[VixTD]

A player told me yesterday he was surprised to be told that he was not allowed to read his opponents' convention card while he was dummy, and wanted to know if this was correct, as it seemed a fairly harmless pursuit to him.

If you were called to the table by a player objecting to this practice, how would you rule, and which law or regulation would you cite in support of your ruling?

[iviehoff]

VixTD, on 2013-June-10, 06:37, said:

A player told me yesterday he was surprised to be told that he was not allowed to read his opponents' convention card while he was dummy, and wanted to know if this was correct, as it seemed a fairly harmless pursuit to him.

If you were called to the table by a player objecting to this practice, how would you rule, and which law or regulation would you cite in support of your ruling?

40B2© is the relevant law.
Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent’s system card
(i) prior to the commencement of the auction,
(ii) during the Clarification Period, and
(iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play.

Since it is never dummy's (the person's) turn to play, because declarer takes his turn for him, he can't consult it during the play.

Dummy reading his opponent's convention card can be a harmless pursuit, but it can also be an unharmless pursuit, with a risk of communicating UI. Doubtless the law bans it simply to avoid anything capable of being abused if there seems little benefit to it. Players may be concerned as to such abuses, or even as to lax attitudes that result in further laxity of greater relevance. But they may also just like browbeating their opponents. The latter is probably hard to prove/detect, and the director probably has to explain to dummy as kindly as possible that it isn't actually allowed, while keeping an eye out for potential browbeaters.

[par31]

The Regulating Authority in this case (EBU) has provided otherwise: "Under Law 40B2©(iii) a player may look at his opponents' system card at any time, though this may create unauthorised information." (WB40.10)

[chrism]

If looking at a CC is considered participation in the play, or communicating anything about the play to declarer there is a violation of 43A1( c). For example, if dummy pointedly looks at a CC after an opponent's discard, that might well be a violation, since it could be seen as a suggestion to declarer that he should check the opponents' methods, and it easy to construct other similar examples - looking at the CC to cue declarer in to a bidding agreement that would help with inferential count, for example, or studying the lead agreements at trick 1.

Otherwise, the relevant law is 40B2( c)(iii): "a player may consult his opponent's system card ... during the play but only at his own turn to call or play". Since dummy is not participating in the play, dummy never has a "turn to play", and so by a strict interpretation of that Law, may not consult the opponents' CC - UNLESS for the purposes of that law dummy is not deemed to be a "player" at all during the play of the hand, in which case the law does not apply at all.

I could accept either interpretation; as a director, if called by the opponents, I would rule that dummy may not consult the CC because of the UI concerns, and because dummy really shouldn't be doing anything at all that might reasonably upset or distract the players. As a player, if dummy picked up my CC and started perusing it while obviously taking no interest in its relevance to the play, I would not consider calling the director to object.

[chrism]

par31, on 2013-June-10, 07:19, said:

The Regulating Authority in this case (EBU) has provided otherwise: "Under Law 40B2©(iii) a player may look at his opponents' system card at any time, though this may create unauthorised information." (WB40.10)

Is dummy a "player" for the purposes of this regulation? I would presume so, but is that explicit anywhere?

[campboy]

chrism, on 2013-June-10, 07:27, said:

Is dummy a "player" for the purposes of this regulation? I would presume so, but is that explicit anywhere?

The lawbook doesn't define player, but law 9B1b (for example) makes it clear that dummy is one.

[VixTD]

Thanks, and well done to Par31 for finding the regulation I was sure existed, but couldn't find.

I told the player that I thought he was allowed to do it, but there was a danger of passing UI if it was thought he was drawing attention to some aspect of the auction or play.

I'll now be able to quote him the relevant law.

[nige1]

TFLB L40B2ciii, quoted by iviehoff, on 2013-June-10, 07:03, said:

Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent's system card
(i) prior to the commencement of the auction,
(ii) during the Clarification Period, and
(iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play.

EBU WB 40.10, quoted by par31, on 2013-June-10, 07:19, said:

Under Law 40B2c(iii) a player may look at his opponents' system card at any time, though this may create unauthorised information.

The EBU regulation seems better than the WBF default. Anyway, dummy must be careful. A relevant ruling in a league-match at Reading bridge-club escalated to county-level. A player overcalled 3♣, but. at the end of the auction, as a defender, disputed his partner's explanation of its systemic meaning. Dummy perused defenders' system-card and announced "Ghestem"

A related question: with defenders' permission, is dummy allowed to study his own system-card?

[campboy]

nige1, on 2013-June-10, 10:42, said:

A related question: with defenders' permission, is dummy allowed to study his own system-card?

No: 40B2b, and this time the EBU has not provided otherwise.

Quote

Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may not consult his own system card after the auction period commences until the end of play, except that players of the declaring side (only) may consult their own system card during the Clarification Period.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2013-June-10, 10:42, said:

The EBU regulation seems better than the WBF default.

Yes, it can get so boring, especially when partner is taking a long time doing what passes for thinking.

Quote

A related question: with defenders' permission, is dummy allowed to study his own system-card?

campboy, on 2013-June-10, 11:06, said:

No: 40B2b, and this time the EBU has not provided otherwise.

