In which situations can the defenders confer over a ruling?

[zenbiddist]

Hi all,

 

When I started directing, I was under the impression that the defenders were never able to confer mid-hand.

 

Examples

Director asks: "Would you like to accept this insufficient bid?"

Deciding whether to accept declarer's lead from the wrong hand...

Etc

 

However, I was recently told that there is a situation(s) in which the defenders can make a joint decision. Does anyone know which situation(s)?

 

Thanks

[Vampyr]

Hi all,

 

When I started directing, I was under the impression that the defenders were never able to confer mid-hand.

 

Examples

Director asks: "Would you like to accept this insufficient bid?"

Deciding whether to accept declarer's lead from the wrong hand...

Etc

 

However, I was recently told that there is a situation(s) in which the defenders can make a joint decision. Does anyone know which situation(s)?

 

Thanks

 

When declarer leads from the wrong hand, the defender next to play will generally wait a bit before playing a card. This indicates that the defender is indifferent to which hand was led from, and invites partner to tell whether she has a preference.

[zenbiddist]

When declarer leads from the wrong hand, the defender next to play will generally wait a bit before playing a card. This indicates that the defender is indifferent to which hand was led from, and invites partner to tell whether she has a preference.

 

Thanks.

 

What if dummy says "You're in hand" during that wait time. Does the defender who is last to play a card to the LOOT still get to decide whether or not to accept?

[nige1]

What if dummy says "You're in hand" during that wait time. Does the defender who is last to play a card to the LOOT still get to decide whether or not to accept?

Yes and the director might impose a PP on dummy.

 

 

[sfi]

Yes and the director might impose a PP on dummy.

You're going to penalise dummy for doing something that can only damage their side? That's cold.

[weejonnie]

You're going to penalise dummy for doing something that can only damage their side? That's cold.

Why not? - Law 43A1

 

(b) Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

© Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the

play to declarer.

 

Introduction - for clarification

 

"penalised),”shall” do (a violation will incur a 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”.

 

I mean it doesn't happen often but dummy could be a better player than declarer and surmise that declarer is about to take a losing finesse when the drop might work . . .

[sfi]

Why not? - Law 43A1

I'm not saying it's illegal to give a penalty for this action. It's pretty harsh though.

[jvage]

I'm not saying it's illegal to give a penalty for this action. It's pretty harsh though.

 

Also many players and some directors actually think that the instruction in §42B2 "He may try to prevent any irregularity" (Dummy's rights) is valid in this case. Of course it's not (the irregularity has already happened), but it doesn't seem like an action deserving a PP, even if it is a player with some knowledge about the laws.

[weejonnie]

Also many players and some directors actually think that the instruction in §42B2 "He may try to prevent any irregularity" (Dummy's rights) is valid in this case. Of course it's not (the irregularity has already happened), but it doesn't seem like an action deserving a PP, even if it is a player with some knowledge about the laws.

Well the PP can just be a reading of the laws and a warning not to do it again. I don't think fining 25% of a top would be warranted (unless there is a real reason why dummy wants the lead in the correct hand).

[Vampyr]

You're going to penalise dummy for doing something that can only damage their side? That's cold.

 

How are you suggesting it could damage their side? I suppose it can alert the defenders to declarer has led from the wrong hand, but if the defenders are paying attention they will know this anyway.

 

Interesting if dummy says “you’re in your hand”, and declarer now plays a card from hand before the defenders have a chance to say anything.

 

If the declarer’s RHO now chooses to accept the lead from dummy, can declarer change the card from his hand? What happens if it is a revoke?

[sfi]

How are you suggesting it could damage their side? I suppose it can alert the defenders to declarer has led from the wrong hand, but if the defenders are paying attention they will know this anyway.

Tnat's exactly how it can damage the declaring side. Defenders don't always pay perfect attention.

 

Interesting if dummy says “you’re in your hand”, and declarer now plays a card from hand before the defenders have a chance to say anything.

 

If the declarer’s RHO now chooses to accept the lead from dummy, can declarer change the card from his hand? What happens if it is a revoke?

Either defender can accept the lead (if they express different opinions, declarer's RHO has precedence). Declarer can change the card from their hand since they were trying to start the trick again rather than playing both cards to the one trick. Declarer has no penalty cards, which means they can pick up the card from their hand if a defender accepts the lead from dummy. If nobody does, declarer has to lead the chosen card from hand.

[Vampyr]

Declarer can change the card from their hand since they were trying to start the trick again rather than playing both cards to the one trick.

Which law are you using?

 

Declarer has no penalty cards, which means they can pick up the card from their hand if a defender accepts the lead from dummy. If nobody does, declarer has to lead the chosen card from hand.

Declarer also cannot retract a played card, so long as it is legal.

[sfi]

Which law are you using?

I think I can use Law 55B2 by ruling that the lead from dummy is the "correct hand" if the defenders exercise their right to accept it.

 

Making declarer follow with the card they were intending to lead just seems strange and punishing - it's another situation where declarer can't gain an advantage.

[Vampyr]

I think I can use Law 55B2 by ruling that the lead from dummy is the "correct hand" if the defenders exercise their right to accept it.

 

Yes, that seems right.

 

Making declarer follow with the card they were intending to lead just seems strange and punishing - it's another situation where declarer can't gain an advantage.

 

Despite the fact that the current laws are designed to allow an infraction to give a significant advantage to the OS, it does not hold that when there is no advantage to be gained there is no infraction.

