[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2012-July-27, 08:11, said:

I'm not quite sure what people are saying here. It seems they're saying "when a player revokes, and then withdraws the revoke card and replaces it with another, the withdrawal and replacement calls attention to the revoke". I disagreed with that earlier, but I can see that I might have been wrong. I also said earlier that I did not (and I still do not) believe that dummy is still prevented from calling the director about a revoke to which attention has been called, on the grounds that doing so will reveal a second irregularity (the placing of the revoke card back in the revoker's hand). I'm not sure if the rest of you agree with that.

I haven't changed my opinion:

The revoke is of course an irregularity.

If a player withdraws a card he has played and replaces it with another card that is also an irregularity, technically independent of the preceding revoke.

As correct procedure (if nobody calls attention to the revoke) I would at least expect a player (not dummy) to ask him what he thinks he is doing (or words to that effect) to which the answer should probably be something like "Oh, I revoked".

That remark, and not the second irregularity as such is then what calls attention to the revoke.

If none of the active players (excluding dummy) calls attention to either of the two irregularities then I don't see how the second irregularity itself can be considered "calling attention to the first irregularity".

What is the consequence if the offender does not at all mention his revoke when asked about the second irregularity but just "invents" some other reason for it?

Now attention has been called to this second irregularity and Dummy (like any player) is then of course entitled to call the director but only on this irregularity, still not on the revoke. However, any director worth his salt will when called soon discover the revoke and take appropriate action.

This is all very technical, but I strongly believe that we must be careful here.

[Lanor Fow]

Isn't one of dummy's rights to speak as to facts in the presence of the director.

So assuming dummy calls the director after the fact that someone revoked has been established (i agree that the second irregularity doesn't establish the draw attention to the first, but also that in Pran's case with the comment, obvoiusly it has), are they not then able to talk about the second irregularity, despite it not having had attention drawn to it, because of this right?

[blackshoe]

 TimG, on 2012-July-27, 09:26, said:

I'm not 100% confident that you've said what you mean.

I believe that once attention has been drawn to an irregularity, dummy may call the director. I do not believe that concern that such a director call might draw attention to another irregularity should preclude dummy being permitted to call the director.

We're in agreement then.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2012-July-27, 09:48, said:

I haven't changed my opinion:

The revoke is of course an irregularity.

If a player withdraws a card he has played and replaces it with another card that is also an irregularity, technically independent of the preceding revoke.

As correct procedure (if nobody calls attention to the revoke) I would at least expect a player (not dummy) to ask him what he thinks he is doing (or words to that effect) to which the answer should probably be something like "Oh, I revoked".

That remark, and not the second irregularity as such is then what calls attention to the revoke.

If none of the active players (excluding dummy) calls attention to either of the two irregularities then I don't see how the second irregularity itself can be considered "calling attention to the first irregularity".

I agree. Imagine a scenario where the revoker withdraws the card, but the replacement is also a revoke. Has he drawn attention to the fact that the first card was a revoke?

[richlp]

 pran, on 2012-July-27, 09:48, said:

I haven't changed my opinion:

The revoke is of course an irregularity.

If a player withdraws a card he has played and replaces it with another card that is also an irregularity, technically independent of the preceding revoke.

As correct procedure (if nobody calls attention to the revoke) I would at least expect a player (not dummy) to ask him what he thinks he is doing (or words to that effect) to which the answer should probably be something like "Oh, I revoked".

That remark, and not the second irregularity as such is then what calls attention to the revoke.

If none of the active players (excluding dummy) calls attention to either of the two irregularities then I don't see how the second irregularity itself can be considered "calling attention to the first irregularity".

What is the consequence if the offender does not at all mention his revoke when asked about the second irregularity but just "invents" some other reason for it?

Now attention has been called to this second irregularity and Dummy (like any player) is then of course entitled to call the director but only on this irregularity, still not on the revoke. However, any director worth his salt will when called soon discover the revoke and take appropriate action.

This is all very technical, but I strongly believe that we must be careful here.

I agree with just about everything you've said but I need a clarification on one point.
"That remark, and not the second irregularity as such is then what calls attention to the revoke."

Does "that remark" refer to "What are you doing?" or "Oh, I revoked."? I think it is the question itself which draws attention to the irregularity and not the response about the revoke.

[pran]

 richlp, on 2012-July-27, 16:36, said:

I agree with just about everything you've said but I need a clarification on one point.
"That remark, and not the second irregularity as such is then what calls attention to the revoke."

Does "that remark" refer to "What are you doing?" or "Oh, I revoked."? I think it is the question itself which draws attention to the irregularity and not the response about the revoke.

The question "What are you doing" primarily draws attention to the second irregularity (the withdrawal of the card played).

The response "Oh, I revoked" explicitly mentions the revoke and therefore draws attention to it.

A response something like "I didn't intend to play that card" does not mention any revoke and thus does not call attention to the fact that the first played card was a revoke.

So for instance if the withdrawal and replacement is de facto accepted (by inactivity) then a consequence is that no revoke has taken place and the play is completed without any rectification.


And as for Dummy's righte:

Dummy is entitled to call the Director once someone other than himself asks "what are you doing".

But he may not in any way call attention to the fact that the irregularities at the table include a revoke unless some of the other players has first done so.

[aguahombre]

The dummy's Creed: When in doubt, butt out.

[stevenagy]

I find it quite interesting that the word "Attention", occurring no less than a dozen times in the laws of duplicate bridge (8 times on the page we're largely discussing), is never defined.

[barmar]

Which means that we're to use the common definition of "call attention to". The Oxford American Dictionary defines it as "cause people to notice". This definition doesn't necessarily imply active intent, so if withdrawing the card causes people to notice that you revoked, I suppose that would fit the definition.

[Zelandakh]

 barmar, on 2012-July-29, 02:11, said:

Which means that we're to use the common definition of "call attention to".

By that logic, we should also use the dictionary definition of concealing (72B3), one of which is "withdrawing or removing from sight". A second entry reads "keeping secret" which seems to be the definiton preferred by nigel and pran. Using a dictionary definition sometimes raises just as many questions as it answers. Noone seems to have addressed Ed's point from #4 of simply asking the defender why they removed/concealed the revoke card. Similarly, the point from the same post that a ruling of rectification being forfeited "by failure to call the Director in time" is mind-bogglingly wrong.

[bluejak]

 Lanor Fow, on 2012-July-27, 10:59, said:

Isn't one of dummy's rights to speak as to facts in the presence of the director.

So assuming dummy calls the director after the fact that someone revoked has been established (i agree that the second irregularity doesn't establish the draw attention to the first, but also that in Pran's case with the comment, obvoiusly it has), are they not then able to talk about the second irregularity, despite it not having had attention drawn to it, because of this right?

He may give information as to fact or Law, but he may not draw attention to an irregularity. I do not think drawing attention to an irregularity and pretending you are giving information as to fact is really what the Laws have in mind. In general, it is accepted I believe, that dummy should shut up unless the TD asks him questions.

 stevenagy, on 2012-July-28, 23:01, said:

I find it quite interesting that the word "Attention", occurring no less than a dozen times in the laws of duplicate bridge (8 times on the page we're largely discussing), is never defined.

No doubt. But there have been a lot of posts, more especially on BLML or RGB than here, which complain that the Laws do not define some term or other, often a very simple word with a simple meaning that someone has chosen to misinterpret. If the Law book were to define every term they use it would be over twice as long and completely unwieldy.