However, I think it would be churlish for a opponent to object when a partnership has been formed just before the session and a player is copying a CC given to him by his partner or attempting to fill one out.

[FrancesHinden]

nige1, on 2013-June-10, 10:42, said:

The EBU regulation seems better than the WBF default.

Vampyr, on 2013-June-10, 11:16, said:

Yes, it can get so boring, especially when partner is taking a long time doing what passes for thinking.

The original intent of the EBU regulation was to (i) speed up the auction (possibly) by allowing you to use other people's thinking time to read oppo's card and (ii) in case you needed to know something about their system to know whether or not to alert partner's call. (LHO 2D, alerted. Partner double. You alert. RHO asks, you say you don't know what the double means because you don't know what 2D means but it might be alertable.)

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2013-June-10, 10:42, said:

The EBU regulation seems better than the WBF default. Anyway, dummy must be careful. A relevant ruling in a league-match at Reading bridge-club escalated to county-level. A player overcalled 3♣, but. at the end of the auction, as a defender, disputed his partner's explanation of its systemic meaning. Dummy perused defenders' system-card and announced "Ghestem"

Prospective defenders are of course supposed to wait until after the play before they dispute partner's explanations. As for dummy, prospective dummy does not become dummy until the opening lead is faced. Had that happened?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-10, 15:34, said:

Prospective defenders are of course supposed to wait until after the play before they dispute partner's explanations. As for dummy, prospective dummy does not become dummy until the opening lead is faced. Had that happened?

It was many years ago and I wasn't at the table. I think opponents' answers to questions about the auction revealed that their understandings differed. I don't think the opening lead had been faced.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2013-June-10, 19:33, said:

It was many years ago and I wasn't at the table. I think opponents' answers to questions about the auction revealed that their understandings differed. I don't think the opening lead had been faced.

In that case, while there may have been legitimate objection to what the player did, the basis of objection cannot have been because he was dummy, because at the time he wasn't dummy.

[aguahombre]

chrism, on 2013-June-10, 07:27, said:

Is dummy a "player" for the purposes of this regulation? I would presume so, but is that explicit anywhere?

campboy, on 2013-June-10, 07:44, said:

The lawbook doesn't define player, but law 9B1b (for example) makes it clear that dummy is one.

Using the defacto definition of "player" in 9B1b to allow the practice is weak. Dummy is a player with quite limited rights, and for most purposes is not a participant player at the time he is Dummy. The possibility of alerting Declarer to something he missed but is on their card is real. It should be avoided, and I see no compelling need for a non-participant to be creating an issue just because we are allowed to still call him a player.

[RMB1]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-11, 11:05, said:

Using the defacto definition of "player" in 9B1b to allow the practice is weak. Dummy is a player with quite limited rights, and for most purposes is not a participant player at the time he is Dummy. The possibility of alerting Declarer to something he missed but is on their card is real. It should be avoided, and I see no compelling need for a non-participant to be creating an issue just because we are allowed to still call him a player.

I am editing the EBU White Book for August 2013 and I am minded to add "(including dummy)" after "any player" at the appropriate point in the regulation.

(But only if it does not flow the text on to another line - my main editorial instruction was to make the White Book shorter. )

[campboy]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-11, 11:05, said:

Using the defacto definition of "player" in 9B1b to allow the practice is weak. Dummy is a player with quite limited rights, and for most purposes is not a participant player at the time he is Dummy. The possibility of alerting Declarer to something he missed but is on their card is real. It should be avoided, and I see no compelling need for a non-participant to be creating an issue just because we are allowed to still call him a player.

It's not just 9B1b; there are other laws which make it equally clear. Consistently throughout the laws "player" includes dummy, if there is one.

If opponents have a CC and I have not had time to read it thoroughly at the start of the round I read it while dummy in case there is anything I should know for the remaining boards. This is just obviously sensible, and it doesn't indicate anything to partner.

[barmar]

The most common situation I've encountered where an RA has allowed reading one's own CC is when playing in Individual events, or events with a prescribed CC. If it's prescribed, the players may not be fully familiar with everything on the CC; and since everyone is playing the same CC, little advantage is gained (and being allowed to look at the opponent's CC is a gaping loophole). In an Individual, the CC is often either proscribed or thrust from one player to another at the beginning of the round, and in the latter case there's little opportunity to memorize it.

[jallerton]

RMB1, on 2013-June-11, 11:56, said:

I am editing the EBU White Book for August 2013 and I am minded to add "(including dummy)" after "any player" at the appropriate point in the regulation.

(But only if it does not flow the text on to another line - my main editorial instruction was to make the White Book shorter. )

This editorial instruction is a bizarre crusade. A better editorial instruction would be to ensure that the White Book provides as much explanation as you consider necessary to clarify how the Laws should be interpreted.

Does "shorter" in this context mean fewer lines, fewer words or fewer pages?

[RMB1]

jallerton, on 2013-June-13, 16:20, said:

This editorial instruction is a bizarre crusade. ...

I have replied in a new topic "EBU White Book August 2013" in Changing Laws & Regulations.