[aguahombre]

Lamford, you need to get a sense of humor about the "poll". I think the solution might be for declarer to ask the partner of the known SB how many diamonds are in dummy. We already know the SB will remain silent.

Alternatively, declarer could try counting the other 3 suits and subtracting from 13.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-May-16, 16:26, said:

Alternatively, declarer could try counting the other 3 suits and subtracting from 13.

We already know that bridge players are notoriously bad at adding up to 13. Of course there is no need for a poll at all. The declarer is always assumed not to "wake up" to the fact that there are seven diamonds in dummy, just as he is not allowed to "wake up" to the fact that he just bid Ghestem after it is alerted. The other point nobody has raised is should there not be a PP for South as well for deliberate use of UI? That appeals to my sense of humour - a PP for both dummy and declarer on the same board. Get in there, SB!

[lamford]

dcrc2, on 2011-May-15, 03:44, said:

I think adjusting the score is a serious mistake.

But as it is related to the infraction it cannot be SeWoG. And the TD is exempt from 12C1b.

[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-May-16, 16:32, said:

We already know that bridge players are notoriously bad at adding up to 13. Of course there is no need for a poll at all. The declarer is always assumed not to "wake up" to the fact that there are seven diamonds in dummy, just as he is not allowed to "wake up" to the fact that he just bid Ghestem after it is alerted. The other point nobody has raised is should there not be a PP for South as well for deliberate use of UI? That appeals to my sense of humour - a PP for both dummy and declarer on the same board. Get in there, SB!

Ok, let's be serious if you like.

If you deconstruct the conversation, then declarer expressed surprise that partner bid 3NT without 'consulting'.

There is actually no indication that declarer has needed to count anything, or needs to recount anything.

If you are right about ACs then we all need to stop wasting our money on them.

[dburn]

gnasher, on 2011-May-16, 13:53, said:

OK, do your first three yeses make it an infraction of one part of Law 73, specifically 73A1? And if not, why not?

And regarding your first no, are you saying that it's not extraneous, or not a remark?

I believe that Law 73 is intended to prohibit communication by other than calls and plays only of information that is supposed to be communicated solely by calls and plays. That is, I do not believe that during the play, this exchange between declarer and dummy:

Declarer "Whose round is it?"
Dummy "Yours."
Declarer "OK, here's some money, go and get the drinks."

is prohibited by Law 73 or any other Law, even though it is communication between partners, it occurs during the play, and it is not effected only by means of calls and plays.

Of course, if it were later found that dummy says "Yours" in such positions only when declarer should finesse and "Mine" when declarer should play for the drop, that would be a different matter altogether - a violation of Law 73B2.

By the same token, I do not believe that this exchange between declarer and dummy:

Declarer "How many diamonds do you have?"
Dummy "Seven."

is prohibited by Law 73 or by any other Law, even even though it is communication between partners, it occurs during the play, and it is not effected only by means of calls and plays. Certainly dummy's answer and declarer's question are extraneous remarks, just as "It's your round" is an extraneous remark; but in neither case are the remarks of the kind with which Law 73 is properly concerned.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-17, 03:31, said:

By the same token, I do not believe that this exchange between declarer and dummy:

Declarer "How many diamonds do you have?"
Dummy "Seven."

is prohibited by Law 73 or by any other Law, <snip>

Whether or not that is permitted is a different issue. Here the dummy provided information that the original rough estimate made by declarer of six was wrong. That is the UI, not the statement that dummy has seven diamonds.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-May-17, 02:01, said:

If you deconstruct the conversation, then declarer expressed surprise that partner bid 3NT without 'consulting'.

If you decide that the question to dummy was a sarcastic comment on the fact that dummy only had an eight count, and that declarer knew all along that there were seven diamonds in dummy, then a "no adjustment" ruling would be right. Because then there is no UI. However, the declarer in question originally thought, perhaps briefly, that there were six diamonds in dummy. And friends this is a true story because I knew that soldier.

[aguahombre]

Did anyone get a chuckle on board 45, segment 3 of 8, yesterday?

As JLALL was putting down dummy with its 7-bagger in diamonds, Boo asked "7, right?"

VG operator did not indicate whether anyone responded, thank Gawd.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-May-17, 09:35, said:

Did anyone get a chuckle on board 45, segment 3 of 8, yesterday?

As JLALL was putting down dummy with its 7-bagger in diamonds, Boo asked "7, right?"

VG operator did not indicate whether anyone responded, thank Gawd.

Interestingly that remark was made after 4 tricks had been played, not as dummy was being put down:

Vugraphzff: Grue says 7 right?

And both declarer and dummy had followed twice and one opponent had discarded. If dummy had confirmed that he originally had seven diamonds, then that would indeed have been UI. In the hand in question there was no alternative to continuing the diamond suit, and for a player of Joe Grue's calibre, I am sure the remark was only rhetorical confirming to himself that the suit was running. Each case on its merits.

[aguahombre]

I was merely musing at the fact it was the same suit, etc. Was not suggesting anything other than Dejavu.

And --see archive in the BBO library -- VG operator had time to type in the "question" as Grue was leading the diamond king from his own hand to trick two. Unknown how long before that the question was asked.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-May-17, 10:02, said:

I was merely musing at the fact it was the same suit, etc. Was not suggesting anything other than Dejavu.

And --see archive in the BBO library -- VG operator had time to type in the "question" as Grue was leading the diamond king from his own hand to trick two. Unknown how long before that the question was asked.

Right; I see that the operator comment is there during tricks 2-4. And yes, it is an odd coincidence. And I am sure that neither Gitelman nor Moss would have behaved as our SB did.

[aguahombre]

Another remote possibility: that Grue was familiar with this thread and taking a shot at all of us.

[mgoetze]

lamford, on 2011-May-11, 10:43, said:

The above hand caused some ill-feeling at a local club last night. [...] East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, indicated that dummy had breached law 42A1:

I contend that the hand had nothing to do with it, and the ill-feeling was caused solely by the behaviour of East (and possibly the director, I wouldn't know).

[phil_20686]

Failing to correctly count the diamonds in dummy and hence going off by taking an inferior line is an action that "might cause annoyance and embarassment" to partner, and is hence must be "carefully avoided" under 74A2. Thus south was clearly taking his only legal play.

In a similar vein, let us not forget that claiming is clearly a violation of 74C6, as it shows a "lack of further interest" in the deal. We should also prohibit that.

And I always feel conflicted about 74C8 and 74A1. I can't help when the opponents play reduces me to hyseterical giggling. Should I stay at the table and giggle in violation of 74A1? Or should I leave the table to giggle in violation of 74C8. What's a man to do?

[lamford]

phil_20686, on 2011-May-25, 13:32, said:

Failing to correctly count the diamonds in dummy and hence going off by taking an inferior line is an action that "might cause annoyance and embarassment" to partner, and is hence must be "carefully avoided" under 74A2. Thus south was clearly taking his only legal play.

In a similar vein, let us not forget that claiming is clearly a violation of 74C6, as it shows a "lack of further interest" in the deal. We should also prohibit that.

However, South has breached 74B2, by making a gratuitous comment during the play. He also breached 74A2 with the remark to dummy which annoyed SB. And under 74B1 he paid insufficient attention to the game in not counting the diamonds correctly. I am sure that we could go on, and I am sure your suggestions are tongue-in-cheek as well.

[blackshoe]

"Can we shoot them?" -- Fiona Glenanne (Gabriel Anwar) in "Burn Notice"