How Many Diamonds?

[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]

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:

 

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]

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.

 

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]

 

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]

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.

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[aguahombre]

Lamford, you need to get a sense of humor about the "poll". I think the solution might be for declarer to ask the partner of the known SB how many diamonds are in dummy. We already know the SB will remain silent.

 

Alternatively, declarer could try counting the other 3 suits and subtracting from 13.

[lamford]

Alternatively, declarer could try counting the other 3 suits and subtracting from 13.

We already know that bridge players are notoriously bad at adding up to 13. Of course there is no need for a poll at all. The declarer is always assumed not to "wake up" to the fact that there are seven diamonds in dummy, just as he is not allowed to "wake up" to the fact that he just bid Ghestem after it is alerted. The other point nobody has raised is should there not be a PP for South as well for deliberate use of UI? That appeals to my sense of humour - a PP for both dummy and declarer on the same board. Get in there, SB!

[lamford]

I think adjusting the score is a serious mistake.

But as it is related to the infraction it cannot be SeWoG. And the TD is exempt from 12C1b.

[AlexJonson]

We already know that bridge players are notoriously bad at adding up to 13. Of course there is no need for a poll at all. The declarer is always assumed not to "wake up" to the fact that there are seven diamonds in dummy, just as he is not allowed to "wake up" to the fact that he just bid Ghestem after it is alerted. The other point nobody has raised is should there not be a PP for South as well for deliberate use of UI? That appeals to my sense of humour - a PP for both dummy and declarer on the same board. Get in there, SB!

 

Ok, let's be serious if you like.

 

If you deconstruct the conversation, then declarer expressed surprise that partner bid 3NT without 'consulting'.

 

There is actually no indication that declarer has needed to count anything, or needs to recount anything.

 

If you are right about ACs then we all need to stop wasting our money on them.

[dburn]

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?

I believe that Law 73 is intended to prohibit communication by other than calls and plays only of information that is supposed to be communicated solely by calls and plays. That is, I do not believe that during the play, this exchange between declarer and dummy:

 

Declarer "Whose round is it?"

Dummy "Yours."

Declarer "OK, here's some money, go and get the drinks."

 

is prohibited by Law 73 or any other Law, even though it is communication between partners, it occurs during the play, and it is not effected only by means of calls and plays.

 

Of course, if it were later found that dummy says "Yours" in such positions only when declarer should finesse and "Mine" when declarer should play for the drop, that would be a different matter altogether - a violation of Law 73B2.

 

By the same token, I do not believe that this exchange between declarer and dummy:

 

Declarer "How many diamonds do you have?"

Dummy "Seven."

 

is prohibited by Law 73 or by any other Law, even even though it is communication between partners, it occurs during the play, and it is not effected only by means of calls and plays. Certainly dummy's answer and declarer's question are extraneous remarks, just as "It's your round" is an extraneous remark; but in neither case are the remarks of the kind with which Law 73 is properly concerned.

[lamford]

By the same token, I do not believe that this exchange between declarer and dummy:

 

Declarer "How many diamonds do you have?"

Dummy "Seven."

 

is prohibited by Law 73 or by any other Law, <snip>

Whether or not that is permitted is a different issue. Here the dummy provided information that the original rough estimate made by declarer of six was wrong. That is the UI, not the statement that dummy has seven diamonds.

[lamford]

If you deconstruct the conversation, then declarer expressed surprise that partner bid 3NT without 'consulting'.

If you decide that the question to dummy was a sarcastic comment on the fact that dummy only had an eight count, and that declarer knew all along that there were seven diamonds in dummy, then a "no adjustment" ruling would be right. Because then there is no UI. However, the declarer in question originally thought, perhaps briefly, that there were six diamonds in dummy. And friends this is a true story because I knew that soldier.

[aguahombre]

Did anyone get a chuckle on board 45, segment 3 of 8, yesterday?

 

As JLALL was putting down dummy with its 7-bagger in diamonds, Boo asked "7, right?"

 

VG operator did not indicate whether anyone responded, thank Gawd.

[lamford]

Did anyone get a chuckle on board 45, segment 3 of 8, yesterday?

 

As JLALL was putting down dummy with its 7-bagger in diamonds, Boo asked "7, right?"

 

VG operator did not indicate whether anyone responded, thank Gawd.

Interestingly that remark was made after 4 tricks had been played, not as dummy was being put down:

 

Vugraphzff: Grue says 7 right?

 

And both declarer and dummy had followed twice and one opponent had discarded. If dummy had confirmed that he originally had seven diamonds, then that would indeed have been UI. In the hand in question there was no alternative to continuing the diamond suit, and for a player of Joe Grue's calibre, I am sure the remark was only rhetorical confirming to himself that the suit was running. Each case on its merits.

[aguahombre]

I was merely musing at the fact it was the same suit, etc. Was not suggesting anything other than Dejavu.

 

And --see archive in the BBO library -- VG operator had time to type in the "question" as Grue was leading the diamond king from his own hand to trick two. Unknown how long before that the question was asked.

[lamford]

I was merely musing at the fact it was the same suit, etc. Was not suggesting anything other than Dejavu.

 

And --see archive in the BBO library -- VG operator had time to type in the "question" as Grue was leading the diamond king from his own hand to trick two. Unknown how long before that the question was asked.

Right; I see that the operator comment is there during tricks 2-4. And yes, it is an odd coincidence. And I am sure that neither Gitelman nor Moss would have behaved as our SB did.

[aguahombre]

Another remote possibility: that Grue was familiar with this thread and taking a shot at all of us.

[mgoetze]

The above hand caused some ill-feeling at a local club last night. [...] East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, indicated that dummy had breached law 42A1:

 

I contend that the hand had nothing to do with it, and the ill-feeling was caused solely by the behaviour of East (and possibly the director, I wouldn't know).

[phil_20686]

Failing to correctly count the diamonds in dummy and hence going off by taking an inferior line is an action that "might cause annoyance and embarassment" to partner, and is hence must be "carefully avoided" under 74A2. Thus south was clearly taking his only legal play.

 

In a similar vein, let us not forget that claiming is clearly a violation of 74C6, as it shows a "lack of further interest" in the deal. We should also prohibit that.

 

And I always feel conflicted about 74C8 and 74A1. I can't help when the opponents play reduces me to hyseterical giggling. Should I stay at the table and giggle in violation of 74A1? Or should I leave the table to giggle in violation of 74C8. What's a man to do?

[lamford]

Failing to correctly count the diamonds in dummy and hence going off by taking an inferior line is an action that "might cause annoyance and embarassment" to partner, and is hence must be "carefully avoided" under 74A2. Thus south was clearly taking his only legal play.

 

In a similar vein, let us not forget that claiming is clearly a violation of 74C6, as it shows a "lack of further interest" in the deal. We should also prohibit that.

However, South has breached 74B2, by making a gratuitous comment during the play. He also breached 74A2 with the remark to dummy which annoyed SB. And under 74B1 he paid insufficient attention to the game in not counting the diamonds correctly. I am sure that we could go on, and I am sure your suggestions are tongue-in-cheek as well.