[gnasher]

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.

No, there would still be an infraction of Law 43A1c.

I don't understand why people are obsessing about 42A1. If dummy had said "With a nine-card fit, the odds favour the drop over the finesse, and anyway the queen is marked offside from the bidding", we wouldn't be wondering who was present when he said it.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-May-14, 12:01, said:

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.

Then why are you doing it? And why do you ignore Law 7B3?

[dburn]

gnasher, on 2011-May-14, 17:05, said:

No, there would still be an infraction of Law 43A1c.

No, there wouldn't. Saying "I have seven diamonds" is not a communication about the play, any more than saying "I have eight points" is a communication about the play, and I have no idea why some otherwise rational people believe that it is.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-14, 17:36, said:

Then [...] why do you ignore Law 7B3?

Because Law 7B3 is a general law and Law 45 is a more specific law. (I don't ignore Law 7B3)

[dcrc2]

I think adjusting the score is a serious mistake. While technically an infraction, comments like these are normal for a club game, and for the good of the game it is important that they should not be punished. Sure you can tell North, "It's probably better not to answer," but that is all. I would happily discuss with East why this ruling is legal (see other posts in this thread for a reasonable legal basis for no adjustment), but not at the table. If the TD allows East to get as far as reciting the Laws, then he has already failed in my opinion.

It is unfortunate that the director was called, as this may itself lead to ill-feeling due to N/S not believing they'd done anything wrong. But the director can limit the damage so long as he ensures N/S go away with the message, "East is right, but he's being a pedant." If he makes the mistake of even appearing to consider an adjustment, they are likely to take away instead, "East is right - you're not allowed to have fun at this club." I'm not surprised about the ill-feeling reported in the original post, and it's all the director's fault.

[FrancesHinden]

dburn, on 2011-May-15, 00:03, said:

No, there wouldn't. Saying "I have seven diamonds" is not a communication about the play, any more than saying "I have eight points" is a communication about the play, and I have no idea why some otherwise rational people believe that it is.

Dummy has

Kx
J10xx
Qxxx
Kxx

and declarer has

J10x
xxx
AKJx
AQJ

After three passes, South opens 1NT and North raises to 3NT.
West (not a very strong player but capable of counting his own points) cashes the AKQ of hearts, everyone following, then plays a low spade.
Declarer starts thinking, and North says, apparently apropos of nothing, "It's surprising how often you get to open a strong NT in fourth seat". I assume you would say that this is not a communication about the play either?

[jallerton]

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.

Just to be clear about this, Law 43A1(a) says:

Quote

LAW 43 - DUMMY’S LIMITATIONS
Except as Law 42 allows:
A. Limitations on Dummy
1. (a) Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play.

and if the TD determines that may dummy have called him in order to try to legalise a communication with his partner, I suspect that the TD could use Law 23 to adjust.

[Gerben42]

I would rule that dummy's statement did infact create no UI because the fact that there are 7 ♦ in dummy is information available to everyone. Declarer's statement showed that he was in fact planning to count the ♦ at the table, and also to get partner to tidy them up a bit.

East's behavior suggests that he takes himself too seriously. With very few exceptions, players like East would run into many of such director calls against them if their opponents would take things the way (s)he does.

[aguahombre]

I do hope that Frances, above, is not saying that telling declarer what card{s) are in dummy is equivalent to telling declarer that one defender or the other cannot hold a specific Ace.

My partner does not normally have vision issues, but sometimes the lighting hits dummy in such a way that she will ask that the cards be moved closer or ask how many there are of a certain suit. Forthwith, I am going to advise her to ask an opponent and hope they have the good grace to answer correctly. I will do this before it happens again, so that as dummy at the table I won't be accused of suggesting a course of action.

[gnasher]

dburn, on 2011-May-15, 00:03, said:

No, there wouldn't. Saying "I have seven diamonds" is not a communication about the play, any more than saying "I have eight points" is a communication about the play, and I have no idea why some otherwise rational people believe that it is.

