[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-12, 08:59, said:

Suppose that dummy had replied "eight". Declarer would cash the king of diamonds and, when both followed, claim ten tricks. How should the Director rule if the opponents objected to the claim?

I don't think it is any different. The TD just has to judge what would have happened without the infraction, and whether the finesse on the second round is an alternative normal line of play. Assuming declarer made no statement, it looks normal; but even if he states "cashing the ace next", the TD has to rule on dummy's remark, and that would be the same issue as the original thread, surely.

And, hey, stop trying to change this to a "claim" thread, or you might be accused of deviation (or repetition). And there was no hesitation before SB bellowed "Director!"

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-May-12, 08:06, said:

And I presume a weighted score is permitted, and not Reveleyesque, here?

Certainly.

[dburn]

lamford, on 2011-May-12, 09:16, said:

I don't think it is any different. The TD just has to judge what would have happened without the infraction, and whether the finesse on the second round is an alternative normal line of play. Assuming declarer made no statement, it looks normal; but even if he states "cashing the ace next", the TD has to rule on dummy's remark, and that would be the same issue as the original thread, surely.

Not quite. You see, the Laws prevent dummy from giving information as to fact or Law other than in the presence of the Director. But a dummy who says that he has eight diamonds when in fact he has seven has not given any information at all, for what he says is not true. Hence there is no infraction, and the Director cannot base a ruling on what would have happened without an infraction that did not exist.

[pran]

dburn, on 2011-May-12, 13:18, said:

Not quite. You see, the Laws prevent dummy from giving information as to fact or Law other than in the presence of the Director. But a dummy who says that he has eight diamonds when in fact he has seven has not given any information at all, for what he says is not true. Hence there is no infraction, and the Director cannot base a ruling on what would have happened without an infraction that did not exist.

Technically there is the infraction that Dummy has "communicated something about the play to declarer" (Law 43A1{c}). The fact that this communication included incorrect information is irrelevant.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-12, 13:18, said:

But a dummy who says that he has eight diamonds when in fact he has seven has not given any information at all <snip>

I vaguely recall that in another thread where someone attempted to use "information" he had overheard from another table, I argued that if this was a board that he was not scheduled to play, he did not have any "information", but I recall you arguing that information did not have to be true according to the archaic meaning of the word, again as I recall. Even a sarcastic reply "thirteen diamonds", which would be patently false, might inform, suggesting that the original estimate of six was incorrect and that declarer might be well advised to recount. I agree with pran's last submission, but not with his earlier effort.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-May-12, 08:06, said:

Indeed this was the conclusion the TD came to, and he decided that half the time declarer would continue to miscount the suit and half the time he would play as he did, so he provided a weighted score. He imposed a 3 IMP penalty under Law 90 on North-South and no penalty on East - in his opinion any remark that is connected with a request for a ruling, provided it is made politely, can never attract a 74A2 penalty. For what it is worth, I think the TD decision was spot on and while "I disapprove of what SB said, I will defend to the death his right to say it."

And I presume a weighted score is permitted, and not Reveleyesque, here?

Why do you presume that?

[campboy]

jallerton, on 2011-May-13, 16:43, said:

Why do you presume that?

Surely a weighted score is permitted because it is the answer, and not the play in the diamond suit, which is the infraction; if the TD believes that without the infraction declarer might have made either play then a weighted score is appropriate.

[jallerton]

Why do you consider the play in the diamond suit not to be an infraction?

Do you consider dummy's answer to be authorised or unauthorised information to declarer?

[pran]

jallerton, on 2011-May-13, 17:08, said:

Why do you consider the play in the diamond suit not to be an infraction?

Do you consider dummy's answer to be authorised or unauthorised information to declarer?

It is an extraneous remark all right, and the information it conveys (if any) is unauthorized for declarer.
But what line of play is in case demonstrably suggested by this information?

One thing is certain: The Director must never rule a successful line of play illegal just because the player is in possession of UI; he must establish that this successful line of play could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI.

[campboy]

jallerton, on 2011-May-13, 17:08, said:

Why do you consider the play in the diamond suit not to be an infraction?

Do you consider dummy's answer to be authorised or unauthorised information to declarer?

Ah, I see. We could rule that the play in the diamond suit is an infraction of 16B and therefore adjust to 100% of misplaying the suit.

However, I don't think the existance of a second infraction means that ruling on the basis of the first infraction is illegal. The TD just has two possible justifications for a ruling and may legally choose either; it is admittedly normal to choose the more favourable ruling for NOS but I can't think of a law which requires it.

[jallerton]

Suppose that you are declarer. Suppose further that you are not sure whether or not you would have realised the existence of the 7th diamond, had dummy not made the helpful remark.

As an ethical player, you "carefully avoid taking any advantage" of the UI as required by Law 73C (and ensure that you don't select the demonstrably suggested LA as required by Law 16B) by taking the line of play you would have taken had there been six diamonds in dummy. You go down in 3NT. You follow the Laws as best you can but you are not entitled to any percentage weighting of the favourable result.

A less ethical player in the same situation takes advantage of the information and makes his contract. Is it equitable to give him (and his opponents) a percentage weighting of the favourable result?

