The little things that they do

[pran]

Yes. I am sure Declarer starting to pull from hand or starting to say something is a valid trigger.

Absolutely. But be aware that once Declarer has completed his play from the wrong hand it is too late. In that case it is not an attempt to prevent an irregularity but calling attention to the irregularity committed.

 

So dummy may try to prevent Declarer's play from the wrong hand, but only after Declarer has started to do so and before Declarer has actually exposed a card from his own hand in an act of playing it, pulled a card from Dummy or completed his call for a card from Dummy.

[aguahombre]

Excellent clarification of the whole thing. IMO, that kind of post should happen more often. It serves the non-regular readers for whom it might not be obvious.

[blackshoe]

Excellent clarification of the whole thing. IMO, that kind of post should happen more often. It serves the non-regular readers for whom it might not be obvious.

We do try to do that, even if we don't always succeed.

[iviehoff]

Yes. I am sure Declarer starting to pull from hand or starting to say something is a valid trigger.

So it's sufficient, but is it necessary? Maybe you can exercise your right to prevent an irregularity merely on the grounds taht it might occur. And, after all, if declarer is allowed to be warned off an attempt to lead from the wrong hand, why wait to warn him?

[aguahombre]

So it's sufficient, but is it necessary? Maybe you can exercise your right to prevent an irregularity merely on the grounds taht it might occur. And, after all, if declarer is allowed to be warned off an attempt to lead from the wrong hand, why wait to warn him?

Refer back a couple ticks to Pran's post.

[barmar]

It's a matter of finding the boundary between preventing an irregularity and "participating in the play". The common understanding is that this boundary is when declarer does something that explicitly suggests he's about to commit the irregularity.

[pran]

It's a matter of finding the boundary between preventing an irregularity and "participating in the play". The common understanding is that this boundary is when declarer does something that explicitly suggests he's about to commit the irregularity.

Precisely!

[iviehoff]

Refer back a couple ticks to Pran's post.

I was aware of it. You said it was excellent, and it was indeed excellent in its clarity and confidence. But for it to be fully excellent we need to check whether it is also correct. It may well be correct, but that was not fully evident to me, and I was drawing attention to a shortage of evidence for part of it. I think what Barmar said is relevant to this.

[blackshoe]

You can rest easy, Iviehoff, Sven is right.

[broze]

You still have to hunt for the ones that are different, and could easily miss one. Using a different way of highlighting your non-standard leads avoids this difficulty. This is the information the opponents most need, it should stand out.

 

Yes, this.

 

After having yet another opponent ask "Why have you underlined leads that aren't even part of your system? - it's confusing", I've come to the conclusion that you guys are in the minority although I do have sympathy. I blame the EBU CC.

[MickyB]

After having yet another opponent ask "Why have you underlined leads that aren't even part of your system? - it's confusing", I've come to the conclusion that you guys are in the minority although I do have sympathy. I blame the EBU CC.

 

I've never had any such complaints, perhaps because I only play tournament bridge so most oppo are familiar with the EBU CC's request to "clearly mark the card normally led if different from the underlined card". How are you marking the card you lead? I just have the card in "Arial Black" and bold.

 

In any case, perhaps this is the best solution -

 

H x x x

T x x x

[Trinidad]

You can rest easy, Iviehoff, Sven is right.

If Sven would be right, he would have referred to a Law in the book. Sven is right, but Barry is more right: This is not specified in the laws, it is "common understanding".

 

That means that it won't be as easy as some suggest to do something about dummies who tell declarer after each trick in which hand he is:

 

You call the TD. He comes, you explain what happened and the TD tells the dummy that he is not allowed to tell declarer whether he is in hand or in dummy. Your opponent is surprised:

- "Wasn't there a law that specifically allowed me to prevent an irregularity by declarer? Wasn't that part of dummy's rights somewhere? Or did they change that? And leading from the wrong hand is an irregularity, isn't it?".

The TD explains: "You are preventing too early. Now you are participating in the play."

- "Participating in the play?! I am not suggesting what cards he should play. I am merely preventing an irregularity."

"Well, but you are preventing too early anyway.."

- "Well, I always say 'Don't put off to tomorrow what you can do today' and my mother always said 'It's better to be safe than sorry'. Is there a law that says when I am preventing too early? I guess there must be."

"Well ... err ... no, there is no such law, but it's just common understanding, so..."

- "Now I have never heard of that. There is no such law, so then it should be allowed. But you say that it is common understanding. I have never heard of this understanding, so it can't be that common."

"Well ... err ... Barmar told the people at the BBF laws forum that this is a common understanding."

- "What?!? So Barmar needed to point this out to this crowd of experienced TDs that are regulars on the BBF laws forum? If these guys didn't even know this, then it can't be that common, can it?"

"Blast!"

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

You could make a living writing fiction, Rik. ;)

[Trinidad]

You could make a living writing fiction, Rik. ;)

Who knows, maybe after I retire :) but I like my current job too much to switch careers.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Fiction, based on fallacy. The posts by Sven and Barry were not aimed at the experienced directors who participate in these fora. They were for the edification of casual readers. It seems that they might have been helpful to some of each.

[barmar]

Rik's dialogue actually makes me doubt my earlier conclusion.

