[jerdonald]

BBO,

At a local bridge club today the opponents were
declarer in 4 hearts and about the third trick
my partner was on lead. She looked at the board
and led a diamond up to what she thought was the
Jxxx. Before declarer had a chance to play a card
the dummy pulled the diamond ace out from under the
diamond jack. I immediately called the director
and made the case that my partner would never lead
up to the AJxxx of diamonds. There was no penalty
and the diamond lead was allowed to stand.

Is this the correct ruling?

Thanks for any reply.

jerryd

[blackshoe]

Yes. See Law 47.

Suggestion: Always count dummy's cards. No law requires defenders to do so, but it will avoid these problems.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-20, 19:29, said:

See Law 47.

Suggestion: Always count dummy's cards. No law requires defenders to do so, but it will avoid these problems.

One could be picky with the wording and argue that Law 47 does require the defenders to count dummy's cards, since it allows no remedy in the given scenario. But, who would be that nitpicky?

[jdeegan]

Bridge is supposed to be fun, but the duplicate game does impose a bit of rigor. Recognizing a 12 card hand that is placed face up right in front of you is not an unreasonable demand.

[ddrankin]

I have seen this happen more than a few times over the years. I have also seen the director use his discretionary powers to adjust the score after judging that dummy violated law 41(D), resulting in damage to the defenders.

[barmar]

Speaking of 41D, I notice that it's pretty specific about how the dummy should be laid out, except for one thing. It doesn't say that the cards in a suit should overlap with the lower ranking cards sitting on top of the higher ranking ones (so that the denominations in the corner are right-side up to declarer and the defenders). This is how almost everyone does it, but occasionally you run into players who do it the other way (presumably because this is the way they sort the cards in their hand, and they don't feel like reversing them when they lay down dummy). At a recent tournament we ran into one of them, and my partner asked him to rearrange the cards. He accomodated, but could he have legitimately refused because 41D doesn't require it?

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2011-September-20, 22:43, said:

Speaking of 41D, I notice that it's pretty specific about how the dummy should be laid out, except for one thing. It doesn't say that the cards in a suit should overlap with the lower ranking cards sitting on top of the higher ranking ones (so that the denominations in the corner are right-side up to declarer and the defenders).

I must have read my copy of 41D differently.

[campboy]

The phrase "pointing towards declarer" is not very clear, but I have always interpreted it as meaning that what you describe is required.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-20, 19:29, said:

Yes. See Law 47.

I think your answer only applies to the question of whether the card can be withdrawn. It fails to address the issue of whether there are any penalties. Certainly the law prescribes no specific penalty for this offence, so in that very strict sense there are no penalties. But the law does provide for adjustment of the score in the case of damage. Barmar mentions this possibility, and suggests that the Director should use his discretionary powers. In fact I think the Director can and should adjust the score without use of discretionary powers, rather he should apply the relevant law, which is L23:

"Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity."

It is without question that Dummy could have been aware that concealing an Ace in his hand - an irregularity under L41 as Barmar correctly quotes - could well damage the non-offending side. So the Director must assess whether the offending side has gained an advantage, and, if so, award an adjusted score.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2011-September-20, 22:43, said:

Speaking of 41D, I notice that it's pretty specific about how the dummy should be laid out, except for one thing. It doesn't say that the cards in a suit should overlap with the lower ranking cards sitting on top of the higher ranking ones

This was a question at a recent EBU director course, run by John Pain, and Mike and Sarah Amos, which I am more than happy to recommend. Their opinion (and I think some case law) was that dummy had breached 41D, in that the hand was not "spread", which is interpreted as being placed so that all cards are visible. There is no prescribed penalty for a breach of this Law, so the TD should apply 12A1, and adjust the score to restore equity to the non-offenders.

[aguahombre]

Nice signature. Hope it doesn't apply to the current post.

[blackshoe]

I have no problem with a score adjustment under Law 12A1, if there was damage. However, a score adjustment is not a penalty, whatever some may think. And the OP question was "is this the correct ruling?", which is why I answered as I did.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2011-September-21, 09:41, said:

This was a question at a recent EBU director course, run by John Pain, and Mike and Sarah Amos, which I am more than happy to recommend. Their opinion (and I think some case law) was that dummy had breached 41D, in that the hand was not "spread", which is interpreted as being placed so that all cards are visible. There is no prescribed penalty for a breach of this Law, so the TD should apply 12A1, and adjust the score to restore equity to the non-offenders.

I'm not sure how this relates to my tangential question. The situation I described is not the one in the OP, but is a case where the cards are spread and all visible, just with the pips upside down.

[barmar]

campboy, on 2011-September-21, 02:07, said:

The phrase "pointing towards declarer" is not very clear, but I have always interpreted it as meaning that what you describe is required.

I interpreted it only as meaning the direction of the cards in the suit, but not the way they overlap (lower on top of higher versus higher on top of lower).

[lamford]

barmar, on 2011-September-21, 14:47, said:

I'm not sure how this relates to my tangential question. The situation I described is not the one in the OP, but is a case where the cards are spread and all visible, just with the pips upside down.

OK, I now understand the point I think you are making; I agree that Law 47D seems to allow the whole of the highest card to be visible, rather than the whole of the lowest card, provided the lowest card is nearest declarer. Most cards are broadly symmetrical, so some of the pips will always be upside down, and exactly 37.5% of the pips will be upside down with the modern symmetrical ones (half of the spades, clubs and hearts and none of the diamonds). I think that the Law should be "with the lowest card in a suit completely visible"

[barmar]

I didn't actually mean the pips (the little suit symbols scattered around the card), I meant the pip value -- the letter or number in the top-left corner of the card. In the normal layout, these will be rightside up when viewed by declarer.

[TMorris]

In a similar vein I once was defending & when dummy went down the Ace of diamonds was shown as part of the heart suit. No-one seemed to notice and play continued (well for a while anyhow). All the cards in dummy were shown clearly. Is there an obligation to tell declarer about this? Declarer did not have bad eyesight (in which case I would feel obliged to do so).

[campboy]

TMorris, on 2011-September-28, 04:45, said:

In a similar vein I once was defending & when dummy went down the Ace of diamonds was shown as part of the heart suit. No-one seemed to notice and play continued (well for a while anyhow). All the cards in dummy were shown clearly. Is there an obligation to tell declarer about this? Declarer did not have bad eyesight (in which case I would feel obliged to do so).

No obligation. There's a good reason not to say anything, since presumably when only one person notices it's because they have the ace of hearts*!

*Unless I'm at the table. I did once manage to play three tricks declaring 4♥ before noticing that the trump suit was AKJx opposite KQTx. The pack was defective in that case, which was fortunate as the duplication of values meant there were too many losers outside.

[WellSpyder]

campboy, on 2011-September-28, 05:07, said:

*Unless I'm at the table. I did once manage to play three tricks declaring 4♥ before noticing that the trump suit was AKJx opposite KQTx. The pack was defective in that case, which was fortunate as the duplication of values meant there were too many losers outside.

Oh, I see! That's what they mean by "duplication of values"....

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2011-September-22, 06:55, said:

Most cards are broadly symmetrical, so some of the pips will always be upside down, and exactly 37.5% of the pips will be upside down with the modern symmetrical ones (half of the spades, clubs and hearts and none of the diamonds).

This is incorrect. In modern cards the center pip of an odd-numbered card is neither upside-down or right-side up.