You do appear to believe that it's a communication, however. Can I also persuade you that this communication is between partners, occurs during the play, is not effected only by means of calls and plays, takes the form of an extraneous remark, calls attention to a significant occurrence, and is therefore an infraction of several parts of Laws 73 and 74?

[hatchett]

I agree with much of what dcrr2 posted; it is not hard to see why the number of people
playing bridge is decreasing if they encounter people like east very often. With his
knowledge of the rules I suspect east is an experienced player and it is a pity in a club
environment that he cannot employ some commonsense by not calling the director.
Some may disagree with my approach, but if I called the director on a club evening every time
the opponents used UI to some degree I suspect I would be persona non grata very quickly,
so I tend to let many situations go.

[dburn]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-15, 04:01, said:

Dummy has

Kx
J10xx
Qxxx
Kxx

and declarer has

J10x
xxx
AKJx
AQJ

After three passes, South opens 1NT and North raises to 3NT.
West (not a very strong player but capable of counting his own points) cashes the AKQ of hearts, everyone following, then plays a low spade.
Declarer starts thinking, and North says, apparently apropos of nothing, "It's surprising how often you get to open a strong NT in fourth seat". I assume you would say that this is not a communication about the play either?

A communication whose purpose is to influence declarer to play the hand in a particular fashion is a communication about the play; if it were held that dummy's utterance above were such a communication, then it would be a violation of Law 43A1c. If it were held merely to be an innocent observation on the frequency with which strong no trumps are opened in fourth position, then it would not be a violation of Law 43A1c.

By the same token, if the play in the original case were to proceed to a point at which declarer played king and another diamond and started thinking on seeing two low cards from West, and if dummy were to make some such remark as "I'd have opened three diamonds, but we play that as needing two of the top three honours in our seven-card suit", the same considerations would apply.

But when declarer asks dummy how many diamonds dummy has, and when dummy replies "seven", this cannot be regarded as a suggestion that declarer play the hand in a particular fashion - dummy does not know declarer's diamond holding, and is in no position to make any meaningful communication "about the play".

However:

gnasher said:

Can I also persuade you that this communication is between partners, occurs during the play, is not effected only by means of calls and plays, takes the form of an extraneous remark, calls attention to a significant occurrence, and is therefore an infraction of several parts of Laws 73 and 74?

Seriatim: yes; yes; yes; no; no; and no.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-16, 07:40, said:

By the same token, if the play in the original case were to proceed to a point at which declarer played king and another diamond and started thinking on seeing two low cards from West, and if dummy were to make some such remark as "I'd have opened three diamonds, but we play that as needing two of the top three honours in our seven-card suit", the same considerations would apply.

As the auction had begun 1NT Pass, the TD might think that North was attempting to communicate in some way.

dburn, on 2011-May-16, 07:40, said:

But when declarer asks dummy how many diamonds dummy has, and when dummy replies "seven", this cannot be regarded as a suggestion that declarer play the hand in a particular fashion - dummy does not know declarer's diamond holding, and is in no position to make any meaningful communication "about the play".

I think deciding whether dummy has breached 43A1c is unnecessary. As jallerton points out, under 16B1a <snip> a reply to a question <snip>, it is clear that the response dummy made was UI. In particular, the comment, "I am not that mad" suggests that North bid 3NT because he thought the diamonds were favourite to run, whereas with six he would not have thought the same. Once we establish that there is some chance that declarer would continue to miscount the diamonds, the ruling flows easily - 100% of 3NT-1. SB should have appealed against the weighted score.

I completely disagree with both dcrc2 and hatchett that SB has done anything wrong on this occasion, and the director MUST rule according to the rules of the game. Yes, bridge players are often annoyed by the back-room lawyer, but he is fully entitled to play the game according to the rules. If declarer has AQ doubleton in dummy and leads towards it and calls for the queen even though LHO has played the king, many, many declarers will take umbrage if you insist on the queen being played. Indeed I have been on an AC about such a case, where I believe our ruling was only wrong in that we did not retain the deposit. Yet one hears such appellants telling all and sundry of how mean the defenders were, and how they only wanted to win "in that way".

