[Cascade]

pran, on 2013-April-27, 08:02, said:

So dummy may try to prevent Declarer's play from the wrong hand, but only after Declarer has started to do so and before Declarer has actually exposed a card from his own hand in an act of playing it

Declarer exposing a card does not complete the play and therefore does not complete the irregularity therefore its exposure does not make it too late to prevent the irregularity.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-29, 09:06, said:

You can rest easy, Iviehoff, Sven is right.

I disagree.

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on 2013-April-30, 13:18, said:

Declarer exposing a card does not complete the play and therefore does not complete the irregularity therefore its exposure does not make it too late to prevent the irregularity.

Sorry Wayne, but that is not what the word preventing means.

Preventing an irregularity means that you act before the irregularity, not during the irregularity. So whether the irregularity has been completed is irrelevant. As soon as the irregularity started, it was too late to prevent it.

Otherwise you could "prevent" a fire, as long as the house is not burned down completely.

Rik

[pran]

Just to clarify my position:
Yes, one crosses the line twice each time declarer leads a card:
at the moment Declarer does anything that indicates he is about to commit an irregularity the line is crossed from Dummy communicating anything about the play to Dummy attempting to prevent an irregularity by Declarer.
Then at the moment the irregularity is completed the line is crossed from Dummy attempting to prevent an irregularity to Dummy calling attention to an irregularity.

If I understand the arguments from Trinidad he will allow Dummy to consistently informing Declarer about the state of the play for the purpose of preventing him from leading from the wrong hand.

I can just imagine Dummy:
"Remember that you won the last trick with Your King of Hearts so now you are in your hand"
or:
"Remember your successful clubs finnessee in Dummy so now you are in Dummy".

If someone complains he can just state that he is only preventing Declarer from leading from the wrong hand, no fault in that.

And finally a remark on using Law 74A2: I am extremely annoyed when an opponents makes a sacrifice bid that prevents me from bidding a cold slam. Can I Call the Director and claim violation of Law 74A2?

Ridiculous? Sure!

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2013-April-30, 15:28, said:

If I understand the arguments from Trinidad he will allow Dummy to consistently informing Declarer about the state of the play for the purpose of preventing him from leading from the wrong hand.

I wrote in post #76 that I will rule exactly like you, because that is the "common understanding".

This discussion started with you explaining how one should rule. Iviehoff questioned whether there was a legal basis for this interpretation. This was immediately followed by "Sven is right" comments, as if Iviehoff's question was not interesting at all.

The point is that Iviehoff is right in his questioning. The way Law 42B2 is written, it is crystal clear: Dummy is specifically allowed to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand. That means that dummy can tell declarer that he is in his hand before declarer leads. (He is not allowed to tell declarer what card he won the trick with.) The dummy is NOT allowed to tell declarer that he is in his hand as soon as he started to name a card from dummy, because preventing an irregularity happens before the irregularity, not during the irregularity.

The next point is that we all know what problems Law 42B2 is trying to solve. And we all know what the intended solution is. So, there is a common understanding that your way to rule is correct. However, that is not because the laws tell us it is correct (because they don't). It is because we know the intent of the lawmakers.

That is why you should rule like you described. But - given that the law book says something different - this might be difficult to explain to a player who has read the law book. And it may be good for TDs to be aware of the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no legal basis for our "common understanding".

Rik

[nige1]

pran, on 2013-April-30, 15:28, said:

Just to clarify my position: Yes, one crosses the line twice each time declarer leads a card: at the moment Declarer does anything that indicates he is about to commit an irregularity the line is crossed from Dummy communicating anything about the play to Dummy attempting to prevent an irregularity by Declarer. Then at the moment the irregularity is completed the line is crossed from Dummy attempting to prevent an irregularity to Dummy calling attention to an irregularity. If I understand the arguments from Trinidad he will allow Dummy to consistently informing Declarer about the state of the play for the purpose of preventing him from leading from the wrong hand. I can just imagine Dummy: "Remember that you won the last trick with Your King of Hearts so now you are in your hand" or: "Remember your successful clubs finnessee in Dummy so now you are in Dummy". If someone complains he can just state that he is only preventing Declarer from leading from the wrong hand, no fault in that.