In any case, given that the second infraction occurred, I'm not even sure that the Laws permit a rectification adjustment for the first infraction. For a Law 44A infraction, Law 44B seems to explain that the consequences of such a breach: the penalty is a potential PP under Law 90. I don't think we can adjust using Law 12A1 because another Law (16B) does provide sufficient indemnity to the non-offending side.

[campboy]

jallerton, on 2011-May-14, 04:00, said:

In any case, given that the second infraction occurred, I'm not even sure that the Laws permit a rectification adjustment for the first infraction. For a Law 44A infraction, Law 44B seems to explain that the consequences of such a breach: the penalty is a potential PP under Law 90. I don't think we can adjust using Law 12A1 because another Law (16B) does provide sufficient indemnity to the non-offending side.

True, we can't adjust using 12A1. You can probably make a case for a law 23 adjustment for dummy's remark, though, if you wanted to give a weighted score (which I don't).

I certainly agree with you that we *should* make the adjustment which is more favorable to NOS, for reasons of fairness, but if a TD makes the other adjustment I am not convinced that he has acted illegally.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-May-13, 17:08, said:

Why do you consider the play in the diamond suit not to be an infraction?

Do you consider dummy's answer to be authorised or unauthorised information to declarer?

I think you are right, there were two infractions, dummy's remark and declarer's play in the suit. Of course, declarer is unlikely to have considered dummy's remark as UI, but that does not matter. I now think the correct adjustment is indeed to 3NT-1 100% of the time, in addition to the 3 IMP penalty. Pretty severe, but there we are, it will teach dummy to be le mort from now on.

One question; in the same way as we can allow a contract to be reached by another route in a 16B ruling, could we decide that some of the time declarer would notice that there were seven diamonds in dummy when he came to play the suit, even if dummy had been silent?

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-May-14, 05:42, said:

One question; in the same way as we can allow a contract to be reached by another route in a 16B ruling, could we decide that some of the time declarer would notice that there were seven diamonds in dummy when he came to play the suit, even if dummy had been silent?

That's what we've been talking about: if we are adjusting because of UI then no, since the infraction in question is declarer's play in the diamond suit and he presumably can't make the same number of tricks without that play. We can't allow for the fact that he might wake up, just as if a player has forgotten the system and has UI to remind him we don't allow for the fact that he might have remembered without UI.

[dburn]

Just to be clear about this: is the notion that if dummy had called the Director and said "I have seven diamonds", there would be no UI and no infraction; but if he says "I have seven diamonds" without calling the Director, there is UI and an infraction? Because if that is the way the game is supposed to be played, I can understand why a lot of people don't want to play it.

[ahydra]

Quote

Suppose that dummy had replied "eight". Declarer would cash the king of diamonds and, when both followed, claim ten tricks. How should the Director rule if the opponents objected to the claim?

When claiming aren't you presumed to be playing a suit from the top, i.e. ace first hence dropping the Q? The Director can't accept a line of play that depends on one opponent rather than the other having the DQ, but can accept a line where it doesn't matter who has the DQ. [edit: if we don't take into account anything about UI dictating a line of play]

As for the OP I would say that dummy shouldn't have answered the question because declarer is permitted to arrange dummy's cards how he wants and could have easily spread them out to count them properly. I think a split score and 3IMP penalty sounds a bit harsh for this offence though!

edit: somehow missed the entire 2nd page! :/ I stand by my post though, and maybe would add in response to lamford that yes, I think we should take into account the fact declarer might have realised there were 7 diamonds in dummy - for instance, if he spotted dummy had one fewer card than he should have.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Declarer is permitted to touch dummy's cards only "if necessary" in order to play them (Law 7B3, Law 45B) or to arrange them or to reach the card he wishes to play (Law 7B3, Law 45C3). If dummy is at the table and physically able to handle his cards, it is not necessary for declarer to handle them, and it is therefore illegal for him to do so.

[pooltuna]

So online play once again proves it dispenses with many buffalo chips

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-14, 09:09, said:

Declarer is permitted to touch dummy's cards only "if necessary" in order to play them (Law 7B3, Law 45B) or to arrange them or to reach the card he wishes to play (Law 7B3, Law 45C3). If dummy is at the table and physically able to handle his cards, it is not necessary for declarer to handle them, and it is therefore illegal for him to do so.

Law 45B, which contains the "if necessary" clause, applies only to playing a card from dummy. Law 45C3 which applies to other purposes than playing a card does not contain any such clause. There is no specification in the laws nor (as far as I know) anywhere else on what makes it necessary for Declarer to touch dummy's cards (rather than having this done by Dummy) as specified in Law 45B.

With all the above in mind I find it very difficult to rule that Declarer may not touch dummy's cards for whatever legal purpose at his own discretion, i.e. that Declarer himself finds this necessary.

And I don't see any purpose in quarreling about this.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-14, 06:43, said:

Just to be clear about this: is the notion that if dummy had called the Director and said "I have seven diamonds", there would be no UI and no infraction; but if he says "I have seven diamonds" without calling the Director, there is UI and an infraction? Because if that is the way the game is supposed to be played, I can understand why a lot of people don't want to play it.

Yes, I agree, because the Law is incorrectly worded yet again. It should perhaps read
1. Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director’s presence, as to fact or law, but only if asked to do so by the director.