[barmar]

I believe 72B1 is talking about infringing a law with forethought, such as intentionally revoking. I would rarely consider invoking the law because someone passively fails to take action.

[bluejak]

Treat each case on its merits, rather than decide on an approach in advance. After all, it is a view that sins of omission are as bad as sins of commission.

[barmar]

I agree with that. However, I expect that most failure to call director situations are relatively benign, and it would be inappropriate to pedantically apply 72B1 against them.

Once in a while failing to call the TD causes things to get worse. If the TD arrives to resolve this new situation, and sees that things could have been much simpler if he'd been called earlier, this might be a good time to invoke 72B1 as a reminder.

[dburn]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-03, 04:01, said:

I agree with all of this. I'm trying to decide whether the "could well damage" condition of L23 is met.

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that a procedural penalty should be applied every time dummy puts his cards down in the wrong order (682 rather than 862, or AKQ723 rather than AKQ732). Procedural penalties, which are for procedural errors, should be applied always or never when the error in question occurs; they should not be used as (partial) redress for damage when there does not appear to be any other Law that grants redress for that damage.

Mind you, I suppose this question might arise: if dummy notices at about trick three that his spades are in the wrong order, what is he supposed to do about it? After all, he may not during the play period be the first to draw attention to an irregularity, even his own...

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 41D: After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy’s right. declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy.

Quote

Introduction to the laws: “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized)

I should think that putting the dummy down in the wrong order should rarely, if ever, draw a PP.

I suppose that if dummy notices at trick three that his cards are out of order he should just keep mum.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-07, 19:00, said:

I suppose that if dummy notices at trick three that his cards are out of order he should just keep mum.

Yep. That seems to be the law, and a great addition to my list

[barmar]

This seems to suggest that even if he notices that he made a mistake immediately after laying down dummy, it's too late for him to fix it himself -- he must get it right the first time. Or is that too SB'ish?

[aguahombre]

 aguahombre, on 2012-August-07, 20:11, said:

Yep. That seems to be the law, and a great addition to my list

 barmar, on 2012-August-08, 08:32, said:

This seems to suggest that even if he notices that he made a mistake immediately after laying down dummy, it's too late for him to fix it himself -- he must get it right the first time. Or is that too SB'ish?

That is my "list" ---laws, or lack of specificity in laws, which the pedantic could use to subvert the game I love and (my idea of) the spirit of the laws. There are two threads currently active on this theme.

For the most part, posters are addressing the inadeqate wording of the laws; this is interesting and productive.

I don't believe anyone is really advocating (here) Dummy leaving the cards missorted, or (there) using the difference between "auction" and "auction period" as an excuse for sleezy behavior.

Another recent thread for my "list" was the one where a player just barely has taken his cards out of the board and wants to ask about a bidding sequence on the previous board.

[Graham_Suf]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-03, 06:38, said:

I think L9A4 protects declarer in this, so it's only dummy's infraction we can adjust/penalise for.

I feel this goes against the spirit of L9a4 which was surely not intended to protect a player from disclosing an ongoing infraction. As declarer was aware that Dummy's cards were not in order, is he in breach of 72.3?

Info: Standard of players, North - county; West - good club player; East - former county.

[blackshoe]

 Graham_Suf, on 2012-August-09, 07:07, said:

I feel this goes against the spirit of L9a4 which was surely not intended to protect a player from disclosing an ongoing infraction. As declarer was aware that Dummy's cards were not in order, is he in breach of 72.3?

Info: Standard of players, North - county; West - good club player; East - former county.

I think we have to rule according to what the law says, not some nebulous concept of what we think its spirit is. As for Law 72B3 (there is no 72.3), no.