[sfi]

Despite the fact that the current laws are designed to allow an infraction to give a significant advantage to the OS, it does not hold that when there is no advantage to be gained there is no infraction.

True, but we don't need to go out of our way to punish these infractions either.

[blackshoe]

…the fact that the current laws are designed to allow an infraction to give a significant advantage to the OS…

An interesting assertion. Can you back it up?

[Vampyr]

An interesting assertion. Can you back it up?

 

This has been discussed at considerable length in these forums.

[nige1]

You're going to penalise dummy for doing something that can only damage their side? That's cold.

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt9876hakdakcak&w=skhjt9876DJT9CJT9&n=SQ32HqQ432DQ32CQ32&a=2CP2DP2SP4SP6S]300|300| A typical case, where the director might consider a PP.

 

Against South's 6♠, West leads ♥J, won by declarer's ♥A.

 

At trick 2, declarer nominates dummy's ♠Q. Defenders are experienced players but neither objects.

 

Dummy hastens to point out "You are in hand".

 

Coming to his senses, declarer, eschews the ♠ finesse, playing safely to make his contract. He is rewarded with an overtrick :)

 

Defenders call the director. IMO he should adjust to 6♠-1 and impose a PP for Dummy's interference in the play.[/hv]

[sfi]

Defenders call the director. IMO he should adjust to 6♠-1 and impose a PP for Dummy's interference in the play.

So the experienced defenders didn't accept the lead or call the director at the time? Why would you adjust the score, and under what law? I'm having a hard time believing that you think the conditions for Law 72C are met on this hand. And how do you know that declarer was going to finesse - I'd be happy to be able to lead the queen and see what RHO does.

 

As for giving a procedural penalty, Id really want to be sure that dummy was experienced enough and knew enough about the hand from the bidding to know that cashing trumps from the top is the right play. I see your point in the abstract, but this doesn't look like the auction to do it. From dummy's point of view, maybe declarer is missing the black kings and is going down if they lose a trump trick.

[Vampyr]

So the experienced defenders didn't accept the lead or call the director at the time? Why would you adjust the score, and under what law? I'm having a hard time believing that you think the conditions for Law 72C are met on this hand. And how do you know that declarer was going to finesse - I'd be happy to be able to lead the queen and see what RHO does.

 

As for giving a procedural penalty, Id really want to be sure that dummy was experienced enough and knew enough about the hand from the bidding to know that cashing trumps from the top is the right play. I see your point in the abstract, but this doesn't look like the auction to do it. From dummy's point of view, maybe declarer is missing the black kings and is going down if they lose a trump trick.

 

Accepting the lead is giving the game away. Maybe declarer wasn’t going to finesse, but I think that as the offending side, he should be deemed to have made the less favourable play. It doesn’t really matter what dummy thinks about the hand; he has no ight to try to play the hand from his side of the table.

 

I would definitely adjust, and probably just give a warning if dummy is a less-experienced player.

[blackshoe]

This has been discussed at considerable length in these forums.

Yeah, well, I guess the assertion must be true then.

[Vampyr]

Yeah, well, I guess the assertion must be true then.

 

I think that the basis for your belief is faulty, but I do know some of the non-bridge beliefs that you have revealed in these forums, so I am not surprised.

[Cascade]

Yes and the director might impose a PP on dummy.

 

Very unlikely in practice I would venture to suggest.

 

There are much more significant infractions for which penalties are not handed out when they should in my view.

 

To be fair to dummy on some occasions the comment might have started as an attempt to prevent an irregularity but was delivered too late.

 

Worse though I have had director's tell me that because I did not say that I was going to accept the lead then I must have rejected it.

[pescetom]

Accepting the lead is giving the game away.

By that logic, the experienced defender should refuse the lead - he has no reason to think that declarer will not retry legally after entering with some Queen. But I think simply playing to the lead is not going to wake up Declarer anyway, he will be much too concentrated on what card is played.

 

It doesn’t really matter what dummy thinks about the hand; he has no right to try to play the hand from his side of the table.

Agreed, if he consciously aimed to obtain an advantage (rather than just "prevent" an infraction) then he fully deserves a PP.

[nige1]

Bridge Rules are too complex. Many are controversial, unnecessary, add no value, and should be scrapped e.g.

• Prevention of pro-questions.
• Insistence that victims protect themselves from opponents' disclosure infractions..
• Denial of redress to the victim who makes a serious error in the mix-up created by law-breaking opponents.
• Bizarre "equity-restoration" kludges to allow players to recover with minimal penalty from mechanical errors (illegal or stupid bids and plays like insufficient bids).
• Denial of redress to victims who don't explain how they've been damaged.
• Almost all system regulations -- for instance alert rules.
• And other local variations,

A more relevant example: condoning irregular behavior by a player who attempts to "prevent" an infraction. e.g.

• Dummy trying to prevent declarer leading from the wrong hand. Often the attempt is belated, causing resentment, or worse, as here..
• Player asking "having none", ostensibly to try to prevent a revoke., This rule provides a careless or unethical partnership with information that might help them to count the hand. It's pure evil. :)

The only justification for such rules is to make the law more sophisticated for the amusement of secretary birds.

 

Bridge-Law Discussion-groups (like this one) illustrate that directors disagree about ruling the simplest cases with undisputed facts, Players fare worse. Bridge rule-makers should gradually work towards a simple set of rules that players and directors can understand. Pulling the chain on unnecessary rules might be a good start.