May dummy refuse to reveal the dummy?

[nige1]

Another hilarious episode from Brighton. We are a moving pair in a Mitchell scored with Bridgemates. The director warns us to hurry up but partner explains that we must wait for the slow pair in front of us, on every round. Often other tables are on their second board before we have started our first.

 

When we are able to sit down at the next table, our opponents win the contract and partner leads face-down. After your OK, partner faces the opening lead.

 

"Wait a minute", says declarer. "I haven't entered the scores against our last opponents for the previous round into the Bridgemate".

 

"May we still see the dummy?", I suggest but dummy demurs.

 

I ask "Will we have time to go to the loo". Dummy laughs "Yes go if you like". I regret my pathetic attempt at humour and explain that my remark is a joke.

 

Five times I ask "Please will you display the dummy?" but dummy is adamant - polite but firm.

 

I call the director, who arrives after a couple of minutes. After establishing the facts (as above), the director rules that dummy doesn't need to display the dummy; but that I should apologise. I don't understand but I apologise.

 

A minute or two after the director has departed, dummy relents and smilingly displays the dummy.

 

There is no acrimony in these exchanges. Dummy congratulates us on our defence. We say "Thank you". The last board passes without incident. Eventually, we part on cordial terms.

 

My questions are:

• Has dummy a legal obligation to display the dummy hand, after the opening lead is faced?
  
• Would it have been legal for dummy rather than declarer to enter scores against previous opponents into the Bridgemate, so that we do not hold up the tournament? May the director suggest this as a compromise?
  
• May we appeal this decision? (If the director had given us the opportunity, we wouldn't have done so, because all we wanted to do was to avoid delaying the tournament).
  

Nevertheless, I'm confused about the legal position B) :) :)

[Cascade]

The ruling seems ridiculous to me.

 

While the law only says "after" not something stronger like "immediately after" for when dummy's hand is to be spread. There is clearly no intention for the opposing side to be delaying the display of dummy for administrative matters from the previous round.

 

It also seems completely inconsistent with the directors warning to your side for slow play. If the director is going to allow such inane reasons for the delay of play then he is on very shaky grounds warning or penalizing others caught up in those actions.

 

It seems that entering those scores was something that should properly have been done with the previous opponents present. Given it wasn't it can be done at anytime and doesn't seem to need to be done at a time inconvenient to the next round opponents.

 

Who cares who enters the score into some machine. Yes dummy could easily do that.

 

Out of curiousity how much time was given for each round?

[Pict]

Not sure Dummy mostly exists in a legal sense, so Nigel's attempt to divide and rule properly failed.

 

The question is, can Declarer delay showing dummy? Who knows or cares.

 

Since tournaments have policies about speed etc, just call the TD.

[campboy]

Not sure Dummy mostly exists in a legal sense, so Nigel's attempt to divide and rule properly failed.

The law Cascade is referring to is 41D:

After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table [...]

so it is certainly dummy's responsibility rather than declarer's.

[Pict]

So, the play period has irrevocably begun (because the lead is faced) and you, Campboy are Dummy.

 

Declarer says (before you 'spread' your hand) - hold on a minute there Dummy.

 

And you say/do?

[campboy]

So, the play period has irrevocably begun (because the lead is faced) and you, Campboy are Dummy.

 

Declarer says (before you 'spread' your hand) - hold on a minute there Dummy.

 

And you say/do?

I would expect that the lead was out of turn or something. Failing that -- well, I would have no problem with holding on provided that was ok with the opponents, but here it wasn't.

[peachy]

Ridiculous mind games and a control freak declarer. Dummy should have just spread the hand. The law 41 says "dummy spreads his hand", not that "dummy spreads his hand when declarer gives him permission to do so". TD was out of line.

[bluejak]

Agree with peachy.

 

I just hope it was not the declarer I think it may have been.

[barmar]

Does L41D really mean that defenders have a right to spend more time examining dummy and planning their defense than declarer? If declarer is unavoidably interrupted when defender faces the opening lead, does he lose time compared to the defenders?

 

Apparently, 41D seems to say this, so maybe this really belongs in the Changing Laws forum.

[pran]

Does L41D really mean that defenders have a right to spend more time examining dummy and planning their defense than declarer? If declarer is unavoidably interrupted when defender faces the opening lead, does he lose time compared to the defenders?

 

Apparently, 41D seems to say this, so maybe this really belongs in the Changing Laws forum.

If declarer happens to be the player responsible for keying the Bridgemate it is his choice whether he completes his duties on the previous board before starting on the next (as he should) or if he delays his registering until the next board is well under way.

 

Once the opening lead is duly made Dummy has no excuse for delaying facing his hand and should in case be penalized for unneccesarily delaying the progress.

(Law 90)

 

"Correct" procedure with Bridgemate is to

1: register the board number before any player takes his cards from the board (You will be notified if you have a wrong board)

2: register the contract while it is fresh in mind before the opening lead is made

3: register and have confirmed the result on the board before the cards are returned to their pockets. (Law 79)

[RMB1]

Is it naive to suggest that declarer should get on with playing the hand and give the bridgemate to dummy to enter the previous results?

[helene_t]

The director warns us to hurry up but your partner explains that we must wait for the slow pair in front of us, on every round.

You didn't have to wait for anyone. There were plenty of copies of the boards you were waiting for, the copies could be found in several places in the playing room, or you could ask the TD to bring a spare copy. Sometimes the TDs did so by their own initiative.

[nige1]

The director warns us to hurry up but partner explains that we must wait for the slow pair in front of us, on every round.

You didn't have to wait for anyone. There were plenty of copies of the boards you were waiting for, the copies could be found in several places in the playing room, or you could ask the TD to bring a spare copy. Sometimes the TDs did so by their own initiative.

:D The director could instruct us to sit on the laps of the pair in front and order opponents play two different boards simultaneously? :D

[helene_t]

Ah I misunderstood, so you were waiting for their table, not for their boards :D

[jallerton]

"Correct" procedure with Bridgemate is to

1: register the board number before any player takes his cards from the board (You will be notified if you have a wrong board)

2: register the contract while it is fresh in mind before the opening lead is made

3: register and have confirmed the result on the board before the cards are returned to their pockets. (Law 79)

So apparently when using the old-fashioned travellers, the "correct" procedure is to take out the traveller at end of the clarification period to record the contract and opening lead whilst fresh in mind!

 

Law 79 requires the players to agree the number of tricks won before the hands are returned to their pockets. I can't see why there is any legal requirement to enter the score in the Bridgemate at this time. Meanwhile it surely makes sense to clear away the pile of quitted tricks before getting the Bridgemate out.