[mrdct]

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

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.

Out of interest what was your actual decision on the hand?

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on Dec 21 2009, 02:40 PM, said:

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.

Although dummy's statement might fall within the definition of a claim in Law 68A, dummy's statement is not a valid claim because dummy is not permitted to participate in the play (Law 43A1©).

Hence I prefer your initial answer. A PP to dummy (Law 43B1 specifically refers us to Law 90) and an assigned score based on what the TD judges might have happened absent dummy's infraction.

Sven said:

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.

This does not necessarily follow. Think back to the last time you played bridge. Going through the hands, you may consider that you had no logical alternative to most of the calls and plays that you made. However, for some of these "no logical alternative" actions, it might have taken you several seconds' thought before you worked out why the action you eventually chose was demonstrably correct. The fact that it took you several seconds to reach that conclusion does automatically not make any other action a logical alternative.

Bluejak 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.

Are you quite sure about this?

Declarer's LHO might have found the "expert defence", the "beginner's defence" or the "intermediate's defence". Or she may have played a card without thinking. Even assuming that declarer is aware of all of this, he has to judge which scenario applies at the table.

What we do know is that declarer had not worked out what to do in the period between LHO's trick 12 lead and dummy's illegal statement. Thus the TD cannot be certain whether declarer would have come to the "correct" conclusion in the normal course of events before playing from dummy.

As the TD cannot be certain what would have happened absent the infraction, the TD must assign a weighted score because that it what Law 12C1© demands.

[peachy]

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

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?

The quality of toilet facilities has nothing to do with the quality/level of bridge or the playing level in a bridge event. I understand your frustration bit lets still try to be real...

[pran]

jallerton, on Dec 22 2009, 12:51 AM, said:

Sven said:

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.

This does not necessarily follow. Think back to the last time you played bridge. Going through the hands, you may consider that you had no logical alternative to most of the calls and plays that you made. However, for some of these "no logical alternative" actions, it might have taken you several seconds' thought before you worked out why the action you eventually chose was demonstrably correct. The fact that it took you several seconds to reach that conclusion does automatically not make any other action a logical alternative.
.

You have to step with caution here:
If you find that declarer had no logical alternative action other than to play the 9♠ then that means that the remark from Dummy could not have any influence on Declarer's play. Consequently there is no reason whatsoever for assigning any adjusted score, and all that remains is a cause for warning Dummy not to make such remarks again.

I don't know how other jurisdictions use law 16, but in Norway we rule that once a player receives UI that can affect his further actions he may no longer eliminate logical alternative actions in favour of other logical alternative actions that could be suggested by the UI.

His choice of a logical alternative action that could have been suggested by the UI will only be accepted if the Director (and in case the AC) is convinced that the player either:
a: did not consider other logical alternative actions at the time he received UI because he wasn't aware at that time that there could be any other logical alternative action to consider, or
b: beyond any doubt would have selected the fortunate logical alternative action regardless of the UI.

So, when Dummy interrupted Declarer's considerations with his remark he at the same time prevented Declarer from eliminating the unfortunate alternative of playing the J♠ that apparently was one of the logical alternatives Declarer still considered at that time.

[bluejak]

peachy, on Dec 22 2009, 12:57 AM, said:

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

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?

The quality of toilet facilities has nothing to do with the quality/level of bridge or the playing level in a bridge event. I understand your frustration bit lets still try to be real...

Of course it does not. Nor does the presence or absence of a Law book: my point exactly.

[bluejak]

When making a ruling there are occasions where it seems possible to apply more than one Law. At such a time a TD needs to make a choice based on his experience, knowledge, training, and on logic and other things. What he should not do is to assume one possibility exists, therefore this must be followed without considering other possible Laws.

Yes, one could consider dummy's remark a claim. It was not really, but the wording of Law 68A does allow that possibility. But that does not mean that it must be considered as a claim if there are alternatives, and at the time I did not think it was to be treated as a claim, and do not think so now having read all the posts assiduously.

Yes, one could consider dummy's remark as UI. The wording of Law 16 does mean that is possible. But it seems to me much the same as calling it a claim: an effort to manufacture something unnecessarily.

In practice what happened? Dummy breached Law 43A1C by participating in the play, and communicating something about the play to declarer. Since that is exactly what happened and that is the wording of that Law, I think trying to fit it under another Law is just wrong. So I ruled under this Law, and I still consider that correct.

Since this Law does not tell you how to act it fits into the Scope of Law 12A1, and I feel I can adjust. Obviously I can also penalise under Law 90.

Now, despite the comments about expert play, it is my view and my consultant's view that if the young lady had had a winner and a loser left she would not have led the loser. So really declarer would have got it right pretty well all the time. The fact that declarer needed to think about it does not preclude this fact.

I ruled under Law 12C1C that declarer made both tricks 80% of the time, one trick 20% of th time, and issued a PP for a standard amount to dummy for his remark. Both sides seemed very happy with the ruling.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on Dec 21 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

peachy, on Dec 22 2009, 12:57 AM, said:

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

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?

The quality of toilet facilities has nothing to do with the quality/level of bridge or the playing level in a bridge event. I understand your frustration bit lets still try to be real...

Of course it does not. Nor does the presence or absence of a Law book: my point exactly.

