[pescetom]

South is doing her best in 3♥X after a bidding mishap.
West who doubled already covered the T with Q, almost certainly has the A but might not have J.
South looking at K52 in hand plays 9 from 98 in dummy, East plays 3 in tempo, South plays low and prays: no luck, West confidently covers and leads A.
South sighs and looks at the remaining cards in dummy, but North (who has not quitted his card) quickly interjects "you won the trick in dummy, and that Ace is a penalty card".
The quitted cards are inspected, West did indeed play 7 even though he had obviously decided to play J, as he explains.
West calls Director and explains the above: how do you proceed?

[smerriman]

It doesn't matter what he intended to play.

Quote

47 F 2. Except as this Law specifies, a card once played may not be withdrawn.

None of the other aspects of law 47 apply to the play of the 7, so that stands and the A is a lead out of turn.

Of course, then you have the issue that dummy isn't allowed to draw attention to this.. but 43B3 doesn't apply because of the silly restriction to A2 only, so dummy is liable to be penalized, but the rest proceeds as per a standard lead out of turn, as far as I can tell anyway.

[pescetom]

And if South told you clearly "I was convinced like West that he had played the Jack before leading the Ace and I was about to call hearts from dummy." ?

[smerriman]

That's why the restriction of 43B3 to A2 only is silly; it seems more logical to say play should continue after any breach from dummy.

But it appears that as written, even though dummy wasn't allowed to bring attention to it, the result is attention gets brought to it. And dummy's PP is the only way to compensate..

[blackshoe]

"Dummy's PP" doesn't apply only to dummy.

Attention has been drawn to an irregularity (Law 9) so the director should be called (Law 9 again). The director must rule on the LOOT -- the fact that it was dummy who called attention to it, and that dummy is prohibited from doing so (Law 9 says "may not"; so does Law 43) doesn't change the director's duty.

As has been said, the play of the 7 may not be changed (Law 47). The Ace LOOT becomes a major penalty card (Law 56, Law 50) unless declarer decides to accept it (IMO he shouldn't). The lead is in dummy. Proceed.

Agree with the PP, btw.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2025-July-08, 10:48, said:

"Dummy's PP" doesn't apply only to dummy.

Attention has been drawn to an irregularity (Law 9) so the director should be called (Law 9 again). The director must rule on the LOOT -- the fact that it was dummy who called attention to it, and that dummy is prohibited from doing so (Law 9 says "may not"; so does Law 43) doesn't change the director's duty.

As has been said, the play of the 7 may not be changed (Law 47). The Ace LOOT becomes a major penalty card (Law 56, Law 50) unless declarer decides to accept it (IMO he shouldn't). The lead is in dummy. Proceed.

Agree with the PP, btw.

I fully agree that a PP to Dummy is due (this is a "shall not" clause of law and West was an experienced player) although I seem to be in a minority amongst Italian TDs I have questioned

I agree that is is a legitimate to rule this as a simple LOOT and penalize the Ace, proceed
But I also think it is far from the spirit of the Laws, given the situation.
South if asked will to make it clear that without the infraction by Dummy, she would have called trump from Dummy, accepting the LOOT.
Even now, I would agree, TD cannot oblige her to do so.
But could Dummy have been aware at the time of his irregularity that it could well damage the non-offending side?
I would say not only that he could have been, but almost surely that he was was, even if he perceived the other side as offending and damage to them as damage avoided to his own side.

[blackshoe]

Interesting view. I don't think 72C applies.

[pescetom]

Thanks, that was the main question of the post.
Curious to hear other opinions.

[blackshoe]

Pescetom has a reconciliation problem with my ruling on this thread compared to my ruling on this other thread.

I don't see the problem. This thread was about a problem during the play. The other was about a problem during the auction. Different problems, different laws.

In this case, the problem (a LOOT only noticed by dummy) was exacerbated by dummy illegally calling attention to it. I didn't let that slide -- I gave him a PP. But maybe there's another approach. Let's see… Laws 42 and 43 both prohibit dummy from calling attention to an irregularity. These are serious prohibitions -- "may not" -- which is why he rates a PP. No rectification for dummy's infraction is specified in the laws, and the director is required to deal with any irregularity of which he becomes aware (see Law 81). So all we do with dummy's infraction is give him a PP, and then we deal with the LOOT. That happened; we can't just ignore it. We can't rule that the lead stands because declarer "was about to play from dummy". So the lead reverts to dummy, and the Ace is a major penalty card.

In the other case, somebody had a brain fart and passed an ostensibly forcing bid. He wanted to change his pass once he realized he screwed up, but he can't -- the law allows a change only if he thought he had a bid card in hand and the pass card was a complete surprise. When he passed, he wasn't thinking "I want to bid 5♦" or whatever, he was thinking "I want to pass". So he doesn't get to change it.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2025-July-11, 12:53, said:

Pescetom has a reconciliation problem with my ruling on this thread compared to my ruling on this other thread.

