BBO Discussion Forums: Dummy counts out loud - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Dummy counts out loud

#1 User is offline   jerdonald 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: 2011-July-27

Posted 2015-October-28, 21:25

BBO forum,

Today the OPS got the bid and the opening lead was made. After the
dummy's hand was tabled the dummy counted the number of cards in
one of the suits out loud. It was a 6 card suit that was not trump.
Seems like this was UI to the declarer. Is it legal?

Jerry D.
0

#2 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,690
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-October-29, 00:11

No.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#3 User is offline   ehhh 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 2004-January-09
  • Location:SW Ontario, CA

Posted 2015-October-29, 00:13

It certainly is UI and if there is damage from this UI the bd can be adjusted.
How you would ever prove that is beyond me.
Sounds more like a PP is in order much in the same manner as if dummy was guilty od directing the play.
A promise made is a debt unpaid....R Service
0

#4 User is offline   1eyedjack 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,575
  • Joined: 2004-March-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-October-29, 00:30

It would be UI under Law 16, which would give you a route to an adjusted score through Law 12C

However it is also a specific offence under Law 43A1( c), for which Law 43B1 prescribes a penalty under Law 90.

Law 90A suggests the possibility of both.
Psych (pron. saik): A gross and deliberate misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length. Expressly permitted under Law 73E but forbidden contrary to that law by Acol club tourneys.

Psyche (pron. sahy-kee): The human soul, spirit or mind (derived, personification thereof, beloved of Eros, Greek myth).
Masterminding (pron. mPosted ImagesPosted ImagetPosted Imager-mPosted ImagendPosted Imageing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.

"Gentlemen, when the barrage lifts." 9th battalion, King's own Yorkshire light infantry,
2000 years earlier: "morituri te salutant"

"I will be with you, whatever". Blair to Bush, precursor to invasion of Iraq
0

#5 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,196
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-October-29, 01:15

A PP would be overkill IMHO. A warning is plenty.

No adjustment. How on Earth would you argue that declarer would have miscounted the suit otherwise, and that he would therefore have taken a specific other line of play?
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
2

#6 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-October-29, 01:45

View Posthelene_t, on 2015-October-29, 01:15, said:

A PP would be overkill IMHO. A warning is plenty.

No adjustment. How on Earth would you argue that declarer would have miscounted the suit otherwise, and that he would therefore have taken a specific other line of play?

A warning is itself also PP.

You don't need to argue that declarer might(!) have miscounted the suit, the fact is that Dummy called attention to a specific fact about his hand.
0

#7 User is offline   chrism 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 218
  • Joined: 2006-February-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chevy Chase, MD, USA

Posted 2015-October-29, 04:40

View Posthelene_t, on 2015-October-29, 01:15, said:

A PP would be overkill IMHO. A warning is plenty.

No adjustment. How on Earth would you argue that declarer would have miscounted the suit otherwise, and that he would therefore have taken a specific other line of play?

I would argue that if dummy didn't trust declarer to count the hand accurately, neither should the director!
0

#8 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,196
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-October-29, 04:51

Is that really the reason why dummy counted out loud? I would think it's just pointless small talk, along the line of "happy birthday darling, I have nice trumps for you!". Or maybe dummy wanted to preempt a remark about his poor bidding.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#9 User is offline   billw55 

  • enigmatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,757
  • Joined: 2009-July-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-29, 06:24

How can the number of cards in a suit in dummy be UI? That doesn't make sense.

Agree with Helene, the comment is obviously just petty small talk. Also I can imagine cases where declarer's eyesight is poor. If he simply asked, "how many clubs over there?" would that be an infraction?
Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
0

#10 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,690
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-October-29, 08:40

View Postbillw55, on 2015-October-29, 06:24, said:

If he simply asked, "how many clubs over there?" would that be an infraction?

Asking, no. Answering (by dummy) yes.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#11 User is offline   billw55 

  • enigmatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,757
  • Joined: 2009-July-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-29, 09:59

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-October-29, 08:40, said:

Asking, no. Answering (by dummy) yes.

OK, so a vision impaired player is just out of luck? That doesn't sound reasonable. Even in a tournament I would be fine with this.
Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
0

#12 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,696
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2015-October-29, 10:37

View Postbillw55, on 2015-October-29, 06:24, said:

How can the number of cards in a suit in dummy be UI? That doesn't make sense.