Another straw man bites the dust. The opposite seems to be the case:

• If dummy always tells declarer where he won the last trick, that simply prevents an irregularity.
• If dummy only tells declarer where he won the last trick when declarer has started to make an (ill-advised) lead from the wrong hand, that may help declarer play the hand.

pran, on 2013-April-30, 15:28, said:

And finally a remark on using Law 74A2: I am extremely annoyed when an opponents makes a sacrifice bid that prevents me from bidding a cold slam. Can I Call the Director and claim violation of Law 74A2? Ridiculous? Sure!

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-April-30, 09:02, said:

That matches everybody's understanding and IMO it is the way to think... but the law says something else.

The law deals with preventing an irregularity. Prevention takes places before the irregularity, i.e. before it starts. You are keeping matches out of reach for your kids to prevent a fire (before it starts). It is a good idea to use a fire extinguisher once a fire is initiated, but at that time we are not preventing a fire anymore, we are fighting the fire to limit the consequences.

Similarly, once the irregularity has been initiated ("four of.."), we cannot prevent it anymore. We can only limit the consequences. That is a good idea (we are all on the same page there) but it's not what the law says.

Rik

And if you see your kid playing with matches, and take them away from him, is that prevention or firefighting?

I think your suggestion that the law says something else is just wrong.

[GreenMan]

nige1, on 2013-April-30, 16:19, said:

• If dummy always tells declarer where he won the last trick, that simply prevents an irregularity.

I believe this is entirely wrong. If dummy always tells declarer etc., he is participating in the play by reminding partner about how the previous play has gone. I can't think of any interpretation of the laws that endorses this.

[GreenMan]

I also don't buy the argument that declarer detaching a card when the lead is in dummy or saying "Play ..." when the lead is in hand is committing an irregularity. He may be making a mistake, but nothing unlawful has happened yet.

[aguahombre]

GreenMan, on 2013-April-30, 21:27, said:

I believe this is entirely wrong. If dummy always tells declarer etc., he is participating in the play by reminding partner about how the previous play has gone. I can't think of any interpretation of the laws that endorses this.

GreenMan, on 2013-April-30, 21:30, said:

I also don't buy the argument that declarer detaching a card when the lead is in dummy or saying "Play ..." when the lead is in hand is committing an irregularity. He may be making a mistake, but nothing unlawful has happened yet.

There could be a reason you believe those things...because you are right.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-30, 18:27, said:

And if you see your kid playing with matches, and take them away from him, is that prevention or firefighting?

That is prevention, since there is no fire yet.

blackshoe, on 2013-April-30, 18:27, said:

I think your suggestion that the law says something else is just wrong.

I think your understanding of the verb "to prevent" ("before" + "to come") is just wrong.

Rik

BTW: I just love how you back up your statement with arguments. I think your hair is just green. I don't have any arguments, but I just think it's green.

[aguahombre]

I think some are trying too hard for non-Bridge analogies to fit into a Bridge issue. There are rules all around the one about dummy's right to prevent Declarer's irregularity which form a context not found in outside references.

Parents are not discouraged in general from participating in the lives of children; but, Dummy is not supposed to be participating in the play of a hand unless there is an exception in law. The logic which we all allegedly possess then leads us to: there should be some indication that Declarer is about to commit an irregularity before we jump in to prevent it. When there is no "trigger", and we are gratuitously telling Declarer where the lead is, or which hand won the last trick we know we are involving ourselves in the play of the hand. It is pretty lame to do so on the pretext that we are allowed to prevent an irregularity. We know better.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2013-April-30, 15:28, said:

I can just imagine Dummy:
"Remember that you won the last trick with Your King of Hearts so now you are in your hand"
or:
"Remember your successful clubs finnessee in Dummy so now you are in Dummy".

Let's discuss the real issue, not imagined things that are obviously illegal communication.

The real issue is when Dummy says "You're in hand".

[nige1]

GreenMan, on 2013-April-30, 21:27, said:

I believe this is entirely wrong. If dummy always tells declarer etc., he is participating in the play by reminding partner about how the previous play has gone. I can't think of any interpretation of the laws that endorses this.

GreenMan, on 2013-April-30, 21:30, said:

I also don't buy the argument that declarer detaching a card when the lead is in dummy or saying "Play ..." when the lead is in hand is committing an irregularity. He may be making a mistake, but nothing unlawful has happened yet.

aguahombre, on 2013-April-30, 22:04, said:

There could be a reason you believe those things...because you are right.

