BBO Discussion Forums: Permitted communication during bidding and play - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Permitted communication during bidding and play

#1 User is offline   Liversidge 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 424
  • Joined: 2014-January-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sleaford, Lincolnshire
  • Interests:Bridge, Gardening, DIY, Travel

Posted 2019-June-26, 01:08

I can't find anything in the Laws of Bridge that cover what you can and cannot say that may possibly help partner. I think that dummy can't say anything other than " Having none, partner" but what about other situations like these:

1. LHO makes an insufficient bid. Can you draw partner's attention to the misbid just in case he misses it?
2. Partner has placed one of his spent cards the wrong way round. Can you say anything?
0

#2 User is offline   ahydra 

  • AQT92 AQ --- QJ6532
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,840
  • Joined: 2009-September-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wellington, NZ

Posted 2019-June-26, 01:25

1) You should not be drawing partner's attention specifically, but instead drawing the whole table's general attention to the irregularity, and calling the TD (I cannot emphasise that point enough!). Partner will then have the choice to accept the bid.

2) Yes, you can point it out up until your side leads or plays to the next trick, as per L65B3

Law 65B3 said:

A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.


Certainly this is the case for declarer and defenders; as for dummy, I'm not sure. L65B3 does specifically say "a player" here, not "declarer or either defender" as in other laws; but it could also be argued that pointing out a trick the wrong way is "drawing attention to an irregularity during play" and is therefore prohibited by L43A1b. Personally I've always erred on the side of keeping quiet about this while I'm dummy.

edit: Just spotted that L65B3 is referenced from L9A2:

Law 9A2 said:

Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For an incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.


I'd say that wording suggests dummy is explicitly excluded from being able to point out incorrectly-turned cards.

ahydra
0

#3 User is offline   pran 

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

Posted 2019-June-26, 01:30

View PostLiversidge, on 2019-June-26, 01:08, said:

I can't find anything in the Laws of Bridge that cover what you can and cannot say that may possibly help partner. I think that dummy can't say anything other than " Having none, partner" but what about other situations like these:

1. LHO makes an insufficient bid. Can you draw partner's attention to the misbid just in case he misses it?
2. Partner has placed one of his spent cards the wrong way round. Can you say anything?

1: Yes - and the Director should be called Laws 9A1 and 9B
2: Yes - Law 65B3
0

#4 User is offline   pran 

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

Posted 2019-June-26, 01:35

View Postahydra, on 2019-June-26, 01:25, said:

[...]
edit: Just spotted that L65B3 is referenced from L9A2:

I'd say that wording suggests dummy is explicitly excluded from being able to point out incorrectly-turned cards.
ahydra

L65B3 is a more specific law than L9A2 and as such overrides (takes precedence over) L9A2.
0

#5 User is offline   sfi 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,576
  • Joined: 2009-May-18
  • Location:Oz

Posted 2019-June-26, 04:58

View PostLiversidge, on 2019-June-26, 01:08, said:

I can't find anything in the Laws of Bridge that cover what you can and cannot say that may possibly help partner. I think that dummy can't say anything other than " Having none, partner" but what about other situations like these:

1. LHO makes an insufficient bid. Can you draw partner's attention to the misbid just in case he misses it?


No, dummy may not draw attention to this. Law 9A4 explicitly says that dummy may not do so, and it is not listed in Law 42 as one of dummy's rights.

As a director, even if dummy is the first one to draw attention to the irregularity I have to deal with it. However, I do have the right to award a procedural penalty for dummy's actions and it is very unlikely anyone who should know better would improve their score by doing so.
0

#6 User is offline   pran 

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

Posted 2019-June-26, 05:09

View PostLiversidge, on 2019-June-26, 01:08, said:

I can't find anything in the Laws of Bridge that cover what you can and cannot say that may possibly help partner. I think that dummy can't say anything other than " Having none, partner" but what about other situations like these:

1. LHO makes an insufficient bid. Can you draw partner's attention to the misbid just in case he misses it?


View Postsfi, on 2019-June-26, 04:58, said:

No, dummy may not draw attention to this. Law 9A4 explicitly says that dummy may not do so, and it is not listed in Law 42 as one of dummy's rights.

As a director, even if dummy is the first one to draw attention to the irregularity I have to deal with it. However, I do have the right to award a procedural penalty for dummy's actions and it is very unlikely anyone who should know better would improve their score by doing so.

