Santa Claus Pairs

[bluejak]

When making a ruling there are occasions where it seems possible to apply more than one Law. At such a time a TD needs to make a choice based on his experience, knowledge, training, and on logic and other things. What he should not do is to assume one possibility exists, therefore this must be followed without considering other possible Laws.

 

Yes, one could consider dummy's remark a claim. It was not really, but the wording of Law 68A does allow that possibility. But that does not mean that it must be considered as a claim if there are alternatives, and at the time I did not think it was to be treated as a claim, and do not think so now having read all the posts assiduously.

 

Yes, one could consider dummy's remark as UI. The wording of Law 16 does mean that is possible. But it seems to me much the same as calling it a claim: an effort to manufacture something unnecessarily.

 

In practice what happened? Dummy breached Law 43A1C by participating in the play, and communicating something about the play to declarer. Since that is exactly what happened and that is the wording of that Law, I think trying to fit it under another Law is just wrong. So I ruled under this Law, and I still consider that correct.

 

Since this Law does not tell you how to act it fits into the Scope of Law 12A1, and I feel I can adjust. Obviously I can also penalise under Law 90.

 

Now, despite the comments about expert play, it is my view and my consultant's view that if the young lady had had a winner and a loser left she would not have led the loser. So really declarer would have got it right pretty well all the time. The fact that declarer needed to think about it does not preclude this fact.

 

I ruled under Law 12C1C that declarer made both tricks 80% of the time, one trick 20% of th time, and issued a PP for a standard amount to dummy for his remark. Both sides seemed very happy with the ruling.

[mrdct]

The fact that the venue and TD may be incompetent in their provision of the Law book, while hardly relevant to the problem I gave, does not affect how high level an event is.  Some venues have poor toilet facilities: does that affect the level of the events held there?

The quality of toilet facilities has nothing to do with the quality/level of bridge or the playing level in a bridge event. I understand your frustration bit lets still try to be real... :)

Of course it does not. Nor does the presence or absence of a Law book: my point exactly.

Not that it has any bearing on how I rule on this hand, but poor facilities and ill-prepared directing staff would most definately have an impact on the quality/level of bridge being played.

[wank]

lesser players will often not know relatively low cards are winners. if it was an ace missing, the argument is reasonably sound. if one of the winners was for example, the 13th heart, e.g. the 8, i would think the argument ridiculous.

[mink]

I am quite puzzled by this thread.

 

About the dummy claim: This idea is esoteric. The wording of Law 68 is irrelevant. If it was possible for the dummy to claim, this should be mentioned in Law 42, and as it is not there, it is not possible.

 

About the UI by the dummy: If we believe the declarer that he knew the ♠10 was still out there, we must conclude he knows that the dummy's statement was wrong, that means, it contained no information for him. And I clearly believe the he knew the dummy was not good, because he had been thinking, and there is no reason to think if he believed the ♠10 had already been played.

 

And why did nobody comment on the fact that LHO displayed the ♠10 after dummy's statement? Was it correct for her to do so? Did she think because the dummy, who - as all know - cannot take part in play, said something, the game is over now? When looking for a law that addresses this action, I can only find Law 49, and it is legal for the declarer to see this card. So the declarer cannot go wrong now.

 

However, for the dummy's infraction I would chose a PP that is higher than what is gained by the additional overtrick.

 

Karl

[bluejak]

I think it is reasonable for an inexperienced player to think the game has finished when dummy appears to claim. Anyway, dummy's comment has induced the player to put her card down: now you say declarer can use this. Does this really sound the way the game should be played?

[mink]

I thought it matters what the law says and not how an individual thinks the game should be played. So far I got the impression that especially you, David, often emphasize this.

 

About "induced" and "reasonable": One of the first things a beginner learns is that the dummy only plays cards ordered by the declarer. Everybody knows this, no matter how inexperienced. Therefore I expect nobody to assume a statement of the dummy could cause the game to end, and I expect everybody to know that cards in hand must be hidden until the game ends. This is so basic that I cannot believe it needs to be discussed.

 

Karl

[nige1]

I thought it matters what the law says and not how an individual thinks the game should be played. So far I got the impression that especially you, David, often emphasize this. About "induced" and "reasonable": One of the first things a beginner learns is that the dummy only plays cards ordered by the declarer. Everybody knows this, no matter how inexperienced. Therefore I expect nobody to assume a statement of the dummy could cause the game to end, and I expect everybody to know that cards in hand must be hidden until the game ends. This is so basic that I cannot believe it needs to be discussed.

A. Claim Defined. Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply).

D. Play Ceases. After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

Dummy claimed, so play ceased. (Note: The definition does not address Bluejak's concern as to whether the claim is "valid"). A defender disputed the claim by showing his ♠T, so the director was called.

 

:wacko: This may be another mistake by law-makers; but it is the law :wacko:. Presumably, it will remain the law for roughly a decade, :o so directors may as well get used to it :(

[axman]

I thought it matters what the law says and not how an individual thinks the game should be played. So far I got the impression that especially you, David, often emphasize this. About "induced" and "reasonable": One of the first things a beginner learns is that the dummy only plays cards ordered by the declarer. Everybody knows this, no matter how inexperienced. Therefore I expect nobody to assume a statement of the dummy could cause the game to end, and I expect everybody to know that cards in hand must be hidden until the game ends. This is so basic that I cannot believe it needs to be discussed.

A. Claim Defined. Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply).

D. Play Ceases. After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

Dummy claimed, so play ceased. (Note: The definition does not address Bluejak's concern as to whether the claim is "valid"). A defender disputed the claim by showing his ♠T, so the director was called.

 

:wacko: This may be another mistake by law-makers; but it is the law :wacko:. Presumably, it will remain the law for roughly a decade, :o so directors may as well get used to it :(

As a result of this thread I have spent the better part of a week reconciling the concept of deeming dummy's efforts cannot constitute a claim because he is not permitted to do so.

 

I came to the conclusion that it cannot be reconciled. The principle of appearances delivers that if the declarer says 'dummy is high' is a claim then anyone saying it also claims and it is wrong headed to deem, or assert, or declare otherwise. It just , is.

 

As it is possible to contemplate dummy doing such a thing it therefore remains for the law to provide a satisfactory resolution.

[blackshoe]

Law 68A speaks of claims as being by a contestant. In a pairs contest, the contestant is the pair, so it would seem that this law doesn't restrict claiming to any particular member of the pair. If dummy's statement fits the definition of a claim, then it's a claim, even though Law 43A1{c} prohibits dummy from making such a statement in the first place. However, once dummy does this, there has been an infraction, and the law provides that once the claim question is resolved, if the OS gained from it, the TD should adjust the score (Law 12B1). So either you rule, in adjudicating the claim, that dummy's cards are played so as to give the defense one of the two tricks, or you rule the other way and then adjust the score so that the defense gets one of the tricks. All roads lead to Rome. :wacko:

[lamford]

It's a Xmas pairs and goodwill to all so no finesse to take place and a PP with added sprig of holly, on his chair, to dummy for the comment.

"Boiled in his own pudding and buried with a stake of holly through his heart" would be more appropriate than a PP.