How Many Diamonds?

[jallerton]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[gnasher]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Finch]

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]

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:

 

LAW 43 - DUMMYS 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]

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?