Dummy's antics

[bluejak]

A question was posed by an excellent player on Facebook. My understanding gleaned from some of the 98 [yes, 98! :lol:] subsequent posts is that this occurred between international class players in the EBL at Poznan. So what do you think?

 

Declarer is running a seven-card suit posing you and your partner as defenders discarding problems in three suits. There is ample time on the clock but mid-way through the suit dummy interrupts to complain that play is too slow. The hand ends up being misdefended. Do you have redress?

[nige1]

A question was posed by an excellent player on Facebook. My understanding gleaned from some of the 98 [yes, 98! :lol:] subsequent posts is that this occurred between international class players in the EBL at Poznan. So what do you think?

 

Declarer is running a seven-card suit posing you and your partner as defenders discarding problems in three suits. There is ample time on the clock but mid-way through the suit dummy interrupts to complain that play is too slow. The hand ends up being misdefended. Do you have redress?

IMO Yes. Slowness is an infraction to which dummy may not draw attention. Anyway, his intervention was likely to achieve the opposite of his ostensible intention. Finally, he "could have known" that barracking defenders might put them off (as, in practice, it may have done).

[aguahombre]

IMO Yes. Slowness is an infraction to which dummy may not draw attention. Anyway, his intervention was likely to achieve the opposite of his ostensible intention. Finally, dummy "could have known" that barracking defenders might put them off (as, in practice, it may have done).

Too bad Nige1 was not on Facebook. How could there be 98 posts after his one?

[nige1]

Too bad Nige1 was not on Facebook. How could there be 98 posts after his one?

:) :) :)

Whereabouts on facebook is the debate?

[AlexJonson]

As usual I'm not so sure at this point in the discussion.

 

When I read the Laws they do not mention adequate time on the clock (whatever that means in Bridge).

 

They do mention slow play to disconcert the opponent.

 

Can dummy draw attention to this? I hope so.

[pran]

As usual I'm not so sure at this point in the discussion.

 

When I read the Laws they do not mention adequate time on the clock (whatever that means in Bridge).

 

They do mention slow play to disconcert the opponent.

 

Can dummy draw attention to this? I hope so.

I don't think so.

 

When I passed my training course to become licensed TD we learned that Dummy could indeed call attention to violations of Proprieties, as these by definition were not part of the laws as such.

 

This changed in 1987 when Proprieties became part of the general law. I believe a consequence of this is that Law 43A1{b} since 1987 applies regardless of the nature of the irregularity.

[blackshoe]

As usual I'm not so sure at this point in the discussion.

 

When I read the Laws they do not mention adequate time on the clock (whatever that means in Bridge).

 

They do mention slow play to disconcert the opponent.

 

Can dummy draw attention to this? I hope so.

 

 

I don't think so.

 

When I passed my training course to become licensed TD we learned that Dummy could indeed call attention to violations of Proprieties, as these by definition were not part of the laws as such.

 

This changed in 1987 when Proprieties became part of the general law. I believe a consequence of this is that Law 43A1{b} since 1987 applies regardless of the nature of the irregularity.

 

Agree with Sven. I have been told by ACBL HQ that dummy is permitted to draw attention to a Zero Tolerance violation, but slow play is not a ZT violation, and the permission would apply only in the ACBL anyway (it's a matter of regulation, not law directly).

[dburn]

My own comment on the Facebook discussion was:

 

Superficially, dummy is in breach of Laws 74A2 and 74B2. If he could have known that these breaches could damage the opponents, the Director may award an adjusted score under Law 23.

 

This has nothing to do with dummy's rights as defined in, for example, Law 9B3:

 

When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

 

which suggests that if slow play is an irregularity per se, a dummy who has not forfeited rights per Laws 42 and 43 may not draw attention to it during the play, but may try to prevent another player from committing it. This is an absurdity: how can dummy prevent his opponents (or his partner) from playing slowly without drawing attention to the fact that his opponents (or his partner) are playing slowly?

 

Is slow play "an irregularity per se"? The Law waffles as follows:

 

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction.

 

a truly ridiculous pronouncement which implies that no declarer should ever think about how to operate a trump coup, nor a defender about whether to attempt a Deschapelles, because doing so may "work to the benefit of their side" (if they actually succeed). I know that this is not what the Law intends, but it is what the Law says; the words "work to the benefit of their side" should be replaced by "convey unauthorized information to partner or deceive an opponent", but the Laws are written in Weasel by sheep for chimpanzees.

 

Assuming that varying one's steady tempo or manner by thinking about how to extract the maximum from the cards one holds is not really illegal even though Law 73D1 says in so many plain words that it is, the Law remarks also that "a player should refrain from [...] prolonging play unnecessarily". Well, defenders who have to think about not chucking overtricks in a pairs event are not prolonging play "unnecessarily", so a dummy who makes some general remark about the speed of play of his opponents is not "attempting to prevent an irregularity" - instead, he is making "a remark [...] that might cause embarrassment or annoyance to another player" (a breach of L74A2) or "a gratuitous comment during the [...] play" (a breach of Law 74B2).

