[axman]

gnasher, on 2011-July-09, 17:11, said:

I don't think it's "clear" in the sense of being easy to understand. In fact, it's almost a model of obfuscation.

I do, however, think that when you read 9A3, 42 and 43 together, there's only one reasonable interpretation: Law 9A3 doesn't extend dummy's rights beyond what is granted in Law 42, so dummy can't try to prevent an irregularity by a defender.

After reading 9/42/43 42B gives dummy permission via 9A3 to attempt to prevent an irregularity so long as the limitations of L43 are not breached. L42 lists rights but does not state that are the all inclusive list and even suggests that it is not an all inclusive list. It may well be impossible for dummy to thus prevent an irregularity by a defender, thus making it mute; and as my head doesn't want to contemplate figuring out such permutations I guess that it won't.

[blackshoe]

I remember having a discussion about this with somebody somewhere a while back. I think we came, then, to the same conclusion Andy does now. Dummy does have the right to point out a quitted card turned incorrectly (Law 65B3).

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2011-July-09, 17:11, said:

I don't think it's "clear" in the sense of being easy to understand. In fact, it's almost a model of obfuscation.

I do, however, think that when you read 9A3, 42 and 43 together, there's only one reasonable interpretation: Law 9A3 doesn't extend dummy's rights beyond what is granted in Law 42, so dummy can't try to prevent an irregularity by a defender.

So you're agreeing with my first reading of it. That's somewhat reassuring

I did speak to Max about this later last night, but he was in the pub and neither of us had a law-book to hand. However he did say that the background to the changes in Law 9 from the previous lawbook had nothing to do with extending dummy's rights and were only prompted by a desire to extend defenders' rights to try to prevent irregularities.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-09, 22:03, said:

I remember having a discussion about this with somebody somewhere a while back. I think we came, then, to the same conclusion Andy does now. Dummy does have the right to point out a quitted card turned incorrectly (Law 65B3).

I'm not sure I understand this at all - unless you intended the final sentence to be quite independent of the first part of your post.

[blackshoe]

I was trying to point out that the privilege extended to dummy by Law 65B3 is an exception to the limitations in Law 43.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-10, 05:29, said:

I was trying to point out that the privilege extended to dummy by Law 65B3 is an exception to the limitations in Law 43.

Quite true, but

Law 65B3 said:

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.

So this right expires with a lead to the following trick.

[blackshoe]

Yes, but it does so for everyone, not just dummy. It was dummy's limitations we were talking about.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2011-July-10, 07:30, said:

So this right expires with a lead to the following trick.

blackshoe, on 2011-July-10, 11:46, said:

Yes, but it does so for everyone, not just dummy.

Are you sure about that? It seems as if the wording "these players" in 65B3 is intended to refer to dummy and defenders only, or it would not have used the term "these players" as opposed to any player.

[blackshoe]

You're right, the expiration does not apply to declarer.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-08, 12:32, said:

All this diversion about slow play being an irregularity does not coincide with what the OP originally gave us.

Although there was plenty of time on the clock, Dummy attempted to rush the defenders. At the level of players also given in the OP, what this would lead me to believe is that not only "could dummy have known" that what he was doing might disconcert the opps into an error, but also increases the likelihood that it was his intent (which I could not prove).

Excuse me, who said he tried to rush the defenders?

First, he might think there is a time problem so he is just worrying about everyone.

Second if he is rushing anyone, why is not the three other players?

gnasher, on 2011-July-08, 17:40, said:

You have to be both a member of Facebook, and a Facebook friend of the person who posted it. Anyway, I can promise you that it's not a very interesting discussion.

True. It is a very worrying thing when most of the sense being posted is by Andy Bowles!

gordontd, on 2011-July-09, 12:38, said:

Well, I tried to phone bluejak, mamos & Max Bavin to see what they thought, but none of them were available. I did manage to speak to RMB1 in a taxi on the way to the airport to go to Australia, and we came to the conclusion, comparing it with the previous laws, that it was probably the intention that dummy should be able to try to prevent an irregularity by defenders, but that this hasn't been very clearly expressed in the cross-referencing.

Or maybe you do think it is clear, Andy?

I am not sure that it does, but it is basically unclear. But if they are running out of time, dummy is trying to prevent declarer from committing a time irregularity so the bit about defenders is irrelevant.

[bluejak]

gordontd, on 2011-July-09, 03:13, said:

I'm slightly puzzled though that such strong players allow this sort of trivial comment (that could legitimately have been made by declarer) to distract them to the point of mis-defence.

Most of my posts on Facebook have been about this. Did dummy commit an infraction? Yes, I think so. Was it a major infraction? No, of course not. Various suggestions of really serious action against dummy are a joke in very poor taste. Fine him 0.5 or 1 VP or something, no problem. But why do people assume it is serious?

