[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
This subject must have come up here before.

One dummy at our club is always telling declarer which hand is on
lead....you're in your hand partner".

If declarer does lead from the wrong hand the defense has the option
of accepting or rejecting the lead. If the dummy tells declarer
which hand is on lead isn't dummy participating in the play of
the hand?

Jerry D.

[barmar]

Dummy is allowed to prevent declarer from committing an infraction. However, most of us think that always telling declarer which hand he's in goes beyond this -- if he sees declarer start to leading from the wrong hand he can stop him, but it shouldn't be done all the time.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
Yes, I've just read law 42b2 which states that dummy may "try to prevent
any irregularity by declarer". This seems to indicate that declarer must
be in the act of or about to make an irregularity. So forewarning declarer
seems to be against this law.

Jerry D.

[nige1]

jerdonald, on 2016-January-17, 19:44, said:

BBO forum, This subject must have come up here before. One dummy at our club is always telling declarer which hand is on lead....you're in your hand partner". If declarer does lead from the wrong hand the defense has the option of accepting or rejecting the lead. If the dummy tells declarer which hand is on lead isn't dummy participating in the play of the hand? Jerry D.

jerdonald, on 2016-January-17, 21:06, said:

Yes, I've just read law 42b2 which states that dummy may "try to prevent any irregularity by declarer". This seems to indicate that declarer must be in the act of or about to make an irregularity. So forewarning declarer seems to be against this law.

TFLB, L42b2 said:

(Dummy) may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer.

I interpret the law differently from jerdonald and gordontd: as soon as declarer has started or is in the act of committing an irregularity, dummy may no longer try to "prevent" it.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2016-January-18, 17:52, said:

I interpret the law differently from jerdonald and gordontd: as soon as declarer has started or is in the act of committing an irregularity, dummy may no longer try to "prevent" it.

I think most directors will disagree with you on this one, Nigel.

[weejonnie]

Which makes a mockery of Law 42b2 - since that would mean that dummy must continually ask declarer if they are about to lead from the wrong hand or if they are intending to revoke when it is declarer's turn to play a card - but before he does play a card. I am sure that 95%+ directors will use the generally accepted meaning.

The question is : when is the irregularity committed? If you look at the laws and the definition of when declarer has led (card face up close to the table or similar) then it is apparent that dummy can prevent declarer being in this position by forestalling him when dummy sees that declarer is about to commit the irregularity.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2016-January-19, 04:17, said:

Which makes a mockery of Law 42b2 - since that would mean that dummy must continually ask declarer if they are about to lead from the wrong hand or if they are intending to revoke when it is declarer's turn to play a card - but before he does play a card. I am sure that 95%+ directors will use the generally accepted meaning.

That's not how it's generally interpreted.

When declarer has started to pull a card from his hand when he's actually in dummy, dummy can stop him. Or if he says something like "Play..." when he's in his hand, dummy can interrupt him before the card is named.

I don't think anyone has ever considered applying that law to irregularities like revokes, where it's not possible for dummy to tell that it's about to happen. On the other hand, dummy is explicitly allowed to try to prevent the revoke from being established, by asking "No hearts, partner?" when declarer discards.

[nige1]

jerdonald, on 2016-January-17, 19:44, said:

One dummy at our club is always telling declarer which hand is onlead....you're in your hand partner". If declarer does lead from the wrong hand the defense has the optionof accepting or rejecting the lead. If the dummy tells declarerwhich hand is on lead isn't dummy participating in the play ofthe hand?

blackshoe, on 2016-January-18, 19:17, said:

I think most directors will disagree with you on this one, Nigel.

Fair enough. But does the law explicitly permit the reminder about which the OP complains? IMO, in that context, dummy is clearly trying to prevent an irregularity.

(FWIW, I would much prefer the law to forbid any player (dummy or defender) from communicating with his partner, except by calls and plays. For example no player should be allowed to ask his partner "Having none?").

[barmar]

nige1, on 2016-January-19, 11:11, said:

Fair enough. But does the law explicitly permit the reminder about which the OP complains? IMO, in that context, dummy is clearly trying to prevent an irregularity.

The law says dummy may not participate in the play. So the question is whether these reminders are preventing irregularities, or participating in the play. I think the general concensus is that they're more like the latter. If we allow for preemptive reminders like this, dummy could presumably also say things like "play a spade" to prevent a revoke.

One could also stretch and consider these reminders to be "memory aids", which are not allowed.

