[eoika1782]

Hi all,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question.
I am studying to become a TD in real life and I have come across rule 42A1(b), which states that dummy should not draw attention to an irregularity during the play. I have done an exercise where the scenario is that dummy asks a defender whether he has run out of cards in a suit. The solution to the exercise says: if dummy makes an illegal enquiry of a defender, this is not a violation of 61B and does not cause a revoke to be established. Law 61B2(b) says: dummy may not ask a defender whether he has revoked.
It seems to me that both laws state that dummy should not draw attention to a potential revoke, so I don't understand how asking a defender if he has revoked does not constitute a violation of Law 61B.
Of course, once director is summoned and he sees the irregularity, he deals with it, but dummy should be given procedural penalty, no?

My numbering refers to the English Bridge Union laws.
I hope I am making sense!
thanks for helping

Laura

[barmar]

eoika1782, on 2014-January-19, 17:32, said:

Hi all,
I hope this is the right place to ask this question.

I've moved this from the BBO Tournament Director's Forum to Laws and Rulings, as it is not about directing on BBO -- revokes are not possible in online bridge, so Laws about them are not relevant.

[barmar]

Are you sure you read the solution correctly? You say that it's an "illegal enquiry" -- the reason that it's illegal is that it's a violation of 61B2b, so how can they then say that it's not a violation?

And whether it's a legal inquiry or not has no bearing on whether the revoke is established. Law 63 explains when a revoke becomes established, and asking the player whether they have cards in the suit is not in there.

[campboy]

Hi Laura

You are correct and I suspect that the solution was written before the current (2007) laws.

In the 1997 laws, 61B said

Quote

Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led (but a claim of revoke does not automatically warrant inspection of quitted tricks — see Law 66C). Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2(b)). Defenders may ask declarer but, unless the Zonal organisation so authorises, not one another.

so did not explicitly say that dummy may not ask a defender. The main point of the old 61B was that defenders could not (except in North America) ask each other. The old law 63B said

Quote

When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established.

and so it sounds like the solution you have is trying to say that this does not apply when dummy asks.

[blackshoe]

Just to be clear, the relevant current laws are:

Dummy may not ask a defender if he has a card of the suit led; Law 16B may apply (Law 61B2{b}).
Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during the play (Law 43A1{b}).
Dummy is subject to penalty under Law 90 for a violation of Law 43A1{b}.
"May not" is a very strong prohibition, and should draw a penalty "more often than not" (Introduction to the Law, paraphrased).

The query does not cause a revoke to be established because it meets none of the conditions for establishment of a revoke (which are listed in Law 63).

The query is an infraction of Law 61B2{b}.

My opinion: If dummy is a complete novice with no idea what his rights and limitations are, I would explain those rights and limitations to him and give him a warning. Then I'd make a note to be sure to give him a PP in MPs or IMPs if he does it again. If dummy has enough experience that he should be aware of his rights and limitations, I'd give him the PP now.

Also, attention has been called to a revoke, if indeed the defender has revoked. In such a case, he must correct his revoke (Law 62) if it has not been established (Law 63). If it has been established, the play stands, and the director will apply Law 64 after the play is completed. This all applies regardless of the fact that attention was drawn to the revoke illegally by dummy.