Decide democratically or autocratically ?

[AndreSteff]

Declarer plays a small slam in spades.

A small diamond is led.

Dummy has KQ9, declarer 75.

Declarer's RHO now starts asking about the meaning of declarer's 5♦ bid as answer to dummy's 4NT key card asking.

In the mean time dummy has put the 9 of diamonds in the played position and declarer's RHO produces the Jack.

Declarer now indignantly asks what dummy and RHO think they are doing: he of course wants to play a high diamond.

 

The opponents call for the TD.

Both opponents and dummy say that they have heard declarer utter "a small diamond." Declarer vehemently denies this: he was pondering the play of the hand as one should after dummy has been tabled and he had not yet designated any card from dummy.

 

The opponents think declarer is outvoted, by his own parter no less.

So the nine is played then?

[blackshoe]

Not necessarily. A bridge game is not a democracy. However, the TD is required to rule on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence. We have three pieces of evidence (two of them self-serving) that indicate he called for a small diamond. However, declarer's and dummy's diamond holdings suggest that he would not have called for a small diamond, and the vehemence of declarer's reaction seems to support this suggestion. On balance, I'm leaning in declarer's favor, but I'd like to know if he has a habit of mumbling when he's thinking, and whether he always takes time to think about the hand before playing to trick one.

[ggwhiz]

Dummy has no vote and declarer rules.

[blackshoe]

Dummy has no vote and declarer rules.

 

I don't think there's a legal basis for these assertions.

[aguahombre]

Dummy has no vote and declarer rules.

I don't think there's a legal basis for these assertions.

Nor should there be. Dummy is better placed to recognize the mumblings and mutterings of his own partner. However, in this case we have 4th hand creating a distraction before dummy plays, and the likelihood that neither he nor dummy was paying attention to what declarer was saying.

 

Hence, like Blackshoe, I think I would heavily lean toward declarer's version of whether he called for a card and which one.

[Cascade]

Whether or not declarer played the ♦9 I do not know. There is nothing in the narrative convincing.

 

However RHO has infracted by asking questions at not his turn. It is clear that this question out of turn contributed to any confusion.

 

Therefore unless there is strong evidence to the contrary I will rule against east-west and remind east that he should wait his turn before asking questions.

[mycroft]

Interestingly enough, I was looking at this Law just yesterday, for a different reason.

 

It does depend on when RHO started asking her questions, but assuming that it was *after* the ♦9 was "played" by dummy, I think that everything was fine by RHO - but that the ♦K is still to be played.

 

Law 57C1:

A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands nor if dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played.

I would suggest that anything I could do "at my turn to play" should also not be subject to rectification, for exactly this case's reason. Declarer should, of course, refrain from answering until he does play from dummy - but ah well.

 

But it's inconceivable that declarer called for the low diamond, so the ♦K is played (when declarer does, in fact, get around to calling a card), the ♦9J [edit: thanks Ed] is picked up (AI to defenders, UI to declarer), and we continue on.

 

I was actually dummy in an almost equivalent call in Toronto. Diamond was played from Q8x, the opponents playing the 10 and the 9. Declarer then calls for the 8 - and, when told that it's not her play, became very surprised that the ♦Q was still on the table, because she played it to the last trick... I have a much higher level of "didn't hear you clearly, say again" with this partner since then!

 

Obviously, with 3 vs 1 one should lean toward the 3, but the Law says (L85A1):

In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

- and the actual hand and bridge logic is evidence that carries some weight!

[blackshoe]

The ♦9 is UI to declarer? What, exactly, does that mean?

[aguahombre]

The ♦9 is UI to declarer? What, exactly, does that mean?

No, what he was talking about had nothing to do with the OP, who stated that 4th chair began the jabber before the card was "played"; therefore nothing to do with the propriety of that person asking questions at a particular time.

[blackshoe]

What, exactly, was the timeline of events in the OP, AndreSteff?

[AndreSteff]

What, exactly, was the timeline of events in the OP, AndreSteff?

• lead of a small diamond
  
• Dummy tables his hand
  
• Dummy puts the nine of diamonds in the played position because he thinks declarer asks him to play small.
  
• Declarer's RHO plays the Jack/starts asking questions while declarer is pondering the play of the hand.
  
• Declarere wakes up and states that he wants to play the King and that he does not understand what dummy and RHO think they are up to.
  