That would be an excellent reason for faith in Greenman's beiief
To cap it all, we're told that the official interpretation confirms his belief (although it seems to conflict with a literal reading of the law).
Nevertheless, waiting until declarer has started to lead from the wrong hand is also "reminding declarer where he won the last trick". Furthermore, unless dummy always does this, he may appear to suggest that.on this occasion, leading from that particular hand is a bad idea -- hence a worse case of "participating in the play".
But law often has little connection with common sense, consistency, or fairness

[iviehoff]

GreenMan, on 2013-April-30, 21:27, said:

I believe this is entirely wrong. If dummy always tells declarer etc., he is participating in the play by reminding partner about how the previous play has gone. I can't think of any interpretation of the laws that endorses this.

He is actually explicitly permitted to prevent declarer leading from the wrong hand, and if he does it when he sees declarer is attempting to lead, declarer can deduce who won the previous trick from the "no you're on table" exclamation. "You're on table" delivered a little earlier contains no additional information to that permitted communication.

We might be concerned about a dummy who only occasionally says "you're in hand", because it might be meaningful that declarer is being reminded on this occasion rather than on the occasions when he isn't reminded. That could indeed be participating in the play. A player who automatically reminds declarer at every trick is carefully avoiding even that level of potentially illegal communication. I can't see that declarer obtains anything from it other than avoidance of the irregularity that dummy is permitted to prevent.

My grandfather suffered short-term memory loss in his latter years and needed to be told who was to lead at each trick because he routinely forgot things that happened 2 seconds ago, though he could usually remember the contract. Arguably in that case we might allow it on grounds of catering to a disability. But I can't really imagine anyone doing this unless they were catering to such a disability.

It is correct that declarer's point of no return in playing a card may not have been reached with exposure to an opponent. I don't think "completeness" is a relevant property of irregularities, either we have reached a point where events are now irregular or we haven't reached that point, and in the case of declarer withdrawing a card from his hand, whether he is in hand or not, he can put it back without irregularity provided he hasn't reached that point of no return. Nevertheless, it is typically a very narrow window of time from starting to move the card to irrevocability, I expect often shorter than double a person's reaction time: I say double because to halt it dummy has to react to seeing what is happening and declarer has to react to dummy's warning before getting to the point of irrevocability, and thus to accomplish that one needs a window of at least two reaction time periods.

[helene_t]

players who play the stop card, then start thinking about which skip bid to use.

[RMB1]

helene_t, on 2013-May-01, 04:56, said:

players who play the stop card, then start thinking about which skip bid to use.

online players who get an "UNDO" and then start thinking about which call they were trying to make.

[campboy]

GreenMan, on 2013-April-30, 21:30, said:

I also don't buy the argument that declarer detaching a card when the lead is in dummy or saying "Play ..." when the lead is in hand is committing an irregularity. He may be making a mistake, but nothing unlawful has happened yet.

Law 74B3 suggests that the former is indeed an irregularity (though we can certainly argue that dummy pointing out "you're in dummy" is attempting to prevent a different irregularity and therefore permitted).

[GreenMan]

iviehoff, on 2013-May-01, 04:53, said:

He is actually explicitly permitted to prevent declarer leading from the wrong hand, and if he does it when he sees declarer is attempting to lead, declarer can deduce who won the previous trick from the "no you're on table" exclamation. "You're on table" delivered a little earlier contains no additional information to that permitted communication.

Declarer is expected to deduce who won the previous trick for himself, not get help from his partner who's supposed to STFU. He only gets help if he's manifestly about to do something illegal. Reminding him at every trick saves him some mental energy that he's supposed to be using himself.

Put another way: Remembering which hand is on lead, and planning the play accordingly, is part of the game. If you misremember which hand you're in, then you waste some energy planning a possibly useless line of play. It's YOUR job to avoid doing that. If your partner reminds you all the time, then you never waste that energy, and you play more efficiently. Remembering the play is up to YOU and your partner should NOT allowed to help gratuitously.

I don't believe that allowing that sort of help on every trick just because someone MIGHT figure out how to take advantage of another sort of UI or MIGHT commit some irregularity later on is sensible. In fact I think it's downright mad.

[GreenMan]

The "preventing declarer's irregularity" approach might work in other situations too! If a defender leads a spade, then obviously I can say "Spade led, partner" to prevent declarer from revoking. This is fun!