BBO Discussion Forums: unethical or not? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

unethical or not? 2/1 ACBL

#1 User is offline   dickiegera 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 568
  • Joined: 2009-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 2016-July-07, 07:01



Partner [WEST[ is in a 6 contract witch is cold.
Lead is the Ace of Hearts
East [Dummy] has 3 of hearts with his diamonds as shown.



On Ace of Hearts lead by North King is played.
South follows and immediately tells West that 3 of diamonds is a heart.
North also holds Q hearts.

Director is called and states that K hearts is played and that is it

South knew from the beginning that 3 of hearts was in with diamonds
but waited till K of hearts was played to draw attention

Is this proper

Thank you
0

#2 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2016-July-07, 07:16

It's not improper. In fact, South need not have said anything at all.

When North leads Q to trick two, and West "trumps" with the 3, he's down 1. If he tries to ruff high, he's revoked in dummy. Attention will be called to this, and he will have to correct it. Again, down 1.

I suppose a slight tinge of sarcasm in West's "thank you partner" at this point might be understandable. B-)
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#3 User is offline   wank 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,866
  • Joined: 2008-July-13

Posted 2016-July-07, 07:17

yes all fine.

dummy putting his hand down wrong is an irregularity. south can draw attention to that irregularity whenever he wishes or not at all.
0

#4 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2016-July-07, 07:21

"Proper" is a big word, but I'm afraid that the K has been played and that 6 is -1.

When dummy tabled, South was aware of an irregularity by the dummy (Law 41D). South doesn't have any duty to draw attention to this irregularity at that point.
West plays the K. That was the card he intended to play and it is the card that is played and cannot be changed.
After that, South draws attention to dummy's irregularity. The TD should be called and he will instruct the dummy to properly arrange his cards after which play continues. This means that North is allowed to cash his Q now.

I cannot imagine that I would intentionally do this as a South player, but there is no law that forces me to act when I know about an opponent's irregularity. If I know that an opponent has revoked, I will not mention that if leaving the opponents in the dark can give me an advantage. I don't think that is unethical at all. (Otherwise I obviously wouldn't do it.)

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
1

#5 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2016-July-07, 07:24

View Postblackshoe, on 2016-July-07, 07:16, said:

It's not improper. In fact, South need not have said anything at all.

That's not entirely true. South did need to say something to wake up North to cash the Q. North might have thought -just like West- that the K was singleton. Then he might switch and let the contract through. (Some North players might do that anyway. ;) )

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#6 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-July-07, 08:18

View PostTrinidad, on 2016-July-07, 07:24, said:

That's not entirely true. South did need to say something to wake up North to cash the Q. North might have thought -just like West- that the K was singleton.

I believe blackshoe was talking about his legal (and ethical) requirement.

Although I suppose you could say that since the Laws say you have to try to get the best score, then it may be required to achieve that. Although just about anything in the play involves judgement calls.

#7 User is offline   ggwhiz 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Joined: 2008-June-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-July-07, 08:19

View PostTrinidad, on 2016-July-07, 07:24, said:

South did need to say something to wake up North to cash the Q.
Rik


Not if declarer held the Q. South (who doesn't know where it is) pointing the irregularity out now may have allowed the contract to make instead of waiting for the (almost) inevitable revoke. That is hardly unethical.
When a deaf person goes to court is it still called a hearing?
What is baby oil made of?
0

#8 User is offline   robert2734 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 2016-February-16

Posted 2016-July-07, 10:39

There's no penalty if the dummy revokes. All three (I guess four) players are equally responsible for irregularities in the dummy. I don't have my rule book handy but it seems like the defenders have a duty to ensure the dummy has the proper number of cards correctly sorted.
0

#9 User is offline   ggwhiz 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Joined: 2008-June-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-July-07, 10:58

View Postrobert2734, on 2016-July-07, 10:39, said:

There's no penalty if the dummy revokes.


Really? What if a 2nd heart is played and declarer pitches a black card while winning in hand or/and then starts ruffing hearts with high trumps.
When a deaf person goes to court is it still called a hearing?
What is baby oil made of?
0

#10 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2016-July-07, 11:47

View Postrobert2734, on 2016-July-07, 10:39, said:

There's no penalty if the dummy revokes.

View Postggwhiz, on 2016-July-07, 10:58, said:

Really? What if a 2nd heart is played and declarer pitches a black card while winning in hand or/and then starts ruffing hearts with high trumps.

Never, ever forget Law 64C in revoke situations!
0

#11 User is offline   robert2734 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 2016-February-16

Posted 2016-July-07, 13:02

View Postggwhiz, on 2016-July-07, 10:58, said:

Really? What if a 2nd heart is played and declarer pitches a black card while winning in hand or/and then starts ruffing hearts with high trumps.


