Dummy's antics

[bluejak]

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.

Most of my posts on Facebook have been about this. Did dummy commit an infraction? Yes, I think so. Was it a major infraction? No, of course not. Various suggestions of really serious action against dummy are a joke in very poor taste. Fine him 0.5 or 1 VP or something, no problem. But why do people assume it is serious?

 

Another thing is that some people assume it was done with intent to put off the defenders. That's just silly. Why not declarer?

 

Let me tell you a story. One of England's very best players [he says :)] was playing a hand at Brighton. He asked the old ladies he was playing against about their leads. He asked and asked and asked until he got them thoroughly confused and they would have said anything to shut him up. Then he misguessed and went down in a cold game. He asked for a ruling.

 

Now, there was no real MI. The ladies' first answer before he started harassing them was correct, full and complete, so he got ruled against in double quick time. Was he upset? Oh, no: he returned to his sponsor at the other table and explained that the Directors had put him off in a cold game by their awful ruling.

 

This case reminds me of that one. What really happened? Dummy made a remark he should not have done. After that some top level defenders misdefended. They asked for a ruling, got nothing, but now it is the Directors' fault, not theirs. To say I am unimpressed is completely overstating the case.

[AlexJonson]

I didn't get a sense from this that dummy was preventing declarer from exceeding time limits. Another useful ...story... to tell the TD? I'll have to store it away for the future.

[Cascade]

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.

 

This seems clear from those laws.

[gordontd]

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.

That's certainly not how it was presented. Though I do agree that this part of the discussion is a bit of a red herring.

[blackshoe]

I think that in order to know to whom dummy was speaking, whether it was declarer, one or both defenders, or the table generally, you either had to be there, or you have to know the exact words used. If the comment was simply "play is too slow", dummy has called attention to an irregularity, because the play to which the comment refers has already happened. This is a violation of

43A1{b}: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

Fair enough. What rectification does the law provide? That's unclear. There is

Law 43B1: Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 and A2 above.

If this is not intended as rectification, then it's redundant. Dummy is liable to penalty even if this law doesn't exist. If it is intended as rectification, then at least it precludes the director from adjusting the score (see Law 12B2). In either case, I agree with David. A small PP is probably appropriate ("may not" is a pretty serious prohibition), but that's all this case deserves.

[gnasher]

I think that in order to know to whom dummy was speaking, whether it was declarer, one or both defenders, or the table generally, you either had to be there, or you have to know the exact words used. If the comment was simply "play is too slow", dummy has called attention to an irregularity, because the play to which the comment refers has already happened. This is a violation of Fair enough. What rectification does the law provide? That's unclear. There is If this is not intended as rectification, then it's redundant. Dummy is liable to penalty even if this law doesn't exist. If it is intended as rectification, then at least it precludes the director from adjusting the score (see Law 12B2). In either case, I agree with David. A small PP is probably appropriate ("may not" is a pretty serious prohibition), but that's all this case deserves.

Law 90 deals with procedural penalties. A procedural penalty cannot be intended as rectification, because it is (from the Definitions) "additional to any rectification".

[blackshoe]

Then, as I said, Law 43B1 is redundant.

 

Added: Since a PP is not rectification, the door would seem to be left open to adjust the score under Law 12A1, but I don't think that's appropriate here. Among other things, it would set a bad precedent.

Edited July 11, 2011 by blackshoe
additional comments

[pran]

Then, as I said, Law 43B1 is redundant.

 

Added: Since a PP is not rectification, the door would seem to be left open to adjust the score under Law 12A1, but I don't think that's appropriate here. Among other things, it would set a bad precedent.

This part of the discussion is a bit surprising:

1: If defenders can show damage (probably) caused by Dummy's irregularity they can claim rectification under Law 12A1

2: If the Director finds it appropriate he can impose a PP on Dummy under Law 90B

 

Law 43B1 simply enhances this second possibilkity.

[Jeremy69A]

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

 

Thank you for the germ of an idea! :lol:

[bluejak]

The last time anyone asked for a time monitor in the Schapiro Spring Foursomes:

 

• The TDs were accused of bias, being unfair to particular players, and generally everything people could think of in print for many many months afterwards
  
• A complete group of players refused to speak to the player who asked for a monitor for years [literally] afterwards
  
• Most of the rest of the players playing thought it was hilarious
  

The player concerned was penalised twice for slow player in that stanza which was just enough to eliminate his team from the event.

[mycroft]

The player who was asked about, or the player who asked for the monitor, was penalized twice?

[gordontd]

The last time anyone asked for a time monitor in the Schapiro Spring Foursomes:

 

• The TDs were accused of bias, being unfair to particular players, and generally everything people could think of in print for many many months afterwards
  
• A complete group of players refused to speak to the player who asked for a monitor for years [literally] afterwards
  
• Most of the rest of the players playing thought it was hilarious
  

The player concerned was penalised twice for slow player in that stanza which was just enough to eliminate his team from the event.

I'm sure I was asked to be a time monitor this year, possibly more than once.

[bluejak]

The player who was asked about, or the player who asked for the monitor, was penalized twice?

The player who was asked about. Why would anyone penalise someone for asking for a time monitor?

[WellSpyder]

I'm not altogether surprised at Bluejak's story of people not talking to each other for years. I recall asking for a time monitor in the Tollemache (England's main inter-county event) a few years ago after we started a round with two very slow boards. The TD came and watched a number of boards which went at a sensible speed, and then left a few boards before the end of the round since we had caught up with the general speed of play. At that point one of the opponents started berating me for calling for a time monitor and saying she took a very dim view of it, blah, blah, blah - so I called the TD back to remind her of the Better Behaviour at Bridge code! I thought the TD did a very professional job of calming the situation down, particularly by stressing that he had not interpreted the request for a monitor as any suggestion that one side or the other was responsible for the delay, but it did leave me thinking that it would be a step forward if people could try to treat a request for a monitor as no more incendiary than any other request for a TD or ruling. (Yes, I know there are lots of clubs where a call to the TD could also result in people taking great offence, but not generally the people who play in the Tollemache.)

[blackshoe]

While I agree with dburn regarding whether "bridge is a timed event", I find it interesting that the conditions of contest for some major ACBL events (Spingold and Vanderbilt, for example) contain this:

All late finish reports will be presented to the Board of Directors. Chronic appearances on slow lists or wanton disregard of the fact that bridge is a timed event may result in disciplinary penalties.

 

The emphasis is mine. The problem here is that the 500 pound canary may be wrong, but who's going to tell him so?