[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
Playing in a club open game we were defending and with 2 tricks left
declarer led a spade. The spade king and queen had been played earlier
and the ace and ten were on the board. I played the jack and before
the declarer said anything the dummy picked up the ace and placed it
in front of him. What should be the directors call for this infraction?

Jerry D.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 42A3: Dummy plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play).

Quote

Law 45F: After dummy’s hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card, except for purpose of arrangement, without instruction from declarer. If he does so, the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested.

Quote

Law 43A1{c}: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Quote

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural 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.”

Dummy has done something he "must not" do. This is the strongest prohibition in the laws. The director should award a procedural penalty. Standard in the ACBL is 25% of a top. The director should need a very good reason not to award this penalty. "It just isn't done" is not such a reason. Neither is "they might go away in a fit of pique and never come back."

In addition, the director should look at the hand record, and if he considers that the defenders were damaged by the suggested play (I'm inclined to think he will not, in this case, unless he thinks declarer will have lost the plot and not remembered that the king and queen were already played) he "shall award an adjusted score."

[johnu]

Are you really expecting to win a trick with ♠J in a club game Not playing the ace would be an irrational play so are you suggesting declarer had a choice of plays?

[ahydra]

johnu, on 2016-April-29, 02:36, said:

Are you really expecting to win a trick with ♠J in a club game Not playing the ace would be an irrational play so are you suggesting declarer had a choice of plays?

That's not the point. Dummy isn't meant to play his cards autonomously, he must wait for instructions from declarer.

ahydra

[Vampyr]

johnu, on 2016-April-29, 02:36, said:

Are you really expecting to win a trick with ♠J in a club game Not playing the ace would be an irrational play so are you suggesting declarer had a choice of plays?

All I know is that I have had to play the J as dummy a number of times. I have also had to underruff. I think it is necessary here to assume that declarer might have been inattentive and played from dummy before registering what card appeared on his left.

[wank]

2 tricks for declarer. you can't go giving tricks to the defence for nothing. a penalty for dummy so dummy can't go doing that sort of thing to protect his partner from carvery.

[barmar]

Dummy should get a procedural penalty for violating the laws that blackshoe quoted. But there should be no score adjustment, because the infraction didn't cause any damage. Declarer was always going to get two spade tricks, and the infraction didn't change that.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
Maybe there shouldn't be a score adjustment but certainly, to quote
blackshoe, "the Standard in the ACBL is 25% of a top" should be
applied.

But declarer could have done several things. Not noticed the jack,
forgetting about the king and queen already played or just getting
confused he could have said "spade" or "play" or "spade ten".
We'll never know because of the action of dummy.

Jerry D.

[ggwhiz]

WOW! I can't believe anyone would want this trick in a CLUB GAME. and suggesting that declarer "may" not know the KQ of spades are gone is particularly distasteful. Are you trying to steal a trick from aunt Alice?

I wouldn't want it short of the Bermuda Bowl and would only call the Director on my brother and son in-laws. The procedural penalty instead of a simple warning is right up there with giving teenagers a criminal record for a joint of weed.

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2016-April-30, 10:45, said:

suggesting that declarer "may" not know the KQ of spades are gone is particularly distasteful.

If that's directed at me, you need to go back and read what I wrote again.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-30, 12:05, said:

If that's directed at me, you need to go back and read what I wrote again.

Not at all. You just quoted the law accurately and it's an ass. Keep in mind this is a club game and the Director is required to give an adjusted score IF they judge declarer to be mentally handicapped.

[Vampyr]

ggwhiz, on 2016-April-30, 13:03, said:

Not at all. You just quoted the law accurately and it's an ass. Keep in mind this is a club game and the Director is required to give an adjusted score IF they judge declarer to be mentally handicapped.

No one is suggesting that declarer is mentally handicapped. But people play too fast. I am guessing that this declarer does it frequently.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-30, 15:06, said:

No one is suggesting that declarer is mentally handicapped. But people play too fast. I am guessing that this declarer does it frequently.

Yeah, stuff like that happens. But when deciding whether there was damage, I don't think it's necessary to consider such an unlikely occurrence.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2016-April-30, 20:00, said:

Yeah, stuff like that happens. But when deciding whether there was damage, I don't think it's necessary to consider such an unlikely occurrence.

Yes, I am happy with just a PP.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-30, 20:08, said:

Yes, I am happy with just a PP.

I am as well, but we have all called for the queen when dummy has AQ and we are finessing, without looking at left-hand opponent's card which is the king. If "finessing" was a plausible action here, I might impose some percentage of playing the ten, but I expect a PP would be sufficient.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-May-01, 04:44, said:

I am as well, but we have all called for the queen when dummy has AQ and we are finessing, without looking at left-hand opponent's card which is the king. If "finessing" was a plausible action here, I might impose some percentage of playing the ten, but I expect a PP would be sufficient.

That's the "stuff like that" I was referring to.

If someone claims and explains "I finesse the queen and make if the king is on side", I wouldn't refute the claim based on the possibility that he wouldn't cover the king if it appears. I consider this similar.

[Vampyr]

ggwhiz, on 2016-April-30, 10:45, said:

WOW! I can't believe anyone would want this trick in a CLUB GAME

Especially in a club game. Without bridge clubs there is no bridge at all, and if a pair find that the rules of the game are not being enforced, they may choose to spend their leisure time at one of the many other activities available

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-02, 09:00, said:

Especially in a club game. Without bridge clubs there is no bridge at all, and if a pair find that the rules of the game are not being enforced, they may choose to spend their leisure time at one of the many other activities available

It's not a matter of rule enforcement, that's already covered in the PP.

It's whether you're so cutthroat in a casual environment that you deny declarer a trick he was obvioiusly going to get as extra punishment for the infraction.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-May-02, 09:12, said:

It's not a matter of rule enforcement, that's already covered in the PP.

It's whether you're so cutthroat in a casual environment that you deny declarer a trick he was obvioiusly going to get as extra punishment for the infraction.

If the director is doing that, he should lose his director's card. Or be required to take about 600 hours of remedial training. Maybe both.

Be careful with the hyperbole. I'd say declarer was probably going to get the trick, but as has been pointed out he might screw it up. Still, as I said upthread I wouldn't impose the play of the ten on this trick.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2016-May-02, 09:12, said:

It's not a matter of rule enforcement, that's already covered in the PP.

It's whether you're so cutthroat in a casual environment that you deny declarer a trick he was obvioiusly going to get as extra punishment for the infraction.

Yes, actually I am happy with a PP and was responding more to the other poster's comment that he would not call the director and that a PP s wrong.