Dummy summons the TD

Ozdeniz

Hello

This is exactly what happened in a club tournament two days ago.
N was in 4sp taking the small heart from hand , Leads a small trump to the dummy W plays a small trump but at the same time
drops HQ accidentally. Dummy gets exited and calls the TD. When The TD comes to the table asks who has called . Dummy says
" I did " . and starts telling what had happened . The TD then ask who has drawn attention to the irregularity. The others stay
silent. The TD just says " carry on playing " and walks away.

Question :
Law 43A1 (a) " Dummy may not initiate a call for the TD during the play unless another player has drawn attention to an irregularity"
So , according to the law ;

1) Is the TD's attitude acceptable ?
2) If it is, what about the infraction ( HQ Major Penalty card)
( law 90 is applicable for Dummy.)

Your comments are very much appreciated.
Regards

Secaaddin Ozdeniz

gordonrainsford

I think you may get more than one answer to this, but my answer, having discussed this whole question at length with a number of top TDs some years ago, is that the first irregularity is dealt with as usual, although you may fine the declaring side for breaching L43A. So if I had been the TD the HQ would have been a major penalty card and I may well have fined NS.

One other thing, I don't think it is sufficient for the TD to say "carry on playing": he needs to be explicit as to whether this is the end of the matter or if there might be a later adjustment.

ais523

There's an EBU-specific ruling for this situation in 8.43.1 in the White Book: "If dummy draws attention to an irregularity, despite Law 43A1 (b), the TD must rule on the irregularity, as if (say) declarer had drawn attention – as required by Law 81C3 (‘becomes aware in any manner’). But the TD should issue a procedural penalty for the breach of Law 43A1."

Note that the ruling is different if dummy has lost their rights: if dummy has violated Law 43A2 (by looking at a card in declarer's or an opponent's hand), then the irregularity isn't corrected at the time of the call, and the Director adjusts away the offenders' (i.e. defenders') advantage at the end of the hand, but doesn't give the benefit of the adjustment to the declaring side. Violations of 43A2 are rare in practice nowadays, though (presumably they were more common in the past).

gordonrainsford

@ais523 said:
There's an EBU-specific ruling for this situation in 8.43.1 in the White Book: "If dummy draws attention to an irregularity, despite Law 43A1 (b), the TD must rule on the irregularity, as if (say) declarer had drawn attention – as required by Law 81C3 (‘becomes aware in any manner’). But the TD should issue a procedural penalty for the breach of Law 43A1."

It sounds as though I persuaded the L&E committee of my view!

Ozdeniz

I have just looked up the 8.43.1 in the White book. İt is stated clearly there what the general approach is supposed to be.

As far as I know the White book belongs to EBU. But I am not sure whether it is also approved by EBL .
Please kindly enlighten me about it.

Thank you very much for your quick comments.
Regards

Secaaddin Ozdeniz

gordonrainsford

@Ozdeniz said:
I have just looked up the 8.43.1 in the White book. İt is stated clearly there what the general approach is supposed to be.

As far as I know the White book belongs to EBU. But I am not sure whether it is also approved by EBL .
Please kindly enlighten me about it.

The White Book contains the regulations of the EBU and so it is not applicable to other organisations, though we do know that a number of them use it and some have a specific regulation that the White Book will apply whenever the organisation does not have a regulation of its own for a situation.