[bluejak]

I played in the Santa Claus pairs with my "bezzie" partner, Liz Commins, quite a well-known reasonable one-day event. The TD arrived about six minutes after the published start - something to do with snow and ice - but since events at that club always start late, no problem. While a good, practical, experienced TD he has never mastered the finer points. He does lots of local stuff bit no national.

Anyway, he ran into a situation and asked me if I would give the ruling. Penultimate board, declarer is top class, dummy is playing his second game of duplicate in eight years, the defenders are two charming and inexperienced young ladies.

No-trumps, trick 12, LHO leads a spade, declarer knows that there is only one other spade out, the ten. Dummy has J9 of spades. So, does he finesse or not? He stops to think. At this point, dummy says "Dummy is good"! After which LHO puts her other card, the ♠T, face up.

Now, the problem is that the other two cards declarer cannot see are both winners. So, declarer argues, once he has thought about it, he must finesse, ie get it right, because if LHO had a non-spade she would have cashed it.

When I ask LHO she says that she knew declarer would get it right because her partner had already showed out of spades. Declarer says he did not remember that if it was true. At this point, with my head hurting, my table recalls me to play the last board.

At the end I consult with a very fine player who says that declarer would have got it right 100% of the time half-way through the afternoon session, but thinks that declarer could have got it wrong perhaps one time in ten at the end of the evening session.

Of course we should quote a Law but regrettably neither the club nor the TD have a Law book!

So what do you think?

[Vampyr]

I think a split score is appropriate: 100% of down 1 and 0% of making.

Declarer obviously had to think back and try to remember what had happened to the spades, but dummy's outburst has deprived him of the chance to get it right.

[blackshoe]

I don't see any evidence that declarer needs both tricks to make his contract.

Dummy is not permitted to participate in the play (Law 43A1{c}). This law says "must not", which is the strongest prohibition in the laws. Yet dummy did do that, by his extraneous statement. Per Law 43B1, the declaring side are liable to a PP, but there is no mention of rectification (which is different from penalty) in this law.

Suppose we want to adjust the score. How do we justify that? Well, Law 12A1 is an avenue. Where does it lead us? In England, to 12C1{c}, resulting in a weighted assigned score. Not being all that experienced with weighted scores, I'd suggest that it is 50-50, absent any other evidence, that declarer might have got it right (or wrong), and it's normal to give a little benefit of the doubt to the NOS, so I'd suggest 60% one trick, and 40% two tricks, to declarer. I would give a severe warning to dummy, in lieu of a PP in MPs.

Absent the datum that this was dummy's second game in eight years (ie, if he'd been of similar experience to his partner) I'd give a PP of at least 10% of a top.

Note that the fact that declarer had apparently forgotten that RHO had shown out in spades makes it more likely, IMO, that he would have played the wrong spade from dummy.

Also, this isn't a claim, so the claim laws do not apply.

[mrdct]

There's a few things going on here:

- Dummy's illegal outburst should, imho, be subject to a procedural penalty or at the very least a stern warning.
- Assuming this is matchpoints, if LHO held a winner and small ♠, it's not unreasonable to consider that she might be playing a singleton ♠ in the hope of beating it by 2 tricks, so declarer's belated analysis that "if LHO had a non-spade she would have cashed it" is far from water-tight. Indeed, one might even consider a low ♠ the expert defence as a neat double psychology ploy against a declarer who is presumed to believe that LHO would always cash a winner at trick 12. Moreover, EW are "inexperienced" so who knows what they might do.
- The fact that declarer has admitted that he can't remember if RHO has shown-out of ♠ suggests to me that he isn't quite playing to his "top class" ability on this hand, so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to EW and giving them one more trick.

[MickyB]

That's odd, I'm sure I saw the director brandishing a law book when correcting an earlier ruling at my table part-way through the second session.

Why should declarer be allowed to assume that a defender with a low spade and a winner shouldn't risk her one trick in return for two in this scenario?

Edit: Sorry, didn't read mrdct's post in full - I agree, except I'd check with declarer away from the table that he wasn't just being overly diplomatic in not disputing the version of events presented by the charming young lady on his left

With regard to dummy's level of experience - if it is the pair that I think it is, while dummy does not frequent the duplicates, he does frequently host in the £5 per hundred game which includes several internationals - is this relevant?

[blackshoe]

MickyB, on Dec 20 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

With regard to dummy's level of experience - if it is the pair that I think it is, while dummy does not frequent the duplicates, he does frequently host in the £5 per hundred game which includes several internationals - is this relevant?

Yes. I think a PP in MPs is warranted in that case.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Dec 21 2009, 03:51 AM, said:

I don't see any evidence that declarer needs both tricks to make his contract.

Well, whatever. It was just a convenient assumption.

Anyway, it seems absolutely clear to rule against declarer, and I agree with those who suggested a PP.