 

But there is a technical question to answer. In an event where timing is a critical factor to the extent that a round or a match that finishes late will attract score penalties for slow play: may dummy, during the play of any particular board, cause a time monitor to be called to the table?

[blackshoe]

I would say that dummy might call a time monitor to the table if the slow play regulations in force (which must exist, otherwise how does the monitor exist?) allow him to do so.

 

The law does say "unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction", but that doesn't mean it's not an irregularity. Not all irregularities are infractions.

[mycroft]

David, is violation of a regulation made persuant to Law 80B2f an irregularity?

 

I realize we can't go direct from "yes" to "slow play that comes close to incurring a penalty is *in itself* violation of the slow play guidelines".

[jallerton]

Is slow play "an irregularity per se"? The Law waffles as follows:

 

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction.

 

a truly ridiculous pronouncement which implies that no declarer should ever think about how to operate a trump coup, nor a defender about whether to attempt a Deschapelles, because doing so may "work to the benefit of their side" (if they actually succeed). I know that this is not what the Law intends, but it is what the Law says; the words "work to the benefit of their side" should be replaced by "convey unauthorized information to partner or deceive an opponent", but the Laws are written in Weasel by sheep for chimpanzees.

 

David, I believe it was you who recently remarked of a particular partner: "I hate it when he starts thinking. He always does the wrong thing". Presumably this particular partner does not breach this Law other than in the circumstances intended by the lawmakers.

[dburn]

I am not sure I understand mycroft's question, but I will do my best to answer it.

 

Violation of any regulation made in accordance with Law 80B2f is an irregularity, and as far as I can tell and as far as my own opinion goes is subject to rectification (including disciplinary or procedural penalty) as if that regulation were Law. For example, if the Tournament Organizer says "no cellphones in the playing area", when you are found to have a cellphone you must pay the penalty (the regulation is pursuant to Law 40C3, which says that a player is not entitled to any aid to memory, calculation, or technique, and it may reasonably be held that a cellphone might constitute such an aid).

 

There isn't actually anything in the Laws that embodies the notion that "Bridge Is A Timed Event" (cf. chess, which is a timed event because it has dealt with the problem correctly). It's not illegal to do a whole lot of thinking. Indeed, any "slow play guidelines" (or regulations) are on very shaky legal grounds - what Law says that I can't pause for a minute (or an hour) before every call or play that I make? You might claim that I am prolonging play unnecessarily, but I might claim that I need the time to make sure I can play to the best of my ability - if I were compelled to play faster, I would be in breach of Laws 74A and 75B1.

 

The only way to make sure that I don't do "too much thinking" at the expense of my opponents or the field or the smooth running of the event is to allocate an overall time (in minutes and seconds) during which I can do "my" thinking for the match, or the round, or the session, or whatever (and my partner and opponents likewise). But to implement any kind of Law or regulation which acknowledges this simple truth has always been regarded as infeasible. So we muddle along: "try to catch up on the next round" says the director at the club; "both sides are equally responsible when a match finishes late unless a monitor has been called" say the international regulations, but no one has yet had the courage to summon a monitor before playing board one against tut-tut-tut or what's-his-name or also - well, you know who.

[aguahombre]

I really hope the reason for all this is to make sure a director would be on firm ground when he rules against dummy, and not some people attempting to excuse his antics and let him get away with it.

[mfa1010]

Here is what I think:

 

I think dummy ought to be executed. First daylight, riffles, bang. :angry:

 

I don't think there could be redress though. The causal relation to the concrete defensive error is too weak. Unless there is more to it than what is described in OP.

 

On the other hand I think penalty points are justified. Unfortunately directors tend not to realize this.

[blackshoe]

Law 43A1{c}: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Introduction to the laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”

 

A PP is not only justified, it's very nearly required. As you say, though, TDs don't. We're taught, by example if nothing else, to be stingy in giving PPs - to the point that some TDs, at club level at least, refuse to give them at all.

[pran]

Introduction to the laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”

 

A PP is not only justified, it's very nearly required. As you say, though, TDs don't. We're taught, by example if nothing else, to be stingy in giving PPs - to the point that some TDs, at club level at least, refuse to give them at all.

Count me in: At club level I hardly ever give PP, but be sure that I tell the offender they must never do whatever it was that they did: "It will result in a significant penalty in a more serious event".

 

At this level I consider education much more called for than penalties.

[blackshoe]

And what do you do after the 93rd time you've "educated" some particular player?

[pran]

And what do you do after the 93rd time you've "educated" some particular player?

