[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2016-July-11, 05:00, said:

And whether or not South "knew" is irrelevant.

it may be irrelevant with respect to the correct ruling in this case but perhaps not in terms of how (s)he is viewed by others in the club, as evidenced by mycroft's post (#14). And sometimes things get put down to gamesmanship that are in reality nothing more than stupidity or ignorance. If you encountered such a case, I daresay that you would choose to have a word with the reporter about it.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2016-July-11, 08:18, said:

it may be irrelevant with respect to the correct ruling in this case but perhaps not in terms of how (s)he is viewed by others in the club, as evidenced by mycroft's post (#14). And sometimes things get put down to gamesmanship that are in reality nothing more than stupidity or ignorance. If you encountered such a case, I daresay that you would choose to have a word with the reporter about it.

What Mycroft says in that post is (AFAICS) the obvious fact that a defender is protected against damage from Dummy's violation of Law 41D. This of course depends on that defender claiming such damage when he becomes aware of the damage, not necessarily already when he became aware of the violation as such if that was earlier.

Also observe Law 11A which protects an ignorant non-offending side from forfeiting redress in certain situations.

I fail to see how his post (or in fact anything in the laws) can be taken to justify any bad feelings against a player who does not call attention to an irregularity, regardless of his possible reasons for such action or lack of action.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps you missed the part to which I was referring pran:

mycroft, on 2016-July-07, 17:37, said:

The timing is...not what I would have chosen. South's conduct was...something I would remember for next time.

If enough people, or in many clubs just the right people, have such "memories", things can get difficult in a bridge club quickly. And that can happen even to the most ethical. For example, one that happened to me was correcting an explanation that omitted a special case and the opps took the correction to mean I had that special case in my hand. I didn't and they held a grudge about it assuming that it was gamesmanship - which leads us back to this thread.

[mycroft]

Well, what I would remember is that "ah, this is someone who plays [Edit: his opponents] right to the Law" (and "and doesn't know it"). Those people get played right to the Law (and I do know it reasonably well).

There are players who I play right to the Law with, and we're very friendly about it; that's just the way they play and wouldn't expect anything different from anyone else. I actually find it a very comfortable way to play, provided everyone actually knows the Laws. There are players who I play right to the Law with, simply because they won't let others get away with anything; it's still friendly in most cases (and I bet half of them don't even realize what I'm doing), but I don't enjoy it as much and likely neither do they. There are also a couple who I play right to the Law with because otherwise they'd steal me blind with their clever "interpretations" of the laws (specifically Full Disclosure).

I also play midnights. My regular partner and I have come up with a new twist for the next one we play in - we're bringing in a d6, which we roll before each hand. We'll explain if asked...

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2016-July-11, 05:00, said:

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.

Maybe the OP was South. Maybe the OP was told this by South. It might not be relevant to the ruling, but it is an integral part of what the OP wanted to know. And it adds an element to the discussion even though the book answers which have been given are correct either way.

Knowing that the 3 of hearts had been placed with the diamonds, would my personal sense of ethics prevent me from remaining silent and gaining? No, not in this situation.

[Fluffy]

Why did you play ♥K? I asked for small heart!

[dickiegera]

Fluffy, on 2016-July-13, 06:47, said:

Why did you play ♥K? I asked for small heart!

Declarer actually said "play it".

Director is the one who said the King was played

[gordontd]

dickiegera, on 2016-July-13, 07:29, said:

Declarer actually said "play it".

Director is the one who said the King was played

Since declarer thought there was only one heart in dummy, his intention to play that heart seems incontrovertible.