Rule 64B3. If the defenders let him do it it lives. No rectification.
0

#12 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2016-July-07, 14:01

View Postggwhiz, on 2016-July-07, 10:58, said:

Really? What if a 2nd heart is played and declarer pitches a black card while winning in hand or/and then starts ruffing hearts with high trumps.

View Postpran, on 2016-July-07, 11:47, said:

Never, ever forget Law 64C in revoke situations!

View Postrobert2734, on 2016-July-07, 13:02, said:

Rule 64B3. If the defenders let him do it it lives. No rectification.


There shall certainly be a rectification (effective for both sides) taking away any gain to the offending side from the revoke.
0

#13 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2016-July-07, 15:07

No rectification as in 64A does not mean no rectification at all. As Sven says, there is still 64C.

Yes, I was talking about legal and ethical requirements.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#14 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,055
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2016-July-07, 17:37

I have been told, and have ruled (and have been appealed on), and ISTR something on the ACBL web site, that "everyone is responsible for dummy" is an old wives' tale, and that if dummy is put down improperly (per L41D) and that misleads the defenders into a misplay, we will restore equity.

As a result, even if South waited until the end of the hand to point it out (or waited until declarer tried to play the "3 of diamonds"), should North have had the Q and not cashed it because it "wasn't cashing", we'd still adjust to -1 - because we won't protect *declarer* for partner's mistake.

The timing is...not what I would have chosen. South's conduct was...something I would remember for next time. But legal and proper, and South may not have known that they would have been protected later if she didn't point it out now.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#15 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-July-08, 08:21

View Postblackshoe, on 2016-July-07, 15:07, said:

No rectification as in 64A does not mean no rectification at all. As Sven says, there is still 64C.

So the director should restore equity, but the automatic transfer of tricks based on 64A is not done.

I suppose he could also give dummy a PP for failing to put down his cards properly, a violation of 41D.

#16 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2016-July-08, 11:25

View Postblackshoe, on 2016-July-07, 15:07, said:

No rectification as in 64A does not mean no rectification at all. As Sven says, there is still 64C.

View Postbarmar, on 2016-July-08, 08:21, said:

So the director should restore equity, but the automatic transfer of tricks based on 64A is not done.

I suppose he could also give dummy a PP for failing to put down his cards properly, a violation of 41D.

Well, technically, the correct way of describing it would be:

The automatic transfer of tricks based on 64A is not done, but the director should restore equity.

(And I don't fancy handing out PPs for every accident except when they are malicious.)
0

#17 User is offline   robert2734 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 2016-February-16

Posted 2016-July-08, 12:00

There is no offending side. Everyone is equally responsible for watching the dummy revoke in front of him and doing nothing. We can have the director restore equity i. e. tell you how many tricks you should have taken but I don't know what we need players for.
0

#18 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2016-July-08, 14:04

View Postrobert2734, on 2016-July-08, 12:00, said:

There is no offending side. Everyone is equally responsible for watching the dummy revoke in front of him and doing nothing. We can have the director restore equity i. e. tell you how many tricks you should have taken but I don't know what we need players for.

Where have you found that everyone is equally responsible for watching the dummy ..... ? I know of no law to that effect.

View Postrobert2734, on 2016-July-07, 10:39, said:

There's no penalty if the dummy revokes. All three (I guess four) players are equally responsible for irregularities in the dummy. I don't have my rule book handy but it seems like the defenders have a duty to ensure the dummy has the proper number of cards correctly sorted.

You had better find your rule book and look it up.

And there is certainly an offending side here: (Presumed) Dummy violating Law 41D and Declarer violating Law 44C.
0

#19 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,666
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2016-July-11, 03:35

View Postdickiegera, on 2016-July-07, 07:01, said:

South knew from the beginning that 3 of hearts was in with diamonds but waited till K of hearts was played to draw attention

Out of interest how do you know this? It sometimes happen that a player does not notice something like this immediately but does after a certain time or after something changes (such as the king being played).
(-: Zel :-)

Happy New Year everyone!
0

#20 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2016-July-11, 05:00

View Postdickiegera, on 2016-July-07, 07:01, said:

South knew from the beginning that 3 of hearts was in with diamonds
but waited till K of hearts was played to draw attention

View PostZelandakh, on 2016-July-11, 03:35, said:

Out of interest how do you know this? It sometimes happen that a player does not notice something like this immediately but does after a certain time or after something changes (such as the king being played).

And whether or not South "knew" is irrelevant.

There is no law in Bridge that requires (or even recommends) that a player draws attention to an opposing player's irregularity.
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users