[aguahombre]

• lead of a small diamond
  
• Dummy tables his hand
  
• Dummy puts the nine of diamonds in the played position because he thinks declarer asks him to play small.
  
• Declarer's RHO plays the Jack/starts asking questions while declarer is pondering the play of the hand.
  
• Declarere wakes up and states that he wants to play the King and that he does not understand what dummy and RHO think they are up to.
  

So, the time line changes after we waste our time paying attention to the original and discussing the timing of the questions by Declarer's RHO.

 

Wonder how Blackshoe knew to ask if the timeline was different than originally stated.

[AndreSteff]

So, the time line changes after we waste our time paying attention to the original and discussing the timing of the questions by Declarer's RHO.

 

Wonder how Blackshoe knew to ask if the timeline was different than originally stated.

 

I am sorry if I wasted anybody's time. To me the two descriptions do not fundamentally differ.

[pran]

I am sorry if I wasted anybody's time. To me the two descriptions do not fundamentally differ.

They do.

 

There is a major difference whether East began asking before or after the first card was apparently played from dummy.

 

East is free to ask questions about the auction after West has placed his opening lead face down on the table until West faces his opening lead, and then again after declarer has played the first card from dummy until East has played his own card to that trick.

[campboy]

So, the time line changes after we waste our time paying attention to the original and discussing the timing of the questions by Declarer's RHO.

 

Wonder how Blackshoe knew to ask if the timeline was different than originally stated.

I don't think it is. The OP said that RHO starts asking questions and in the mean time (i.e. before this) dummy has put a card in the played position.

[mycroft]

The ♦9 is UI to declarer? What, exactly, does that mean?

My apologies, the J (RHO's card). Eye cross.

[aguahombre]

I don't think it is. The OP said that RHO starts asking questions and in the mean time (i.e. before this) dummy has put a card in the played position.

In my world "meantime" would be in the middle..after questions started and before answers were completed. I never knew meantime to be before something.

[barmar]

In my world "meantime" would be in the middle..after questions started and before answers were completed. I never knew meantime to be before something.

That's what I thought, too. In fact, my first guess was that when the question was asked about the 5♦ call, dummy thought he heard "nine of diamonds". Although this wouldn't explain why RHO also thought he heard this card called, since the question came out of their own mouth.

[aguahombre]

That's what I thought, too. In fact, my first guess was that when the question was asked about the 5♦ call, dummy thought he heard "nine of diamonds". Although this wouldn't explain why RHO also thought he heard this card called, since the question came out of their own mouth.

there is no real indication that RHO didn't just follow suit after the nine, and then stayed true to form.

[blackshoe]

In my world "meantime" would be in the middle..after questions started and before answers were completed. I never knew meantime to be before something.

 

"In the meantime" means the same thing as "meanwhile", so the OP suggests that declarer's RHO started asking questions before dummy placed a card in the played position. Note that I use the construction "placed in the played position" purposefully — dummy cannot "play" a card, in spite of the fact that the laws sometimes refer to him as having done so. See Law 45B.

 

Given the revised time line, I want to know exactly what dummy thought he heard, and when he thought he heard it.

[campboy]

In my world "meantime" would be in the middle..after questions started and before answers were completed. I never knew meantime to be before something.

Meantime can be before something when it indicates between two things. OP said that LHO leads, RHO starts asking and in the meantime (i.e., in between) dummy has moved the card.

 

It can't in this context mean in the middle of the second thing, since it ("starts asking") is not a continuous action. During the asking would actually be after the previous action mentioned.

[bluejak]

But it's inconceivable that declarer called for the low diamond, so ...

No, it is not. Players do irrational things from time to time, often being unable to explain even to themselves why they did it. Think about revoking: you could argue that it is inconceivable a player would revoke - but they do.

 

:ph34r:

 

In general this sort of decision is one the TD just has to make after considering and weighing all the evidence. I would just advise TDs to make their own minds up after listening carefully [including, as Grattan Endicott once remarked, listening to what is not said] but not by following any particular rules. So I would not automatically rule against declarer because it is 3 to 1, nor would I rule for declarer because the play is irrational.

[c_corgi]

It is not clear from the OP that playing the 9 is irrational. If there is nowhere else to look for the 12th trick, declarer may have to judge whether LHO has underled the Ace or the Jack-Ten.