[BudH]

A few days ago, a player asked me if, during the auction, a player could verbally tell his partner "STOP" to prevent him from making a call out of rotation.

Considering the wording in Law 9A3 ("Any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)", it appears during the auction anyone is allowed to try to prevent any player (partner or opponent) from committing an irregularity.

Law 42B2: "He (dummy) may try to prevent any irregularity."

So it appears to me any player can try to prevent any other player from committing an irregularity, during the auction or the play. (Of course, if the irregularity has already occurred, dummy must stay silent.)

Is the above correct? Or have I missed something?

[pran]

BudH, on 2018-April-22, 16:09, said:

A few days ago, a player asked me if, during the auction, a player could verbally tell his partner "STOP" to prevent him from making a call out of rotation.

Considering the wording in Law 9A3 ("Any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)", it appears during the auction anyone is allowed to try to prevent any player (partner or opponent) from committing an irregularity.

Law 42B2: "He (dummy) may try to prevent any irregularity."

So it appears to me any player can try to prevent any other player from committing an irregularity, during the auction or the play. (Of course, if the irregularity has already occurred, dummy must stay silent.)

Is the above correct? Or have I missed something?

The only thing you may be missing is that the player cannot attempt to prevent another player's irregularity that is not (somehow) in progress.

A call out of rotation might for instance be in progress if the offender (to become) reaches for the bid box or appears to start saying something that could be a spoken call.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-April-23, 02:30, said:

The only thing you may be missing is that the player cannot attempt to prevent another player's irregularity that is not (somehow) in progress.

Where is that stated?

Some dummies use the right to prevent an irregularity as an excuse for reminding declarer of which hand he's in before each trick when he or dummy is on lead. This is prohibited under your understanding; he'd have to wait until it seems that declarer is about to lead from the wrong hand: either starting to detach a card from his hand, or starting to call a card from dummy (probably only possible if he prefaces it with something like "Play the" and dummy can say "you're in your hand" before the card is named). But does the Law actually say this?

I agree that this is what was probably the intent, or that it should be. Repeatedly reminding declarer of something seems to slip over into "participating in the play" territory.

[pran]

pran, on 2018-April-23, 02:30, said:

The only thing you may be missing is that the player cannot attempt to prevent another player's irregularity that is not (somehow) in progress.

A call out of rotation might for instance be in progress if the offender (to become) reaches for the bid box or appears to start saying something that could be a spoken call.

barmar, on 2018-April-23, 09:11, said:

Where is that stated?

For instance

Law 74B2 said:

[As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:]
making gratuitous comments during the auction and play

barmar, on 2018-April-23, 09:11, said:

Some dummies use the right to prevent an irregularity as an excuse for reminding declarer of which hand he's in before each trick when he or dummy is on lead. This is prohibited under your understanding; he'd have to wait until it seems that declarer is about to lead from the wrong hand: either starting to detach a card from his hand, or starting to call a card from dummy (probably only possible if he prefaces it with something like "Play the" and dummy can say "you're in your hand" before the card is named). But does the Law actually say this?

I agree that this is what was probably the intent, or that it should be. Repeatedly reminding declarer of something seems to slip over into "participating in the play" territory.

[barmar]

It's not "gratuitous" if it's to prevent an irregularity, since that's a right explicitly granted.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-April-24, 08:39, said:

It's not "gratuitous" if it's to prevent an irregularity, since that's a right explicitly granted.

So in your opinion it is quite OK for a player during the auction to "remind" each player each time it his turn to call by saying to him something like "Remember that it is your turn to call now", and similarly during the play for each trick to "remind" the player who has the lead by saying "it is your turn to lead now" and subsequently to each of the other three players in turn to play to that trick "Remember that you must follow suit if you can".

Every single of these utterances fits your condition for being "an attempt to prevent an irregularity", but that certainly does not make them acceptable during a game of bridge.

I maintain that no utterance can be legal under Law 9A3 unless it addresses an irregularity about to happen, i.e. an irregularity in progress.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-April-24, 15:12, said:

So in your opinion it is quite OK for a player during the auction to "remind" each player each time it his turn to call by saying to him something like "Remember that it is your turn to call now", and similarly during the play for each trick to "remind" the player who has the lead by saying "it is your turn to lead now" and subsequently to each of the other three players in turn to play to that trick "Remember that you must follow suit if you can".

Every single of these utterances fits your condition for being "an attempt to prevent an irregularity", but that certainly does not make them acceptable during a game of bridge.

I maintain that no utterance can be legal under Law 9A3 unless it addresses an irregularity about to happen, i.e. an irregularity in progress.

I don't consider those things acceptable (I've already described them as annoying, I think), I just don't see where that qualification is in the Laws.