Take a hypothetical example. Suppose I was teaching a beginner and had a lesson with them about developing tricks in a long suit before losing the entries to it. Now I table AK xxx xx KQJTxx in 3NT opposite a weak NT after a spade lead. Is it perfectly ok for me to point out the 6 card club suit? How about being dummy in slam opposite a relay auction when I can work out the problem in the play without seeing Declarer's hand? Or sneaking a peek at my opponent's hand and, on seeing that the queen is offside, mention the length of a suit where I know we have a 9 card fit? There are plenty of ways this could transmit UI under the right circumstances.
(-: Zel :-)
1

#13 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
    [Walking - not so much]

Posted 2015-October-29, 11:02

View Postbillw55, on 2015-October-29, 09:59, said:

OK, so a vision impaired player is just out of luck? That doesn't sound reasonable. Even in a tournament I would be fine with this.


If a player has an impairment then the tournament organiser can/should make special regulations to allow the player to be able to play the game. One example would be for dummy to name all the cards in dummy as dummy is spread and for players to name cards as they play them.
Robin

"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
0

#14 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,420
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2015-October-29, 11:13

I have a partner with vision impairment. I still make sure to, with as little emphasis as possible, call *all* cards, in the same order every time (top down, like everybody does when describing a hand) if he's looking at a suit in obvious distress, not just the relevant ones. Of course it helps that pretty much everybody in the area knows there's an issue.

Pointing out a specific factor in my hand without prompting is definitely a violation. Doing it in a way that aids declarer is something that needs to be stopped (it's a classic "devious pro tactic").

While it's just as wrong, and just as deserving of official opprobrium, I do like the story of the pro who dropped his 9-card, non-trump, suit on the table, one card at a time, spaced as to take the *entire* length of the table. What, me passive-aggressive? Never.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#15 User is offline   billw55 

  • enigmatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,757
  • Joined: 2009-July-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-29, 12:07

View PostZelandakh, on 2015-October-29, 10:37, said:

Take a hypothetical example. Suppose I was teaching a beginner and had a lesson with them about developing tricks in a long suit before losing the entries to it. Now I table AK xxx xx KQJTxx in 3NT opposite a weak NT after a spade lead. Is it perfectly ok for me to point out the 6 card club suit? How about being dummy in slam opposite a relay auction when I can work out the problem in the play without seeing Declarer's hand? Or sneaking a peek at my opponent's hand and, on seeing that the queen is offside, mention the length of a suit where I know we have a 9 card fit? There are plenty of ways this could transmit UI under the right circumstances.

I suppose I can see that drawing attention to a particular suit and its length might suggest a line of play. I would not call that a UI issue though, rather dummy participating in the play. While that is still an infraction, I would consider the nature of the remark and context before making a complaint. As I said, it is almost always just small talk, and I am fine with giving declarer credit for correctly counting dummy's length.
Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
0

#16 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,690
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-October-29, 13:03

View Postbillw55, on 2015-October-29, 09:59, said:

OK, so a vision impaired player is just out of luck? That doesn't sound reasonable. Even in a tournament I would be fine with this.

Sorry, I missed that declarer is vision impaired. The laws do not contemplate players with physical disabilities. In practice we make allowances for them.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#17 User is offline   jerdonald 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: 2011-July-27

Posted 2015-October-29, 17:27

BBO forum,
The OPS at this table were relatively new players and no one was
vision impaired. Because I didn't know if it was an infraction
and because they were inexperienced I was hesitant to call attention
to the action. I started this post to find out what the directors
here thought. So far it seems that it may or may not be an infraction
depending on the situation. Does that make it director's discretion?

Jerry D.
0

#18 User is offline   billw55 

  • enigmatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,757
  • Joined: 2009-July-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-30, 06:02

View Postjerdonald, on 2015-October-29, 17:27, said:

BBO forum,
The OPS at this table were relatively new players and no one was
vision impaired. Because I didn't know if it was an infraction
and because they were inexperienced I was hesitant to call attention
to the action. I started this post to find out what the directors
here thought. So far it seems that it may or may not be an infraction
depending on the situation. Does that make it director's discretion?

Jerry D.

While I am not a director, the consensus seems to be that in this situation, it is an infraction.

For new players, we want to provide a comfortable and welcoming environment. But we also want to teach them to play the right way, following all the rules. My own choice would be to mention it to them casually after the session, or perhaps before the beginning of the next session.


Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
2

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users