May Dummy "chat" when claim is rejected?

[dalevine]

In a live bridge club, dummy should not say anything to explain claims made by declarer -- in other words, it's declarer's job (alone) to persuade the opponents to accept. At BBO, however, "chatting" takes time (especially if you don't type that fast) and so I was wondering if people thought it was OK for dummy to speak up in order to move the game along.

 

Consider this situation: All trumps are drawn, 5 tricks remain, declarer has 5 winners and on those winners he can slough any remaining losers. One seat is occupied by a beginner who can see that he (the beginner) has a winner but does not notice that it will disappear when declarer sloughs his loser. Thus, the beginner rejects the claim.

 

Sometimes in a situation like this a simple message like "5 winners, only 5 tricks left" can persuade the person who rejected the claim to accept it. But if declarer spends time typing that (and waiting for a reply -- or just waiting a bit and then reclaiming) it will really slow things down if (as sometimes happens) the beginner STILL does not "get it" and rejects again. The game was slowed up because no cards were played while this chatting was going on. So, I think, it should be OK for declarer to resume play and for Dummy to try to persuade the opponent.

 

Final variation: Usually the person opposite that beginner DOES see that the claim is valid, but sometimes they are new enough to BBO that they do not realize that they can concede (by claiming 0 of 5 tricks) and then only Declarer need accept. So, it might be useful for dummy to type a message like "an opponent who sees this is valid can concede by claiming zero tricks." Again, if declarer continues to play the cards while dummy types that message, no time will have been wasted by the "chat".

 

Opinions please?

[Vampyr]

I don't see a problem with dummy chatting privately to the opponents.

[barmar]

While it may slow the game down, this might be a good situation to just play it out when the claim is rejected. The beginner will learn by seeing how his presumed winner disappears.

 

I know the Laws prohibit this, but it's the traditional way to handle disputed claims in online bridge, especially when there's no TD (play in the main bridge club should probably be treated more like rubber bridge in this regard).

[blackshoe]

When I read this, my first thought was "patience is a virtue". My second was "but not, apparently, in online bridge". :lol:

[mrdct]

In a live bridge club, dummy should not say anything to explain claims made by declarer -- in other words, it's declarer's job (alone) to persuade the opponents to accept.

Not true. Play ceases when the claim is made (law 68D) at which point the cloak of silence is lifted from dummy and he is free to speak (law 42). Helping inexperienced opponents interpret a claim is entirely appropriate once play has ceased, but I don't think dummy should interject in the middle of declarer's claim statement and should limit his involvement to scenarios where the claim has been made and the opponents are unsure about it.

 

Online bridge is more-or-less the same in repsect of dummy's rights and limitations so I would have no difficulty with dummy helping the opponents understand the claim.

 

The playing on after a claim is rejected is a necessary peculiarity of online bridge, but such play doesn't form part of the "official" play of the hand under the laws of bridge and is merely a mechanism to equitably resolve disputed claims without a director by giving the non-claimers a double-dummy defence and is often faster than declarer typing out a detailed explanation of his claim. While declarer is getting on with playing out a disputed claim online, I see nothing wrong with dummy chiming-in with a helpful comment or two to expedite matters.