Another thing is that some people assume it was done with intent to put off the defenders. That's just silly. Why not declarer?

Let me tell you a story. One of England's very best players [he says ] was playing a hand at Brighton. He asked the old ladies he was playing against about their leads. He asked and asked and asked until he got them thoroughly confused and they would have said anything to shut him up. Then he misguessed and went down in a cold game. He asked for a ruling.

Now, there was no real MI. The ladies' first answer before he started harassing them was correct, full and complete, so he got ruled against in double quick time. Was he upset? Oh, no: he returned to his sponsor at the other table and explained that the Directors had put him off in a cold game by their awful ruling.

This case reminds me of that one. What really happened? Dummy made a remark he should not have done. After that some top level defenders misdefended. They asked for a ruling, got nothing, but now it is the Directors' fault, not theirs. To say I am unimpressed is completely overstating the case.

[AlexJonson]

I didn't get a sense from this that dummy was preventing declarer from exceeding time limits. Another useful ...story... to tell the TD? I'll have to store it away for the future.

[Cascade]

gnasher, on 2011-July-09, 17:11, said:

I don't think it's "clear" in the sense of being easy to understand. In fact, it's almost a model of obfuscation.

I do, however, think that when you read 9A3, 42 and 43 together, there's only one reasonable interpretation: Law 9A3 doesn't extend dummy's rights beyond what is granted in Law 42, so dummy can't try to prevent an irregularity by a defender.

This seems clear from those laws.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-July-11, 10:54, said:

But if they are running out of time, dummy is trying to prevent declarer from committing a time irregularity so the bit about defenders is irrelevant.

That's certainly not how it was presented. Though I do agree that this part of the discussion is a bit of a red herring.

[blackshoe]

I think that in order to know to whom dummy was speaking, whether it was declarer, one or both defenders, or the table generally, you either had to be there, or you have to know the exact words used. If the comment was simply "play is too slow", dummy has called attention to an irregularity, because the play to which the comment refers has already happened. This is a violation of

Quote

43A1{b}: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

Fair enough. What rectification does the law provide? That's unclear. There is

Quote

Law 43B1: Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 and A2 above.

If this is not intended as rectification, then it's redundant. Dummy is liable to penalty even if this law doesn't exist. If it is intended as rectification, then at least it precludes the director from adjusting the score (see Law 12B2). In either case, I agree with David. A small PP is probably appropriate ("may not" is a pretty serious prohibition), but that's all this case deserves.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-11, 16:54, said:

I think that in order to know to whom dummy was speaking, whether it was declarer, one or both defenders, or the table generally, you either had to be there, or you have to know the exact words used. If the comment was simply "play is too slow", dummy has called attention to an irregularity, because the play to which the comment refers has already happened. This is a violation of Fair enough. What rectification does the law provide? That's unclear. There is If this is not intended as rectification, then it's redundant. Dummy is liable to penalty even if this law doesn't exist. If it is intended as rectification, then at least it precludes the director from adjusting the score (see Law 12B2). In either case, I agree with David. A small PP is probably appropriate ("may not" is a pretty serious prohibition), but that's all this case deserves.

Law 90 deals with procedural penalties. A procedural penalty cannot be intended as rectification, because it is (from the Definitions) "additional to any rectification".

[blackshoe]

Then, as I said, Law 43B1 is redundant.

Added: Since a PP is not rectification, the door would seem to be left open to adjust the score under Law 12A1, but I don't think that's appropriate here. Among other things, it would set a bad precedent.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-July-11, 17:18
Reason for edit: additional comments

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-11, 17:13, said:

Then, as I said, Law 43B1 is redundant.

Added: Since a PP is not rectification, the door would seem to be left open to adjust the score under Law 12A1, but I don't think that's appropriate here. Among other things, it would set a bad precedent.

This part of the discussion is a bit surprising:
1: If defenders can show damage (probably) caused by Dummy's irregularity they can claim rectification under Law 12A1
2: If the Director finds it appropriate he can impose a PP on Dummy under Law 90B

Law 43B1 simply enhances this second possibilkity.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

no one has yet had the courage to summon a monitor before playing board one against tut-tut-tut or what's-his-name or also - well, you know who

Thank you for the germ of an idea!

[bluejak]

The last time anyone asked for a time monitor in the Schapiro Spring Foursomes:

• The TDs were accused of bias, being unfair to particular players, and generally everything people could think of in print for many many months afterwards
  
• A complete group of players refused to speak to the player who asked for a monitor for years [literally] afterwards
  
• Most of the rest of the players playing thought it was hilarious

The player concerned was penalised twice for slow player in that stanza which was just enough to eliminate his team from the event.