[axman]

blackshoe, on Dec 20 2009, 11:04 PM, said:

MickyB, on Dec 20 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

With regard to dummy's level of experience - if it is the pair that I think it is, while dummy does not frequent the duplicates, he does frequently host in the £5 per hundred game which includes several internationals - is this relevant?

Yes. I think a PP in MPs is warranted in that case.

I am drawn by two passages [of law that is]:

A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed,...

and

After any claim or concession, play ceases...

As to the first- "Dummy is good"! It being notable that this also is precisely among the things that dummy is not permitted to do, it nevertheless also is precisely such a suggestion- so therefore a claim has occurred.

As for the second, play having stopped, the brandishing of the ST is an objection to the claim's validity.

Supposedly L70 provides remedy for LHO's objection and L90 provides remedy for dummy's unbecoming conduct.

[Vampyr]

axman, on Dec 21 2009, 06:16 AM, said:

As to the first- "Dummy is good"!  It being notable that this also is precisely among the things that dummy is not permitted to do, it nevertheless also is precisely  such a suggestion- so therefore a claim has occurred.

Dummy is not permitted to claim and yet dummy has claimed? hmmm...

[pran]

Declarer has already revealed uncertainty on what to do.

An irregularity from the declaring side has resulted in information to declarer about which alternative will be favourable. In Norway this is a clear-cut example for the application of Law 16B1. (We even include such examples in our basic training of Directors to become.)

Declarer may no longer choose to play the 9♠ from dummy.

[jeremy69]

It's a Xmas pairs and goodwill to all so no finesse to take place and a PP with added sprig of holly, on his chair, to dummy for the comment.

[gnasher]

This is an event called the "Santa Claus pairs" and the players wanted the director to rule on this?

It's grim up North.

[bluejak]

Perhaps I should make some things clear since some of the replies have suggested otherwise.

First of all, this is a high level event. It is not a friendly club evening: it has a large entry fee, though much of the reason is because of the food, and large prizes. Do not think it is anything like a Xmas party. There are few if any one-day pairs events in this part of the world of higher standard.

Second, overtricks were all that was at stake. Nevertheless, since it was MP pairs, that seems irrelevant to me.

Third, as someone else pointed out, dummy is an experienced player who played many years of duplicate before switching to a good rubber bridge game.

Fourth, I cannot guarantee there was no Law book: the TD asked me to rule, and he said that there was no Law book available.

Fifth, if you are going to give a split score, I think you need a legal justification.

Sixth, I described the defenders as "the defenders are two charming and inexperienced young ladies" so I think the assumption that they might produce "the expert defence" is flawed.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on Dec 21 2009, 07:27 AM, said:

First of all, this is a high level event.  It is not a friendly club evening: it has a large entry fee, though much of the reason is because of the food, and large prizes.  Do not think it is anything like a Xmas party.  There are few if any one-day pairs events in this part of the world of higher standard.

...

Fourth, I cannot guarantee there was no Law book: the TD asked me to rule, and he said that there was no Law book available.

"high level event" where the neither the director nor the venue has a rule book? Do you have iPhones in the UK? I've got the Laws of Bridge bookmarked on mine.

bluejak, on Dec 21 2009, 07:27 AM, said:

Sixth, I described the defenders as "the defenders are two charming and inexperienced young ladies" so I think the assumption that they might produce "the expert defence" is flawed.

Failing to cash a winner in a two card ending could be an expert play or could be a beginner play; who knows which is more likely?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on Dec 21 2009, 01:06 AM, said:

axman, on Dec 21 2009, 06:16 AM, said:

As to the first- "Dummy is good"!   It being notable that this also is precisely among the things that dummy is not permitted to do, it nevertheless also is precisely  such a suggestion- so therefore a claim has occurred.

Dummy is not permitted to claim and yet dummy has claimed? hmmm...

Axman has a point. Originally, I had thought as you, Stephanie. No, more, I had thought that the claim laws themselves excluded a claim from dummy. But they don't. So I was wrong earlier when I said dummy's statement isn't a claim.

Quote

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.

Quote

Contestant: …in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event…

So the statement by dummy certainly qualifies as a claim. Perhaps that's an easier route to a ruling. Sven has suggested 16B1, but I don't like that one much because it leaves open the argument — which declarer made at the table — that there's no LA to playing the nine. So I like mine better - the infraction was dummy's participating in the play, the relevant Law (43) provides no rectification for this infraction, Law 12A1 allows us to adjust the score, so we do. No need for 16B1, or for the claim laws.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on Dec 21 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

bluejak, on Dec 21 2009, 07:27 AM, said:

First of all, this is a high level event.  It is not a friendly club evening: it has a large entry fee, though much of the reason is because of the food, and large prizes.  Do not think it is anything like a Xmas party.  There are few if any one-day pairs events in this part of the world of higher standard.

...

Fourth, I cannot guarantee there was no Law book: the TD asked me to rule, and he said that there was no Law book available.