I've often been accused of interpreting some Laws based on my expectations of the authors' intent, history of the game, common sense. And I'd probably use similar reasoning to agree with you. I was mostly playing Devil's Advocate.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-April-25, 09:22, said:

I don't consider those things acceptable (I've already described them as annoying, I think), I just don't see where that qualification is in the Laws.

I've often been accused of interpreting some Laws based on my expectations of the authors' intent, history of the game, common sense. And I'd probably use similar reasoning to agree with you. I was mostly playing Devil's Advocate.

OK
My answer was (and still is) Law 74B2.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-April-25, 10:20, said:

OK
My answer was (and still is) Law 74B2.

And as I said, it's not clearly spelled out where the line is between 9A3/42B2 and 74B2. You say that it's gratuitous until the irregularity is imminent, but (again as Devil's Advocate) one could counter that having to wait until the last moment would be an unacceptable impediment to exercising the 9A3 right.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-April-26, 09:28, said:

And as I said, it's not clearly spelled out where the line is between 9A3/42B2 and 74B2. You say that it's gratuitous until the irregularity is imminent, but (again as Devil's Advocate) one could counter that having to wait until the last moment would be an unacceptable impediment to exercising the 9A3 right.

Instead of discussing artificial theory please show how (with the current laws) to ban "an attempt to prevent an irregularity" at each and every opportunity when another player is due to make a call or a play.

Alternatively show a specific law change that will accomplish this.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-April-26, 13:37, said:

Instead of discussing artificial theory please show how (with the current laws) to ban "an attempt to prevent an irregularity" at each and every opportunity when another player is due to make a call or a play.

Alternatively show a specific law change that will accomplish this.

Just add some language like your assumption of the intent: "When it appears that a player is about to commit an irregularity, any player (including dummy) may try to prevent it."

We could also add something authorizing the tournament organizer to implement technical measures to prevent irregularities. Some people in the past have suggested that software like BBO makes it a different game because they prevent insufficient bids and calls/plays out of turn, and revokes.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-April-27, 09:39, said:

Just add some language like your assumption of the intent: "When it appears that a player is about to commit an irregularity, any player (including dummy) may try to prevent it."

Sounds like a great improvement to me.

barmar, on 2018-April-27, 09:39, said:

We could also add something authorizing the tournament organizer to implement technical measures to prevent irregularities. Some people in the past have suggested that software like BBO makes it a different game because they prevent insufficient bids and calls/plays out of turn, and revokes.

Software controlled play is the future of bridge; whether or not it is a different game is academic, although I would argue not. I would prefer the laws to encourage or even oblige the prevention of irregularities (when possible) rather than merely authorise it leaving the choice up to RA and organizer. There are also some implementational choices that should be guided by the laws rather than left up to software developers.

[mikestar13]

pescetom, on 2018-April-27, 09:53, said:

Software controlled play is the future of bridge; whether or not it is a different game is academic, although I would argue not. I would prefer the laws to encourage or even oblige the prevention of irregularities (when possible) rather than merely authorise it leaving the choice up to RA and organizer. There are also some implementational choices that should be guided by the laws rather than left up to software developers.

I couldn't agree more. The online laws are in serious need of revision. The standard for software must prohibit all mechanical errors. LOT's and revokes happen when the game is played with physical cards by fallible humans, but are they an essential characteristic of bridge like good/bad judgement in bidding, play, and defense? I say no.

[pescetom]

mikestar13, on 2018-April-27, 10:59, said:

I couldn't agree more. The online laws are in serious need of revision. The standard for software must prohibit all mechanical errors. LOT's and revokes happen when the game is played with physical cards by fallible humans, but are they an essential characteristic of bridge like good/bad judgement in bidding, play, and defense? I say no.

I say clearly no. But there are also issues of how to implement the software where the current laws are hopelessly unclear and unpractical even for non-software tournaments, in areas such as the clarification phase or a claim of remaining tricks.

And yet if the laws don't dictate the software, it will be the software that de-facto dictates the laws.
Tablet-based competition is already a reality and it isn't going to hang around long waiting for decisions from the top.
See for instance this excellent initiative:
The future is already here

[blackshoe]

Perhaps, rather than trying to write a separate law book for online play, the WBF should write a specification for how the software should work. And then perhaps they could include that specification, or its impact, in the general law book. Not sure how that would work, but if they stick to the current law review schedule they have nine years to figure it out.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2018-April-28, 11:18, said:

Perhaps, rather than trying to write a separate law book for online play, the WBF should write a specification for how the software should work. And then perhaps they could include that specification, or its impact, in the general law book. Not sure how that would work, but if they stick to the current law review schedule they have nine years to figure it out.

I would suggest one generic law book, plus an additional specification for each variant: play with cards, play with tablets in a physical venue, play on-line.

If they expect to be able to wait nine years they are out of luck, as I see it. Software won't wait for them to decide and if everyone is using a certain platform then it will become the new de-facto laws.