Dummy's antics

[mycroft]

David, thanks. That's very useful.

 

Where I was going with that was, of course, that the "slow play penalties" for "exceeding the time limit for the match" are regulations made under that law, and therefore behaviour that leads to such a penalty is in fact an "irregularity per se" in matches played under those regulations - which affects your initial Facebook response.

 

Where that leads us in the full discussion, of course, is very little.

[aguahombre]

All this diversion about slow play being an irregularity does not coincide with what the OP originally gave us.

 

Although there was plenty of time on the clock, Dummy attempted to rush the defenders. At the level of players also given in the OP, what this would lead me to believe is that not only "could dummy have known" that what he was doing might disconcert the opps into an error, but also increases the likelihood that it was his intent (which I could not prove).

[AlexJonson]

I would think that if it is the heinous dummy that is causing the problem, either defender could call the TD if they feel themselves innocent practitioners of legitimate thought.

 

They might tell the TD that they were 'upset' and might need a later adjustment. It would of course be a matter of TD judgement how upset they were.

 

Sometimes we refer to chess, and there was a famously reported incident from the 1930s(?) Player A complains his oppo's smoking is putting him off. The arbiter persuades B to not smoke at the table. Later A calls the arbiter because he can sense that B wants to smoke, and it is putting him off.

 

While I am aware of and accustomed to the rules restricting dummy, I'm very surprised at how emotional poeple feel about it:

 

'Dummmy must not ...' - was this not aimed against dummy suggesting plays to the declarer, rather than making (doubtless unacceptable) comments to the defenders about their pace of play, the cut of their jackets, or whatever.

[pran]

Which part of which comment was that?

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.

(True I didn't explicitly specify how I react when a player deliberatly disobeys my instructions)

 

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).

It appears to me that we say precisely the same, only using different words?

 

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.

Agreed

[gnasher]

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

You have to be both a member of Facebook, and a Facebook friend of the person who posted it. Anyway, I can promise you that it's not a very interesting discussion.

[blackshoe]

I guess we are on the same page then. B-)

[gnasher]

Regarding dummy's right to say something, what's wrong with this logic?

- The regulations specify when the round should finish

- Finishing the round late is a breach of the regulations

- A breach of the regulations is an infraction, and therefore also an irregularity

- Any player may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity.

[gordontd]

Regarding dummy's right to say something, what's wrong with this logic?

- The regulations specify when the round should finish

- Finishing the round late is a breach of the regulations

- A breach of the regulations is an infraction, and therefore also an irregularity

- Any player may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity.

We do generally expect that the players actually be in danger of committing the irregularity before dummy attempts to stop them, and this doesn't seem to have been the case here.

 

I'm slightly puzzled though that such strong players allow this sort of trivial comment (that could legitimately have been made by declarer) to distract them to the point of mis-defence.

[gnasher]

We do generally expect that the players actually be in danger of committing the irregularity before dummy attempts to stop them, and this doesn't seem to have been the case here.

Suppose that the table had actually been short of time. Would it then have been legal for dummy to say something?

[aguahombre]

Suppose that the table had actually been short of time. Would it then have been legal for dummy to say something?

Dunno about "legal", but it might change my opinion about dummy's intent as he was saying it :rolleyes:

[gordontd]

Suppose that the table had actually been short of time. Would it then have been legal for dummy to say something?

It would at least be consistent with your argument above.

 

But no, dummy's right to attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity is subject to Laws 42 and 43, which only allow him to try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. I think it's implied in the original post that it was the defenders who were being presented as the cause of the suggested slowness.

 

In answer to the original question, I don't think the defenders have any redress (and as I've already remarked I'm surprised that top-class players allow themselves to be disturbed by such a mild remark), but I do think dummy's comment might merit a PP.

[gnasher]

I see. When Law 9A3 says "any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)", it actually means "any player except dummy may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity; for dummy's rights see Laws 42 and 43". Edited July 9, 2011 by gnasher

[gordontd]

I see. When Law 9A3 says "any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)", it actually means "any player except dummy may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity; for dummy's rights see Laws 42 and 43".

That's my understanding of it. Let's see if anyone else reads it differently.

 

I have had a look in the White Book, and the relevant bits (from Ton Koojman) don't really clarify it to my mind.

[gordontd]

Well, I tried to phone bluejak, mamos & Max Bavin to see what they thought, but none of them were available. I did manage to speak to RMB1 in a taxi on the way to the airport to go to Australia, and we came to the conclusion, comparing it with the previous laws, that it was probably the intention that dummy should be able to try to prevent an irregularity by defenders, but that this hasn't been very clearly expressed in the cross-referencing.