I don't see the problem. This thread was about a problem during the play. The other was about a problem during the auction. Different problems, different laws.

In this case, the problem (a LOOT only noticed by dummy) was exacerbated by dummy illegally calling attention to it. I didn't let that slide -- I gave him a PP. But maybe there's another approach. Let's see… Laws 42 and 43 both prohibit dummy from calling attention to an irregularity. These are serious prohibitions -- "may not" -- which is why he rates a PP. No rectification for dummy's infraction is specified in the laws, and the director is required to deal with any irregularity of which he becomes aware (see Law 81). So all we do with dummy's infraction is give him a PP, and then we deal with the LOOT. That happened; we can't just ignore it. We can't rule that the lead stands because declarer "was about to play from dummy". So the lead reverts to dummy, and the Ace is a major penalty card.

In the other case, somebody had a brain fart and passed an ostensibly forcing bid. He wanted to change his pass once he realized he screwed up, but he can't -- the law allows a change only if he thought he had a bid card in hand and the pass card was a complete surprise. When he passed, he wasn't thinking "I want to bid 5♦" or whatever, he was thinking "I want to pass". So he doesn't get to change it.

Thanks. I still think that the two problems do have in common the theme of following the Laws literally versus following their spirit.

In this case, a Taliban will have no doubt, Declarer did not accept the LOOT and so the Ace is penalized and NS gain a trick that (by admission of S) they would not have obtained had Dummy not committed the infraction.
A more liberal TD might be ready to apply L72C here (and yes it is unusual to apply it, but if not here where the wrongdoer is about to benefit knowingly, then when?).

In the other case, a Taliban will have no doubt, "someone" has not yet called by exposing a bidding card and now may make any call he wants, although there is an accusation that he received UI from partner which must be evaluated and if we buy it will lead to L16 evaluation.
A more liberal TD would probably rule that decades of bad directing have conceded that tapping twice on table (or returning bidding cards, or whatever) is equivalent to passing.

I just found it hard to reconcile your two rulings, at least without any admitted torment about either.

[Thranduil]

The rules are rather clear on this case. The Dummy gets a PP for law 43A1/2 and the Ace is a simple LOOT.

However, as a TD I would not necessarely award a PP to dummy for calling out the infraction, my decision would be dependant on the circumstances, most notably how experienced dummy and declarer are. Law 43 is a rule I don't view as strict as the other rules - when an experienced player plays with a new player, it should be okay for the experienced player to call out irregularities and to call the TD as a dummy, simply to protect their newbie partner. New players might miss irregularities and even if they catch them, they might be afraid of calling the TD. And some unpleasant oopponents might try to take advantage of that to get away without penalties for their irregularities.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't give dummy a PP for a first offense. I would tell him what the penalty will be the next time he does it.

[pescetom]

Thranduil, on 2025-July-24, 06:54, said:

The rules are rather clear on this case. The Dummy gets a PP for law 43A1/2 and the Ace is a simple LOOT.

However, as a TD I would not necessarely award a PP to dummy for calling out the infraction, my decision would be dependant on the circumstances, most notably how experienced dummy and declarer are. Law 43 is a rule I don't view as strict as the other rules - when an experienced player plays with a new player, it should be okay for the experienced player to call out irregularities and to call the TD as a dummy, simply to protect their newbie partner. New players might miss irregularities and even if they catch them, they might be afraid of calling the TD. And some unpleasant oopponents might try to take advantage of that to get away without penalties for their irregularities.

I'm not concerned if another TD decides not to award a PP for L43, although I do find odd your willingness to give rope to an experienced dummy "protecting" their partner: I would do the contrary, as I suspect would blackshoe and most other TDs too. An experienced dummy should know the rules here and an intentional violation of law even if willing to accept the consequences is a serious infraction of its own, independent of L43.

I am concerned about whether the rules are really "rather clear" on this case (hence the post). L72C exists and I would be curious to know exactly why anyone thinks it is not applicable here.

[mycroft]

There are two infractions on the hand. I am quite happy to say that they cancel each other out. You can accept the ♥A, or you can lead from the board. The ♥A is a major penalty card unless the director designates otherwise (50), and doing so is a reasonable and appropriate way to restore equity for dummy's infraction.

One could argue that "without the comment declarer would likely not have noticed and played to the ♥A, so we will assign a score to the declaring side as if the LOOT had been accepted" (but ensure that the previous trick is scored for declarer, as it was at the table). The opponents get the score that would have occurred had declarer noticed (didn't win the trick, MPC, etc.) But even as someone happier than many to give double-bad rulings, especially if they accomplish the necessary education as a side-effect, this seems excessive. And means I have to do extra work with special scores and the like.

Yes, the law about dummy (43B2, 43B3) is stupid. I have pointed that out to the PTB several times, including pre-2017. I hope they will do something about it for 2027 so that the Law reads the way we rule, which is that "after violation of the limitations listed in A2" simply does not exist in either law (frankly, because it conflicts with 43A1b and43A1c).