There is no dummy during the auction!
The irregularity is an insufficient bid :P
0

#7 User is offline   sfi 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,576
  • Joined: 2009-May-18
  • Location:Oz

Posted 2019-June-26, 07:09

View Postpran, on 2019-June-26, 05:09, said:

There is no dummy during the auction!
The irregularity is an insufficient bid :P

Well, that's just obvious, isn't it? Not sure what I was thinking.
0

#8 User is offline   BudH 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 475
  • Joined: 2004-April-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Bend, Indiana, USA
  • Interests:Operations Supervisor/Technical Advisor at nuclear power plant, soccer and basketball referee for more than 25 years; GLM; Ex-Head (Game) Director at South Bend (Indiana) Bridge Club; avid student of bridge law and game movements

Posted 2019-June-27, 02:52

View Postahydra, on 2019-June-26, 01:25, said:

1) You should not be drawing partner's attention specifically, but instead drawing the whole table's general attention to the irregularity, and calling the TD (I cannot emphasise that point enough!). Partner will then have the choice to accept the bid.

2) Yes, you can point it out up until your side leads or plays to the next trick, as per L65B3

Certainly this is the case for declarer and defenders; as for dummy, I'm not sure. L65B3 does specifically say "a player" here, not "declarer or either defender" as in other laws; but it could also be argued that pointing out a trick the wrong way is "drawing attention to an irregularity during play" and is therefore prohibited by L43A1b. Personally I've always erred on the side of keeping quiet about this while I'm dummy.

edit: Just spotted that L65B3 is referenced from L9A2:

I'd say that wording suggests dummy is explicitly excluded from being able to point out incorrectly-turned cards.

ahydra

This was recently addressed on Bridgewinners. If you look at the pre-2017 law wording (much clearer) and also the official commentary on the 2017 law changes (example 3 in http://www.worldbrid...sCommentary.pdf ), it is clear that dummy has the same rights as the other players to inform partner of an incorrectly pointed quitted trick card prior to his side playing a card to the next trick.
0

#9 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2019-June-27, 07:17

View Postahydra, on 2019-June-26, 01:25, said:

1) You should not be drawing partner's attention specifically, but instead drawing the whole table's general attention to the irregularity, and calling the TD (I cannot emphasise that point enough!). Partner will then have the choice to accept the bid.

2) Yes, you can point it out up until your side leads or plays to the next trick, as per L65B3



Certainly this is the case for declarer and defenders; as for dummy, I'm not sure. L65B3 does specifically say "a player" here, not "declarer or either defender" as in other laws; but it could also be argued that pointing out a trick the wrong way is "drawing attention to an irregularity during play" and is therefore prohibited by L43A1b. Personally I've always erred on the side of keeping quiet about this while I'm dummy.

edit: Just spotted that L65B3 is referenced from L9A2:



I'd say that wording suggests dummy is explicitly excluded from being able to point out incorrectly-turned cards.

ahydra


Actually, it suggests just the opposite, doesn’t it.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#10 User is offline   pran 

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

Posted 2019-June-27, 09:15

View Postpran, on 2019-June-26, 01:35, said:

L65B3 is a more specific law than L9A2 and as such overrides (takes precedence over) L9A2.

So when

View PostVampyr, on 2019-June-27, 07:17, said:

Actually, it suggests just the opposite, doesn’t it.

he is absolutely correct and it is not a matter of suggestion. "player" below includes dummy

Law 65B3 said:

A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

0

#11 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-June-27, 09:26

It would be clearer if 65B3 said something like "A player (including dummy) may draw attention to...". I think there's precedent for this in some other laws, to emphasize that it's an exception to the general restrictions on dummy.

#12 User is offline   pran 

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

Posted 2019-June-27, 10:08

View Postbarmar, on 2019-June-27, 09:26, said:

It would be clearer if 65B3 said something like "A player (including dummy) may draw attention to...". I think there's precedent for this in some other laws, to emphasize that it's an exception to the general restrictions on dummy.