Not that it has any bearing on how I rule on this hand, but poor facilities and ill-prepared directing staff would most definately have an impact on the quality/level of bridge being played.

[wank]

lesser players will often not know relatively low cards are winners. if it was an ace missing, the argument is reasonably sound. if one of the winners was for example, the 13th heart, e.g. the 8, i would think the argument ridiculous.

[mink]

I am quite puzzled by this thread.

About the dummy claim: This idea is esoteric. The wording of Law 68 is irrelevant. If it was possible for the dummy to claim, this should be mentioned in Law 42, and as it is not there, it is not possible.

About the UI by the dummy: If we believe the declarer that he knew the ♠10 was still out there, we must conclude he knows that the dummy's statement was wrong, that means, it contained no information for him. And I clearly believe the he knew the dummy was not good, because he had been thinking, and there is no reason to think if he believed the ♠10 had already been played.

And why did nobody comment on the fact that LHO displayed the ♠10 after dummy's statement? Was it correct for her to do so? Did she think because the dummy, who - as all know - cannot take part in play, said something, the game is over now? When looking for a law that addresses this action, I can only find Law 49, and it is legal for the declarer to see this card. So the declarer cannot go wrong now.

However, for the dummy's infraction I would chose a PP that is higher than what is gained by the additional overtrick.

Karl

[bluejak]

I think it is reasonable for an inexperienced player to think the game has finished when dummy appears to claim. Anyway, dummy's comment has induced the player to put her card down: now you say declarer can use this. Does this really sound the way the game should be played?

[mink]

I thought it matters what the law says and not how an individual thinks the game should be played. So far I got the impression that especially you, David, often emphasize this.

About "induced" and "reasonable": One of the first things a beginner learns is that the dummy only plays cards ordered by the declarer. Everybody knows this, no matter how inexperienced. Therefore I expect nobody to assume a statement of the dummy could cause the game to end, and I expect everybody to know that cards in hand must be hidden until the game ends. This is so basic that I cannot believe it needs to be discussed.

Karl

[nige1]

mink, on Dec 25 2009, 09:41 PM, said:

I thought it matters what the law says and not how an individual thinks the game should be played. So far I got the impression that especially you, David, often emphasize this. About "induced" and "reasonable": One of the first things a beginner learns is that the dummy only plays cards ordered by the declarer. Everybody knows this, no matter how inexperienced. Therefore I expect nobody to assume a statement of the dummy could cause the game to end, and I expect everybody to know that cards in hand must be hidden until the game ends. This is so basic that I cannot believe it needs to be discussed.

2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE, on LAW 68.A, CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS, said:

A. Claim Defined. Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply).

2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE, on LAW 68.D, CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS, said:

D. Play Ceases. After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

Dummy claimed, so play ceased. (Note: The definition does not address Bluejak's concern as to whether the claim is "valid"). A defender disputed the claim by showing his ♠T, so the director was called.

This may be another mistake by law-makers; but it is the law . Presumably, it will remain the law for roughly a decade, so directors may as well get used to it

[axman]

nige1, on Dec 26 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

mink, on Dec 25 2009, 09:41 PM, said:

I thought it matters what the law says and not how an individual thinks the game should be played. So far I got the impression that especially you, David, often emphasize this. About "induced" and "reasonable": One of the first things a beginner learns is that the dummy only plays cards ordered by the declarer. Everybody knows this, no matter how inexperienced. Therefore I expect nobody to assume a statement of the dummy could cause the game to end, and I expect everybody to know that cards in hand must be hidden until the game ends. This is so basic that I cannot believe it needs to be discussed.

2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE, on LAW 68.A, CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS, said:

A. Claim Defined. Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply).

2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE, on LAW 68.D, CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS, said:

D. Play Ceases. After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

Dummy claimed, so play ceased. (Note: The definition does not address Bluejak's concern as to whether the claim is "valid"). A defender disputed the claim by showing his ♠T, so the director was called.

This may be another mistake by law-makers; but it is the law . Presumably, it will remain the law for roughly a decade, so directors may as well get used to it

As a result of this thread I have spent the better part of a week reconciling the concept of deeming dummy's efforts cannot constitute a claim because he is not permitted to do so.

I came to the conclusion that it cannot be reconciled. The principle of appearances delivers that if the declarer says 'dummy is high' is a claim then anyone saying it also claims and it is wrong headed to deem, or assert, or declare otherwise. It just , is.

As it is possible to contemplate dummy doing such a thing it therefore remains for the law to provide a satisfactory resolution.

[blackshoe]

Law 68A speaks of claims as being by a contestant. In a pairs contest, the contestant is the pair, so it would seem that this law doesn't restrict claiming to any particular member of the pair. If dummy's statement fits the definition of a claim, then it's a claim, even though Law 43A1{c} prohibits dummy from making such a statement in the first place. However, once dummy does this, there has been an infraction, and the law provides that once the claim question is resolved, if the OS gained from it, the TD should adjust the score (Law 12B1). So either you rule, in adjudicating the claim, that dummy's cards are played so as to give the defense one of the two tricks, or you rule the other way and then adjust the score so that the defense gets one of the tricks. All roads lead to Rome.

[lamford]

jeremy69, on Dec 21 2009, 04:14 AM, said:

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.

"Boiled in his own pudding and buried with a stake of holly through his heart" would be more appropriate than a PP.