely one, perhaps, but again, there is no requirement that the irregularity be likely.

And here's one more point: If, before declarer provides any indication of which hand he is thinking of leading from, dummy says, "the lead is in dummy," then there are two possibilities:

1. Declarer was going to lead from dummy, in which case dummy's remark made no difference, or
2. Declarer was going to lead from his hand, in which case dummy's remark prevented an irregularity.

In either case, how is dummy wrongfully participating in the play?

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2018-March-26, 03:31, said:

That is arguable.

Arguable or simply false?

[pran]

 bixby, on 2018-March-26, 08:30, said:

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I don't see where you're getting that. Leading from the wrong hand is an irregularity, and reminding declarer where the lead is therefore constitutes trying to prevent an irregularity. You have not cited any law that requires that an irregularity be likely before dummy may try to prevent it. All you have cited is the law that says that dummy may not participate in the play or communicate anything about the play to declarer, but that law is necessarily limited by dummy's right to try to prevent an irregularity, so I don't see how that law gets us anywhere. We're just back to the question of whether dummy was trying to prevent an irregularity.

If, as dummy puts down his cards, dummy says, "remember, play proceeds clockwise," then dummy is trying to prevent an irregularity. Not a very likely one, perhaps, but again, there is no requirement that the irregularity be likely.

And here's one more point: If, before declarer provides any indication of which hand he is thinking of leading from, dummy says, "the lead is in dummy," then there are two possibilities:

1. Declarer was going to lead from dummy, in which case dummy's remark made no difference, or
2. Declarer was going to lead from his hand, in which case dummy's remark prevented an irregularity.

In either case, how is dummy wrongfully participating in the play?

With this understanding of Law 9A3 dummy is entitled to prevent irregularities by (for each and every trick) saying to the player who won the last trick:
"Remember that you have the lead to the next trick!"

Dummy is wrongfully participating in the play if he, without any indication that an irregularity is about to happen, makes any remark or comment about the play.