Definitely not:
The laws explicitly exclude dummy wherever a reference to "player" does not include dummy. (I believe some exceptions to this principle can be found, but if so they cause no problem).
Examples:
Law 65 is consistent in referring to "player" as any of the four players at the table.
Law 66 is equally consistent in referring to "declarer or either defender" when dummy is excluded.
0

#13 User is online   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,203
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-June-27, 11:05

View Postpran, on 2019-June-27, 10:08, said:

Definitely not:
The laws explicitly exclude dummy wherever a reference to "player" does not include dummy. (I believe some exceptions to this principle can be found, but if so they cause no problem).
Examples:
Law 65 is consistent in referring to "player" as any of the four players at the table.
Law 66 is equally consistent in referring to "declarer or either defender" when dummy is excluded.


I think "no problem" and "consistent" are overbids here. If Directors don't agree about what a Law means then there is a problem, whoever is right. As for consistency, in general "player" seems to be any of the four players at the table, but 68D2 says "If it is doubted by any player (dummy included)" which is probably what Barmar was thinking about and 70B3 says "The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table" which seems superfluous for dummy.
0

#14 User is offline   pran 

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

Posted 2019-June-27, 13:27

View Postpescetom, on 2019-June-27, 11:05, said:

I think "no problem" and "consistent" are overbids here. If Directors don't agree about what a Law means then there is a problem, whoever is right. As for consistency, in general "player" seems to be any of the four players at the table, but 68D2 says "If it is doubted by any player (dummy included)" which is probably what Barmar was thinking about and 70B3 says "The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table" which seems superfluous for dummy.

Law 68D said:

After any claim or concession, play is suspended.
1. If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies.
2. If it is doubted by any player (dummy included); either
[...]

so the clause "dummy included" is just a reminder of the fact that play is suspended and dummy has regained his full rights as a regular player. This clause does not legally add anything to the law.

Most qualified directors have absolutely no problem with dummy ceasing to be dummy at the very moment play of a board is completed, whether in the normal way or as the consequence of a claim or a concession.
0

#15 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-June-27, 14:24

As you say, it's a reminder, but it seems to me the clause in 68D is necessary, because at that point, play has not ceased, only been suspended, so that technically dummy is still dummy. The situation with 65D is a bit different.

Quote

2007 law 65B3: Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly is pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

Quote

2017 law 65B3: A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply

Note that the significant difference here is that in the older law, declarer's right to require a card to be pointed correctly never expires, while in the newer law, he can only point out the irregularity, and his right to do so expires at the same time as for the other three players.
--------------------
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

#16 User is offline   pran 

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

Posted 2019-June-27, 14:45

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-June-27, 14:24, said:

As you say, it's a reminder, but it seems to me the clause in 68D is necessary, because at that point, play has not ceased, only been suspended, so that technically dummy is still dummy.

I agree, and think the change from "play ceases" (in earlier laws) to "play is suspended" must have been the new

Law 68D2{b} said:

upon the request of the non-claiming or non-conceding side, play may continue subject to the following:
(i) all four players must concur; otherwise the Director is summoned, who then proceeds as in (a) above.
(ii) the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16 and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand.

which on very specific and limiting conditions allow play to continue as if there were no claim or concession.
0

#17 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-June-28, 14:50

Yes, of course.
--------------------
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

#18 User is online   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,203
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-June-29, 11:25

2007 law 65B3: Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly is pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

2017 law 65B3: A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply


View Postblackshoe, on 2019-June-27, 14:24, said:

Note that the significant difference here is that in the older law, declarer's right to require a card to be pointed correctly never expires, while in the newer law, he can only point out the irregularity, and his right to do so expires at the same time as for the other three players.

A less significant difference but worthy of note is that another player can now point out an irregularity when the opponents have made a lead to the next trick but his side has not yet played to it.
0

#19 User is offline   pran 

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

Posted 2019-June-29, 16:23

View Postpescetom, on 2019-June-29, 11:25, said:

2007 law 65B3: Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly is pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

2017 law 65B3: A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply


View Postblackshoe, on 2019-June-27, 14:24, said:


Note that the significant difference here is that in the older law, declarer's right to require a card to be pointed correctly never expires, while in the newer law, he can only point out the irregularity, and his right to do so expires at the same time as for the other three players.


A less significant difference but worthy of note is that another player can now point out an irregularity when the opponents have made a lead to the next trick but his side has not yet played to it.

Please avoid mixing the specific Law 65 with the more general Law 9! You are seriously confusing the issues here.
0

#20 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-June-29, 16:36

Pran: The statement is true. I don't understand your objection to it.
--------------------
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

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users