 

Maybe we can rule against it on grounds of 74A2: dummy doing this before every trick is annoying, like card snapping.

 

On the other hand, could dummy use the same justification to remind declarer what suit was led, to prevent a revoke (in addition to his ability to prevent an established revoke by asking after a failure to follow suit)?

[nige1]

IMO it's more important for players than directors to be able to learn and understand the rules of Bridge. Players are expected to comply with the rules in real time. Whereas, directors can refer to relevant laws, regulations, minutes, and conditions of contest, as necessary. Directors can also consult with other directors to discover when the official interpretation conflicts with rules as written..

[Trinidad]

Rik's dialogue actually makes me doubt my earlier conclusion.

 

Maybe we can rule against it on grounds of 74A2: dummy doing this before every trick is annoying, like card snapping.

Precisely!

 

Rik

[pran]

If Sven would be right, he would have referred to a Law in the book. Sven is right, but Barry is more right: This is not specified in the laws, it is "common understanding".

 

That means that it won't be as easy as some suggest to do something about dummies who tell declarer after each trick in which hand he is:

 

You call the TD. He comes, you explain what happened and the TD tells the dummy that he is not allowed to tell declarer whether he is in hand or in dummy. Your opponent is surprised:

- "Wasn't there a law that specifically allowed me to prevent an irregularity by declarer? Wasn't that part of dummy's rights somewhere? Or did they change that? And leading from the wrong hand is an irregularity, isn't it?".

The TD explains: "You are preventing too early. Now you are participating in the play."

- "Participating in the play?! I am not suggesting what cards he should play. I am merely preventing an irregularity."

"Well, but you are preventing too early anyway.."

- "Well, I always say 'Don't put off to tomorrow what you can do today' and my mother always said 'It's better to be safe than sorry'. Is there a law that says when I am preventing too early? I guess there must be."

"Well ... err ... no, there is no such law, but it's just common understanding, so..."

- "Now I have never heard of that. There is no such law, so then it should be allowed. But you say that it is common understanding. I have never heard of this understanding, so it can't be that common."

"Well ... err ... Barmar told the people at the BBF laws forum that this is a common understanding."

- "What?!? So Barmar needed to point this out to this crowd of experienced TDs that are regulars on the BBF laws forum? If these guys didn't even know this, then it can't be that common, can it?"

"Blast!"

 

Rik

Dummy preventing Declarer from playing from the wrong hand is a specific exception (Law 42B2) from the general Law that Dummy may not participate in the play (Law 43A1{c}). I am surprised that I should have had to quote these Laws in my submission.

 

Remember also the last clause in Law 43A1{c}: nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer

There is a very fine line between "preventing an irregularity" and "communicate anything about the play", this line is crossed at the very moment the irregularity is initiated.

[blackshoe]

Um. I would have said "completed," not "initiated". Declarer calls "four of..." Is dummy not permitted to notify declarer at this point that he is in his hand? After all, the call for a card from dummy has already been initiated.

[WellSpyder]

Um. I would have said "completed," not "initiated". Declarer calls "four of..." Is dummy not permitted to notify declarer at this point that he is in his hand? After all, the call for a card from dummy has already been initiated.

I think you and pran are at cross-purposes. The line has to be crossed twice - once to get from "communicating anything about the play" territory into "preventing an irregularity", and once to get you back into the normal "communicating anything about the play" territory. "initiated" marks one crossing point, "completing" marks the other one. So I think you are actually saying the same thing in different ways.....

[blackshoe]

So just to clarify, if partner has not initiated an irregularity and does not appear to be about to do so, saying something is "communicating about the play". If he has initiated an irregularity or appears to be about to do so, saying something is "attempting to prevent an irregularity". If the irregularity has been completed, we're back to "communicating about the play". That matches my understanding, at least. B-)

[Trinidad]

So just to clarify, if partner has not initiated an irregularity and does not appear to be about to do so, saying something is "communicating about the play". If he has initiated an irregularity or appears to be about to do so, saying something is "attempting to prevent an irregularity". If the irregularity has been completed, we're back to "communicating about the play". That matches my understanding, at least. B-)

That matches everybody's understanding and IMO it is the way to think... but the law says something else.

 

The law deals with preventing an irregularity. Prevention takes places before the irregularity, i.e. before it starts. You are keeping matches out of reach for your kids to prevent a fire (before it starts). It is a good idea to use a fire extinguisher once a fire is initiated, but at that time we are not preventing a fire anymore, we are fighting the fire to limit the consequences.

 

Similarly, once the irregularity has been initiated ("four of.."), we cannot prevent it anymore. We can only limit the consequences. That is a good idea (we are all on the same page there) but it's not what the law says.

 

Rik

[barmar]

Similarly, once the irregularity has been initiated ("four of.."), we cannot prevent it anymore. We can only limit the consequences. That is a good idea (we are all on the same page there) but it's not what the law says.

That's how I generally view it. Once he says "four of..." it's too late. But if he says "Umm..." and starts gesturing towards dummy, I might be able to stop him.

 

It's easier when it's the other way around. If he's in dummy, and you see him start to detach a card from his hand, you can (and may) say something.

[aguahombre]

That's how I generally view it. Once he says "four of..." it's too late.

Is it still too late if there happen to be zero or all the fours in dummy?