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-January-20, 12:11, said:

The law says dummy may not participate in the play. So the question is whether these reminders are preventing irregularities, or participating in the play. I think the general concensus is that they're more like the latter. If we allow for preemptive reminders like this, dummy could presumably also say things like "play a spade" to prevent a revoke.

One could also stretch and consider these reminders to be "memory aids", which are not allowed.

The way I was taught the laws 35 years ago and have always since understood them is that Dummy may try to prevent Declarer from committing an irregularity once Declarer (clearly) is about to commit that irregularity.

If Dummy for instance "warns" Declarer which hand has the lead before Declarer has started to lead from the wrong hand (like pulling a card from his own hand or stretching towards Dummy) then Dummy violates

Law 43A1c said:

Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

And if Declarer has already (according to the laws) completed the lead from the incorrect hand before Dummy "warns" him that the lead is/was in the other hand then Dummy has violated

Law 43A1b said:

Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

So the time window during which Dummy may attempt to prevent Declarer leading from the wrong hand is extremely narrow.

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-January-20, 14:38, said:

The way I was taught the laws 35 years ago and have always since understood them is that Dummy may try to prevent Declarer from committing an irregularity once Declarer (clearly) is about to commit that irregularity.

If Dummy for instance "warns" Declarer which hand has the lead before Declarer has started to lead from the wrong hand (like pulling a card from his own hand or stretching towards Dummy) then Dummy violates

That's how most of us understand it as well, but there's nothing in the Laws that actually makes this distinction.

[pran]

pran, on 2016-January-20, 14:38, said:

The way I was taught the laws 35 years ago and have always since understood them is that Dummy may try to prevent Declarer from committing an irregularity once Declarer (clearly) is about to commit that irregularity.

If Dummy for instance "warns" Declarer which hand has the lead before Declarer has started to lead from the wrong hand (like pulling a card from his own hand or stretching towards Dummy) then Dummy violates

barmar, on 2016-January-22, 09:55, said:

That's how most of us understand it as well, but there's nothing in the Laws that actually makes this distinction.

Consider the consequences.
If Dummy is free to warn declarer against leading from the wrong hand at any time when Declarer or Dummy has the lead then Dummy is free to intervene in every such trick with a message to Declarer ("you have the lead" or "Dummy has the lead").
Under the same laws Dummy must obviously then also be free for instance to "warn" Declarer against committing a revoke ("remember that you must play a spade to this trick!").

What a can of worms doesn't this open for instance in the matter of cheating?

And if such activity from Dummy is not "participating in the play" I don't know what is.

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-January-22, 10:46, said:

Consider the consequences.
If Dummy is free to warn declarer against leading from the wrong hand at any time when Declarer or Dummy has the lead then Dummy is free to intervene in every such trick with a message to Declarer ("you have the lead" or "Dummy has the lead").
Under the same laws Dummy must obviously then also be free for instance to "warn" Declarer against committing a revoke ("remember that you must play a spade to this trick!").

What a can of worms doesn't this open for instance in the matter of cheating?

And if such activity from Dummy is not "participating in the play" I don't know what is.

Didn't I use the same example a few posts earlier?

I was just playing Devil's Advocate -- while this is how the law is generally interpreted, I think that interpretation is mostly coming from tradition, and some common sense, not the literal words of the law.

[nige1]

pran, on 2016-January-22, 10:46, said:

Consider the consequences.If Dummy is free to warn declarer against leading from the wrong hand at any time when Declarer or Dummy has the lead then Dummy is free to intervene in every such trick with a message to Declarer ("you have the lead" or "Dummy has the lead"). Under the same laws Dummy must obviously then also be free for instance to "warn" Declarer against committing a revoke ("remember that you must play a spade to this trick!"). What a can of worms doesn't this open for instance in the matter of cheating? And if such activity from Dummy is not "participating in the play" I don't know what is.

Such an interpretation of this ambiguous law would be natural were it not that the law encourages players to give UI in other contexts.

For example, when defending, if partner always asks "Having none", when you show out, that might be OK. In practice however, a partner might refrain from asking, when he knows you aren't revoking (because he can see all the remaining unseen cards in the suit between dummy and his own hand). Thus, whether or not partner asks, there can be inferences about the distribution of the unseen cards in that suit.

IMO, it would be fairer (and simpler) if such rules (along with other unnecessary rules) were dropped and the remaining rules restricted partnership communication to calls and plays.