"high level event" where the neither the director nor the venue has a rule book? Do you have iPhones in the UK? I've got the Laws of Bridge bookmarked on mine.

The fact that the venue and TD may be incompetent in their provision of the Law book, while hardly relevant to the problem I gave, does not affect how high level an event is. Some venues have poor toilet facilities: does that affect the level of the events held there?

I have presented a problem. If you think that you should change the basis of the problem to pretending it was a friendly club Xmas evening because they did not have a Law book, fine, but it seems a strange approach to me. Why not just treat the event as it was?

After all, I was trying to point out the basis on which I gave a decision: I was not there as a TD, but a player. When I am there as a TD I always carry my own Law book, and do not rely on the venue.

As for iPhones, yes, some people have them, no, not everyone has them. I am quite sure the same applies where you are.

Of course, if I have misunderstood you, and your comment has nothing to do with the thread, but it is a complaint against the organisers and TD, fine, but perhaps you could address it to them not this forum. But it sounded to me as though you did not believe it was a high-level event because of the lack of a Law book. A very strange view, and since it suggests I am telling porkies, not one that I like.

[blackshoe]

Not everyone can afford an iPhone. Well, the phone itself may not be much of a problem, but AT&T wants ridiculous amounts of money for the phone service.

[duschek]

blackshoe, on Dec 21 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

So the statement by dummy certainly qualifies as a claim. Perhaps that's an easier route to a ruling.

Much easier, in fact. Play ceases, TD determines that it is normal to lose one trick so he applies Law 70: One trick for each side.

I wonder how the TD should apply Law 68C when dummy claims (the claim should be accompanied by a clear statement as to how the cards should be played).

[pran]

blackshoe, on Dec 21 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

So the statement by dummy certainly qualifies as a claim. Perhaps that's an easier route to a ruling. Sven has suggested 16B1, but I don't like that one much because it leaves open the argument — which declarer made at the table — that there's no LA to playing the nine. So I like mine better - the infraction was dummy's participating in the play, the relevant Law (43) provides no rectification for this infraction, Law 12A1 allows us to adjust the score, so we do. No need for 16B1, or for the claim laws.

I have two comments to this:

1: Declarer had already demonstrated with his uncertainty about which card to play from dummy that he had a choice. Therefore he cannot afterwards be heard with an argument that he had no LA to playing the nine.

2: Basing the ruling on an allegation that Dummy (technically) made a claim excludes the possibility of using this same reasoning in situations where an unacceptable action by Dummy definitely cannot be classified as a claim. What if Dummy for instance said something to the effect: "East has already shown out in spades"?

I agree that we can in this case also use Law 43, but even this law doesn't help us in all similar situations: It is fully possible for Dummy to act in some way not in conflict with any law other than Law 16 and still "help" Declarer to choose a fortunate line of play.

Law 16 is the all encompassing law that help us rule in any case where a player could have acted on unauthorized information of whatever nature.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on Dec 21 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

mrdct, on Dec 21 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

bluejak, on Dec 21 2009, 07:27 AM, said:

First of all, this is a high level event.  It is not a friendly club evening: it has a large entry fee, though much of the reason is because of the food, and large prizes.  Do not think it is anything like a Xmas party.  There are few if any one-day pairs events in this part of the world of higher standard.

...

Fourth, I cannot guarantee there was no Law book: the TD asked me to rule, and he said that there was no Law book available.

"high level event" where the neither the director nor the venue has a rule book? Do you have iPhones in the UK? I've got the Laws of Bridge bookmarked on mine.

The fact that the venue and TD may be incompetent in their provision of the Law book, while hardly relevant to the problem I gave, does not affect how high level an event is. Some venues have poor toilet facilities: does that affect the level of the events held there?

I have presented a problem. If you think that you should change the basis of the problem to pretending it was a friendly club Xmas evening because they did not have a Law book, fine, but it seems a strange approach to me. Why not just treat the event as it was?

After all, I was trying to point out the basis on which I gave a decision: I was not there as a TD, but a player. When I am there as a TD I always carry my own Law book, and do not rely on the venue.

As for iPhones, yes, some people have them, no, not everyone has them. I am quite sure the same applies where you are.

Of course, if I have misunderstood you, and your comment has nothing to do with the thread, but it is a complaint against the organisers and TD, fine, but perhaps you could address it to them not this forum. But it sounded to me as though you did not believe it was a high-level event because of the lack of a Law book. A very strange view, and since it suggests I am telling porkies, not one that I like.

I think you have misunderstood me. I gave my "ruling" on the hand earlier in the thread without any reference to the quality of the event, venue or directing staff. I was merely responding to assertions that you raised including the implication that one can run a "high level event" without a rule book. I also took the opportunity, without necessarily wanting to plug Apple too hard, that with any web-enabled mobile phone you can have the Laws of Bridge up on your screen in seconds which might be a good learning point for TDs who find themselves in this situation.