The second time I experience the same irregularity committed deliberately by the same player I shall say to him that as he just ignored me and continued behaving unacceptably he will notice the consequence in his final results (just like any other player who deliberately ignores warnings).

 

Players know that I am serious, and I cannot remember last time anybody just ignored my instructions like that.

[blackshoe]

The second time I experience the same irregularity committed deliberately by the same player I shall say to him that as he just ignored me and continued behaving unacceptably he will notice the consequence in his final results (just like any other player who deliberately ignores warnings).

 

Players know that I am serious, and I cannot remember last time anybody just ignored my instructions like that.

 

Does that mean you'll give him a PP for the second time?

 

The reason I said "93rd time" was partly for effect, and partly because IME giving warnings is just about the only thing most club TDs around here do. They never get around to the actual "giving a PP" thing. Reminds me of Heinlein's comments on how to raise a dog. B-)

[pran]

Does that mean you'll give him a PP for the second time?

 

The reason I said "93rd time" was partly for effect, and partly because IME giving warnings is just about the only thing most club TDs around here do. They never get around to the actual "giving a PP" thing. Reminds me of Heinlein's comments on how to raise a dog. B-)

Could be, yes.

Depending on the situation any player who apparently deliberately and intentionally violates Law 90B8 is in for a "surprise" from me.

(But I cannot remember any time during my more than 30 years of directing that such a situation has arised)

[blackshoe]

So let me get this straight. If a player commits an infraction where he does not do something the law says he "must" do, for which the law says a PP should be issued "more often than not", you will not issue a PP unless (1) you have already told the player to do what the law says he must, and (2) he apparently deliberately and intentionally ignores your instruction. Further, the PP will be for violation of 90B8, not the original infraction. Is that right? If so, what happened to "the TD is bound by these laws"?

 

It sounds an awful lot like you're saying "whatever the law says, my thirty years of experience says different, so I'm not going to do what the law tells me to do". :(

[pran]

So let me get this straight. If a player commits an infraction where he does not do something the law says he "must" do, for which the law says a PP should be issued "more often than not", you will not issue a PP unless (1) you have already told the player to do what the law says he must, and (2) he apparently deliberately and intentionally ignores your instruction. Further, the PP will be for violation of 90B8, not the original infraction. Is that right? If so, what happened to "the TD is bound by these laws"?

 

It sounds an awful lot like you're saying "whatever the law says, my thirty years of experience says different, so I'm not going to do what the law tells me to do". :(

You must have overlooked the most important part of my comment?

 

Let me put it this way: In many situations I deliberately rule differently in an ordinary club event from how I rule in a national championship. (And in general I am more lenient in the former, except that I shall never knowingly compromize the interests of an NOS.)

[gnasher]

The way the question is phrased, the answer is "not necessarily". For the non-offenders to be entiled to redress, the infraction must have caused or contributed to the misdefence.

 

By the way, most of the (now 118) messages on the Facebook page are discussing a different question - how to restore equity and/or penalise the offender.

[Vampyr]

The way the question is phrased, the answer is "not necessarily". For the non-offenders to be entiled to redress, the infraction must have caused or contributed to the misdefence.

 

By the way, most of the (now 118) messages on the Facebook page are discussing a different question - how to restore equity and/or penalise the offender.

 

What is the URL of the Facebook page? Can people who are not on Facebook read it/post on it?

[blackshoe]

You must have overlooked the most important part of my comment?

 

Let me put it this way: In many situations I deliberately rule differently in an ordinary club event from how I rule in a national championship. (And in general I am more lenient in the former, except that I shall never knowingly compromize the interests of an NOS.)

 

Which part of which comment was that?

 

I don't have a problem with ruling differently at different levels. I don't have a problem with "education is more important at club level than penalizing". I do have a problem with "at clubs, we do not issue PPs except in very rare cases" (most of which seem to be "the player didn't do what I told him to").

 

If, at a club, I was ruling on a case where a player didn't do something the law says he "must" do, I would tell him that the law says he must do whatever it is, and if I get called again because he didn't do it, I will issue a PP for the failure to do what he must do, not for failing to do what I told him. And if I do get called again, having told him that, I will issue a PP. For a lot of club players, "if you do that at a tournament you will get a PP" does no good, either because they don't care ("I don't play at tournaments") or because they don't believe it (whether it's true or not).

 

As far as most of the club TDs around here are concerned, there's no such thing as a PP. :( I think we need to get away from that attitude.

 

I am happy to explain to players that the laws assign, by their wording, a hierarchy of when a PP should be applied ("should do" will rarely get one, "must do" will most often get one). This should be true at clubs just as much as it is at tournaments, even though we are generally more lenient, in favor of education at clubs. I also think that if TDs are fair and objective about when and why they give PPs, they will find that their fears about players leaving the club in droves will have been unfounded. <shrug> Maybe I'd believe differently if I owned a club, but I doubt it.