[pran]

nige1, on 2016-January-23, 07:19, said:

Such an interpretation of this ambiguous law would be natural were it not that the law encourages players to give UI in other contests.

For the record: I disagree that this law is ambiguous

nige1, on 2016-January-23, 07:19, said:

For example, when defending, if partner always asks "Having none", when you show out, that might be OK. In practice however, a partner might refrain from asking, when he knows you aren't revoking (because he can see all the remaining unseen cards in the suit between dummy and his own hand). Thus whether or not partner asks, there can be inferences about the distribution of the unseen cards in that suit.

Do I understand you correct that you find it OK if a player (repeatedly) asks his partner "having none" on each of the six times he shows out when an opponent runs his long suit?

nige1, on 2016-January-23, 07:19, said:

IMO, it would be fairer (and simpler) if such rules (along with other unnecessary rules) were dropped and the remaining rules restricted partnership communication to calls and plays.

You have of course a point here, but the right to ask in order to prevent a possible revoke becoming established dates back to long before the birth of contract bridge. And the law change to prevent defenders asking such questions some (law) generations ago just had to be reversed. There seems little sense in trying this again.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2016-January-23, 07:19, said:

For example, when defending, if partner always asks "Having none", when you show out, that might be OK. In practice however, a partner might refrain from asking, when he knows you aren't revoking (because he can see all the remaining unseen cards in the suit between dummy and his own hand). Thus whether or not partner asks, there can be inferences about the distribution of the unseen cards in that suit.

The people I know who ask seem to be very consistent. They always ask the first time you show out of a suit, regardless of whether they can tell from other evidence that you should be out. Even if a suit was played 4 tricks in a row, with the suit clearly being 4333 around the table, they ask on the 4th round.

Sometimes they'll ask the 2nd time you show out, but this seems to be just forgetfulness.

[nige1]

pran, on 2016-January-23, 12:57, said:

Do I understand you correct that you find it OK if a player (repeatedly) asks his partner "having none" on each of the six times he shows out when an opponent runs his long suit?

Current law permits you to ask partner "having none?" each time he shows out. It also permits you to refrain from asking when you know (from your own hand) that partner has no cards left in the suit. I concede that the law might be less stupid if it did mandate that you always ask.

So No. Pran doesn't understand me correctly. I don't find it OK that you are allowed to ask partner "having none?" The law that permits this is unnecessary and unfair.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2016-January-23, 16:12, said:

The people I know who ask seem to be very consistent. They always ask the first time you show out of a suit, regardless of whether they can tell from other evidence that you should be out. Even if a suit was played 4 tricks in a row, with the suit clearly being 4333 around the table, they ask on the 4th round.Sometimes they'll ask the 2nd time you show out, but this seems to be just forgetfulness.

I'm happy but not surprized that the ethics of players in Barmar's circle are exemplary. One of my partners always asks. He insists that if you don't do the same, then you're responsible for his revokes

Are attitude signals more common than count in America?. Since the EBU allowed defenders to ask "Having none?", I've noticed that some EBU pairs have switched from count to attitude

[mycroft]

It does allow the selective ask. It also states that information gained from extraneous actions (such as a question or failure to ask a question) produce UI.

Yes, I am very aware of the "wow, declarer sure has a lot of those" variation of "having none?", along with the "hey partner, I have the rest" version of the no-ask. It's tough to rule, as we need to prove an inconsistency (same as the "well, the *last* 3 times I preempted, he had his call on the table before I had my hand pulled away" skip bid LHOs and the "How many <suit> does that show?" (fewer than you have, obviously) people, and...)

We have to educate, educate, educate. Educate the people unwittingly playing this system into asking more consistently; educate the opponents so that they call the TD and get their rulings; educate the TDs so that they can see the patterns; educate the teachers so that they introduce this kind of ethics (and this kind of thinking) to their students;... It can be done. Will it be done?

Oh, and personally, I'll reply to "having none?" but I would prefer partner not ask - I'll pay my 3 or 4 revokes a year, I'll make it up in a lack of screwups from the derail of my thoughts. Similarly, I won't ask, unless asked to, or unless the question is really "you psyched?" (partner overcalls hearts, shows out on the second round; that sort of thing).

[steve2005]

Yes, I hate being asked. Playing mostly online has really cut down on my revokes . I think the only revoke over the table I've made in 2 years was from pulling the wrong card, which I noticed myself, so at least wasn't established.