[lamford]

 barmar, on 2017-April-24, 09:47, said:

I'd even suggest that knowingly giving an incorrect answer to "having none?" is a violation of these two laws.

I would agree, also because of 62A: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." However, the Toucan could have worked out that RR had probably revoked, probably with the QH as RR had played the jack on the previous round and the ten was in dummy, and that it was probably not in his side's interests to ask "having none?" as the MPC would be more expensive than the revoke penalty.

Ask no questions and hear no lies ...

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2017-April-25, 07:29, said:

I would agree, also because of 62A: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." However, the Toucan could have worked out that RR had probably revoked, probably with the QH as RR had played the jack on the previous round and the ten was in dummy, and that it was probably not in his side's interests to ask "having none?" as the MPC would be more expensive than the revoke penalty.

Ask no questions and hear no lies ...

Most players who ask "having none?" do it reflexively, not depending on whether it's in their side's interest. In fact, if you're not consistent in it, there could be UI implications.

I'm not an asker, but my partner is. And he even asks on the 4th round of a suit, everyone having followed to the first 3.

Which raises an interesting question. If I were to follow to the 4th round, implying a fouled board, should he ask "having some?"

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2017-April-25, 08:40, said:

Most players who ask "having none?" do it reflexively, not depending on whether it's in their side's interest. In fact, if you're not consistent in it, there could be UI implications.

I'm not an asker, but my partner is. And he even asks on the 4th round of a suit, everyone having followed to the first 3.

Which raises an interesting question. If I were to follow to the 4th round, implying a fouled board, should he ask "having some?"

LOL

Around here it is fairly normal for Dummy to ask, but not usually defenders. So if partner shows up with the 14th card of the suit, is dummy allowed to comment? I suspect not.

If it is the defenders, and they ask "reflexively", that is to say always, I don't care what they do, as I am not attending that game for the sake of my sanity.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2017-April-25, 08:40, said:

Most players who ask "having none?" do it reflexively, not depending on whether it's in their side's interest. In fact, if you're not consistent in it, there could be UI implications.

I cannot see any UI in whether someone asks, as it is "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations". It is different to questions about an artificial bid, which obviously can give UI that you are thinking of bidding depending on the response. I can see some form of illegal communication in "having none?" in a quizzical manner in that you are surprised that partner has shown out as that means the 1NT opener has 8 clubs.

[weejonnie]

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-25, 09:03, said:

LOL

Around here it is fairly normal for Dummy to ask, but not usually defenders. So if partner shows up with the 14th card of the suit, is dummy allowed to comment? I suspect not.

If it is the defenders, and they ask "reflexively", that is to say always, I don't care what they do, as I am not attending that game for the sake of my sanity.

Definitely not! Dummy may not draw attention to any irregularity (this has been strengthened from 'should not' in the new laws). (Although he may attempt to prevent any irregularity (by any player not just declarer in the new rules.)). He can only draw attention the regularity when he ceases being dummy (now defined as when play ceases) - NB :this means that when a claim is made, dummy remains dummy while play is suspended and so cannot draw attention to any irregularity at that stage (for example play may under the new laws continue). The law-makers forgot to say that 'play ceases' when either Law 69 or Law 70 is invoked afterwards, which makes it a potential grey area. e.g. defenders agree a claim and then dummy points out that one of them revoked - can he do this?

Hearing 'having none' reflexively is not really insanity causing once you get used to and expect it.

[Vampyr]

 weejonnie, on 2017-April-25, 10:39, said:

Hearing 'having none' reflexively is not really insanity causing once you get used to and expect it.

I think this indicates that you have already gone insane.

[blackshoe]

 weejonnie, on 2017-April-25, 10:39, said:

Definitely not! Dummy may not draw attention to any irregularity (this has been strengthened from 'should not' in the new laws).

I think you're mis-remembering. Both the new and the current laws say that dummy may not call attention to an irregularity. The change from "should not" to "may not" is in the bit about calling the director when attention has not been drawn to an irregularity.

[barmar]

 weejonnie, on 2017-April-25, 10:39, said:

The law-makers forgot to say that 'play ceases' when either Law 69 or Law 70 is invoked afterwards, which makes it a potential grey area. e.g. defenders agree a claim and then dummy points out that one of them revoked - can he do this?

They intentionally changed Law 68 to say "play is suspended" instead of "play ceases". This is because of the new provision that allows play to resume if the non-claiming side requests after doubting the claim and all 4 players agree.

But if play doesn't continue, the TD has to be called, and he determines all the facts. He's presumably allowed to ask dummy questions, and dummy must answer him, so dummy restrictions don't apply at that point. There's a general rule that no one is supposed to take any action while waiting for the TD.