(*)"I agree, your partner might have noticed. But you were so concerned he wasn't going to that you just had to say something. So clearly *you* were concerned he wouldn't have. Next time, you'll be a good dummy and give partner the chance to get it right, won't you?"

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2025-July-24, 17:41, said:

Yes, the law about dummy (43B2, 43B3) is stupid. I have pointed that out to the PTB several times, including pre-2017. I hope they will do something about it for 2027 so that the Law reads the way we rule, which is that "after violation of the limitations listed in A2" simply does not exist in either law (frankly, because it conflicts with 43A1b and43A1c).

Perhaps TPTB have not done something about this because they disagree with you. As do I.

LAW 42 DUMMY’S RIGHTS
A. Absolute Rights
1. Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director’s presence, as to fact or law.
2. He may keep count of tricks won and lost.
3. He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed and ensures that dummy follows suit (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play).
B. Qualified Rights
Dummy may exercise other rights subject to the limitations stated in Law 43.
1. Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led.
2. He may try to prevent any irregularity.
3. He may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded.

LAW 43 DUMMY’S LIMITATIONS
Except as Law 42 allows:
A. Limitations on Dummy
1.(a) Dummy may not initiate a call for the Director during play unless another player has drawn attention to an irregularity.
(b) Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.
(.c) Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.
2.(a) Dummy may not exchange hands with declarer.
(b) Dummy may not leave his seat to watch declarer’s play of the hand.
(.c) Dummy may not look at the face of a card in either defender’s hand.
3. A defender may not show dummy his hand.
B. If Violation Occurs
1. Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 and A2.
2. If dummy, after his violation of the limitations listed in A2:
(a) warns declarer not to lead from the wrong hand, either defender may choose the hand from which declarer shall lead.
(b) is the first to ask declarer if a play from declarer’s hand constitutes a revoke, declarer must substitute a correct card if his play was illegal, and the provisions of Law 64 then apply as if the revoke had been established.
3. If dummy after his violation of the limitations listed in A2 is the first to draw attention to a defender’s irregularity, there is no immediate rectification. Play continues as though no irregularity had occurred. At the end of play if the defending side has gained through its irregularity the Director adjusts only its score, taking away that advantage. The declaring side retains the score achieved at the table.

Law 42 delineates Dummy's rights. Law 43A1 establishes limitations on the qualified rights in Law 42B. The Law does not provide a rectification for Dummy's violation of the limitations on Dummy's qualified rights except when dummy violates 43A2, at which point the rectifications in 43B3 come into play. I don't see a conflict here. I will grant that violations of 43A2 are rare in Duplicate Bridge, but they were fairly common, as I recall, back in my Rubber Bridge days. The rarity may be a reason to eliminate this law (43B) or it may not. In any case I wouldn't call the law "stupid".

[mycroft]

Anyone who believes that dummy should be off the hook just because they didn't get up and look at declarer's cards shouldn't be playing bridge.

I 100% do not believe that 43B is a stupid law. I think the literal phrase I quoted is, and I know that most often we rule as if those words do not exist; and that the players are happier for it.

I expected those words to be removed in 2017, and I believe it was an oversight (the WBFLC just assumed that "public review" would only take 2 months and not catch anything that wasn't just "bad spelling or unclear wording", and were absolutely thrown against the wall by the number of critical, *fundamental* issues brought up, many of which they punted to 2027 simply because there wasn't time to even review if it was something worth considering.)

I expect these words to be removed in 2027, as they both effectively invalidate the Law and leave as the only remedy "dummy is allowed to save declarer from any infraction that will cost their side more than the PP" (or, alternatively, "issue a PP of '1/4 board or gain from the infraction'", which has repeatedly been denigrated as "that's not how PPs work".

If they're not, (which I would also not be surprised at. The Lawmakers do in fact have a reputation for "we know what we mean, so do you, this is good enough for practical purposes". Witness the WBF System Regulations and Alerting Regulations for prime examples of this), then oh well. I'll probably, pedant that I am, push the question specifically to the ACBL C&CC in that case, but there it is.

Having said all that, here is the section on 43B3 from Kooijman's Commentary, my emphasis:

Quote

Both sides create an irregularity. Dummy violates one of the limitations described in A and a
defender violates the proper procedure, for example leads out of turn or plays a card before his
partner has played one. If dummy draws attention to it there is no rectification, but if this leads to
a better score for the defending side the TD takes this advantage away (assigns an adjusted
score). The score for the declaring side is not altered. This creates a split score.

Implicitly this also states that if dummy draws attention to an irregularity by a defender without
offending one of the limitations listed in A, the TD should apply the relevant law or laws and
could award a procedural penalty.

Does that clarify? Well, of course not (when he says "the relevant law" does he mean blackshoe's pattern (give 'em the 'accept or MPC' and penalize them') or mine (the relevant part of 43B)?) But.