People will give up the game if they get rulings that are contrary to the Laws, not when the odd SB follows the Laws to the letter.

[axman]

lamford, on 2011-May-16, 08:59, said:

I completely disagree with both dcrc2 and hatchett that SB has done anything wrong on this occasion, and the director MUST rule according to the rules of the game. Yes, bridge players are often annoyed by the back-room lawyer, but he is fully entitled to play the game according to the rules. If declarer has AQ doubleton in dummy and leads towards it and calls for the queen even though LHO has played the king, many, many declarers will take umbrage if you insist on the queen being played. Indeed I have been on an AC about such a case, where I believe our ruling was only wrong in that we did not retain the deposit. Yet one hears such appellants telling all and sundry of how mean the defenders were, and how they only wanted to win "in that way".

People will give up the game if they get rulings that are contrary to the Laws, not when the odd SB follows the Laws to the letter.

THere additionally is a corollary: Players will tend to discontinue coming back when the rules are bad rules. As it follows that players will be of the disposition to break them; and, the adjudicators will be of the disposition to break them. [Henry David Thoreau called it civil disobedience]

[AlexJonson]

The only decisions players disagree with are judgement rulings (more or less).

In this case, there are some who pretend to judge that there has been an infraction with damage,
and there are those who disagree.

Send it to appeal.

You will be very, very unlucky to meet a majority of SB sympathisers on the appeal committee.

Send it here...mm...

[gnasher]

gnasher said:

Can I also persuade you that this communication is between partners, occurs during the play, is not effected only by means of calls and plays, takes the form of an extraneous remark, calls attention to a significant occurrence, and is therefore an infraction of several parts of Laws 73 and 74?

dburn, on 2011-May-16, 07:40, said:

Seriatim: yes; yes; yes; no; no; and no.

OK, do your first three yeses make it an infraction of one part of Law 73, specifically 73A1? And if not, why not?

And regarding your first no, are you saying that it's not extraneous, or not a remark?

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-May-12, 02:35, said:

His regular partners would say something like "King one, two small, Ace Jack to seven, two small", and he would check by saying "that's a 2272 five-count with Ace Jack of diamonds?"

He wouldn't; he would say: "that's a 2272 eight-count with Ace Jack of diamonds?", but if he did say as you said, then of course dummy is allowed to correct him - whatever the Law says. I think the following is catchall:

WB 141.2.1 Over-riding consideration
If it is impracticable for these regulations to be followed in whole or in part, the TD is authorised to specify the manner in which the bidding and play shall proceed.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-May-16, 12:49, said:

In this case, there are some who pretend to judge that there has been an infraction with damage, and there are those who disagree.

There is little doubt that there was an infraction - few dispute that; there is doubt as to whether there was damage as it is quite likely that declarer would discover his error himself. But, sadly, 16B only requires continuing to think that there are six diamonds to be a logical alternative and that lines that use the correction that there are seven diamonds would need to be demonstrably suggested and then they would be disallowed. I would predict that an AC should find in favour of the SB, once they have realised the issues. Of course they may still rule against him - just because he is the SB, but I think that is the wrong approach.

[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-May-16, 15:38, said:

There is little doubt that there was an infraction - few dispute that; there is doubt as to whether there was damage as it is quite likely that declarer would discover his error himself. But, sadly, 16B only requires continuing to think that there are six diamonds to be a logical alternative and that lines that use the correction that there are seven diamonds would need to be demonstrably suggested and then they would be disallowed. I would predict that an AC should find in favour of the SB, once they have realised the issues. Of course they may still rule against him - just because he is the SB, but I think that is the wrong approach.

A. As I said re damage.

B. If it's about 16B, try a poll to find how many people think they have how many diamonds.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-May-16, 15:49, said:

B. If it's about 16B, try a poll to find how many people think they have how many diamonds.

I think the poll is to ask those who have the facts as presented whether they would be sure that they would recount the diamonds before deciding on a line, without the remark made by dummy. That is the relevant poll.