 

Or maybe you do think it is clear, Andy?

[gnasher]

Or maybe you do think it is clear, Andy?

I don't think it's "clear" in the sense of being easy to understand. In fact, it's almost a model of obfuscation.

 

I do, however, think that when you read 9A3, 42 and 43 together, there's only one reasonable interpretation: Law 9A3 doesn't extend dummy's rights beyond what is granted in Law 42, so dummy can't try to prevent an irregularity by a defender.

[axman]

I don't think it's "clear" in the sense of being easy to understand. In fact, it's almost a model of obfuscation.

 

I do, however, think that when you read 9A3, 42 and 43 together, there's only one reasonable interpretation: Law 9A3 doesn't extend dummy's rights beyond what is granted in Law 42, so dummy can't try to prevent an irregularity by a defender.

 

After reading 9/42/43 42B gives dummy permission via 9A3 to attempt to prevent an irregularity so long as the limitations of L43 are not breached. L42 lists rights but does not state that are the all inclusive list and even suggests that it is not an all inclusive list. It may well be impossible for dummy to thus prevent an irregularity by a defender, thus making it mute; and as my head doesn't want to contemplate figuring out such permutations I guess that it won't.

[blackshoe]

I remember having a discussion about this with somebody somewhere a while back. I think we came, then, to the same conclusion Andy does now. Dummy does have the right to point out a quitted card turned incorrectly (Law 65B3).

[gordontd]

I don't think it's "clear" in the sense of being easy to understand. In fact, it's almost a model of obfuscation.

 

I do, however, think that when you read 9A3, 42 and 43 together, there's only one reasonable interpretation: Law 9A3 doesn't extend dummy's rights beyond what is granted in Law 42, so dummy can't try to prevent an irregularity by a defender.

So you're agreeing with my first reading of it. That's somewhat reassuring :)

 

I did speak to Max about this later last night, but he was in the pub and neither of us had a law-book to hand. However he did say that the background to the changes in Law 9 from the previous lawbook had nothing to do with extending dummy's rights and were only prompted by a desire to extend defenders' rights to try to prevent irregularities.

[gordontd]

I remember having a discussion about this with somebody somewhere a while back. I think we came, then, to the same conclusion Andy does now. Dummy does have the right to point out a quitted card turned incorrectly (Law 65B3).

I'm not sure I understand this at all - unless you intended the final sentence to be quite independent of the first part of your post.

[blackshoe]

I was trying to point out that the privilege extended to dummy by Law 65B3 is an exception to the limitations in Law 43.

[pran]

I was trying to point out that the privilege extended to dummy by Law 65B3 is an exception to the limitations in Law 43.

Quite true, but

Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly is pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

So this right expires with a lead to the following trick.

[blackshoe]

Yes, but it does so for everyone, not just dummy. It was dummy's limitations we were talking about.

[aguahombre]

So this right expires with a lead to the following trick.

 

 

Yes, but it does so for everyone, not just dummy.

Are you sure about that? It seems as if the wording "these players" in 65B3 is intended to refer to dummy and defenders only, or it would not have used the term "these players" as opposed to any player.

[blackshoe]

You're right, the expiration does not apply to declarer.

[bluejak]

All this diversion about slow play being an irregularity does not coincide with what the OP originally gave us.

 

Although there was plenty of time on the clock, Dummy attempted to rush the defenders. At the level of players also given in the OP, what this would lead me to believe is that not only "could dummy have known" that what he was doing might disconcert the opps into an error, but also increases the likelihood that it was his intent (which I could not prove).

Excuse me, who said he tried to rush the defenders?

 

First, he might think there is a time problem so he is just worrying about everyone.

 

Second if he is rushing anyone, why is not the three other players?

 

You have to be both a member of Facebook, and a Facebook friend of the person who posted it. Anyway, I can promise you that it's not a very interesting discussion.

True. It is a very worrying thing when most of the sense being posted is by Andy Bowles! :lol: :)

 

Well, I tried to phone bluejak, mamos & Max Bavin to see what they thought, but none of them were available. I did manage to speak to RMB1 in a taxi on the way to the airport to go to Australia, and we came to the conclusion, comparing it with the previous laws, that it was probably the intention that dummy should be able to try to prevent an irregularity by defenders, but that this hasn't been very clearly expressed in the cross-referencing.

 

Or maybe you do think it is clear, Andy?

I am not sure that it does, but it is basically unclear. But if they are running out of time, dummy is trying to prevent declarer from committing a time irregularity so the bit about defenders is irrelevant.