[bixby]

---

ACBL. East led the SK, taken by dummy’s Ace. Declarer called for the C3, taken with the Queen as West followed with the C2 and East discarded S4. Declarer then played the DAK, West ruffing the King with the C10. West returned a heart, taken by declarer with the King [edit: Jack]. When declarer then played a club to the Ace, West dropped the Jack. Declarer paused, said, “hmm, what’s going on,” paused some more, and dummy said, “are there only twelve clubs in this deck?” Declarer then called for the CK. West called the Director.

West said he was trying to induce declarer to miscount the trumps and while success was unlikely he was upset by dummy’s comment. Declarer said that he was thinking about whether East had revoked. Dummy said that the position was obvious to everyone at the table and that declarer would never miscount trumps.

Your ruling?

[pran]

bixby, on 2015-March-13, 05:41, said:

---

ACBL. East led the SK, taken by dummy’s Ace. Declarer called for the C3, taken with the Queen as West followed with the C2 and East discarded S4. Declarer then played the DAK, West ruffing the King with the C10. West returned a heart, taken by declarer with the King. When declarer then played a club to the Ace, West dropped the Jack. Declarer paused, said, “hmm, what’s going on,” paused some more, and dummy said, “are there only twelve clubs in this deck?” Declarer then called for the CK. West called the Director.

West said he was trying to induce declarer to miscount the trumps and while success was unlikely he was upset by dummy’s comment. Declarer said that he was thinking about whether East had revoked. Dummy said that the position was obvious to everyone at the table and that declarer would never miscount trumps.

Your ruling?

Law 43 said:

A. 1 c: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

B. 1. Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 and A2.

so there should at least be a PP (more severe that just a warning) for the violation of Law 43A1c.

In addition Dummy has given Declarer unauthorized information giving guidance on the play. To what extent this guidance could have any influence on the continued play is for the Director to judge, but anything Dummy says at this stage shall only have the effect (if any) of weakens the case for the declaring side.

[Trinidad]

I agree with Pran.
In addition, I conclude from:

bixby, on 2015-March-13, 05:41, said:

Declarer paused, said, “hmm, what’s going on,” paused some more,

that the position was not at all obvious to declarer.

Therefore dummy's statement that:

bixby, on 2015-March-13, 05:41, said:

the position was obvious to everyone at the table and that declarer would never miscount trumps.

is simply false.

I will happily base an AS on declarer miscounting the trumps. If declarer complains, I will tell him that he needs to complain to his partner.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Maybe I am missing something but declarer appears to be 1 off in this position regardless of whether he would have miscounted or not. So -100 to NS seems routine. A PP is also appropriate unless South is particularly inexperienced, in which case a warning is sufficient.

[bixby]

I'm sorry, declarer won the heart trick with the Jack, not the King. So after drawing the last trump he can cash HA, ruff a diamond and discard a diamond on the HK.

[aguahombre]

Yes, it seems Declarer is down one anyway. Yes, Dummy's violation of his limitations should lead to an adjusted score if it resulted in only down one and Declarer would have been down two if he abandoned trumps.

It seems that he will still only be down one. So, there doesn't appear to be any damage to adjust.

edit: Lucy was holding the football for me, again. The conditions were changed while I posted. Would adjust to down one and use L23, because it seems as good as any to cover the case.

[blackshoe]

Even if you're not adjusting, there's still a good case for a PP.

[mycroft]

I still remember when I made a smartalec comment (a reasonable one - dummy's first-bid suit was the 5432 - and one like you hear at least once a month, but still a smartalec comment and an illegal one) that (totally coincidentally) pinpointed my void, which partner switched to because I told him to (we were playing "middle only encourage with length, high or low is SP; I'd overcalled 3♦ and played the *♦2*) and we set the contract.

When they commented on it (which was the first I connected the two), I agreed totally with them that it was a bad thing, called the TD myself, and explained.

"The only reason we're not assigning a PP is because the offender immediately recognized the issue, admitted to it, and was willing to take whatever penalty was offered; but it was still close." Independent of the actual ruling. National TD.

Dummy's comment doesn't come even close to that level of remorse; PP. Do I adjust? Probably; but I'm not thinking about that right now.

[aguahombre]

I see no indication that Dummy had been warned on a prior occasion, or that what he did was blatant --- or that he did anything to compound the issue later.

What I do see is a lot more recommendations for actual penalties (separate from adjustments) on BBF than I would ever see in real life.

[pran]

I don't believe that I have issued PPs stronger than warnings more than once or twice during my (now) 35 years as director, but this illegal activity by Dummy certainly (in my honest opinion) yells for one. (And I have issued more warnings than I care to remember during my time.)

[aguahombre]

Again...PP stands for procedural penalty. A warning does not penalize.

Similarly: teaching is a form of disciplinary action; punitive action is negative discipline.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-13, 12:47, said:

I see no indication that Dummy had been warned on a prior occasion, or that what he did was blatant --- or that he did anything to compound the issue later.

What I do see is a lot more recommendations for actual penalties (separate from adjustments) on BBF than I would ever see in real life.

A prior warning is not a prerequisite to a PP.

[Keeper1]

"What I do see is a lot more recommendations for actual penalties (separate from adjustments) on BBF than I would ever see in real life. "

FWIW I understand the director did impose a quarter-board penalty for NS but did not adjust for EW. S is by no means inexperienced by any standard, but I don't know if he had been specifically warned about this. Comments?

[Cascade]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-13, 08:49, said:

A PP is also appropriate unless South is particularly inexperienced, in which case a warning is sufficient.

Disagree the penalty should not be dependent on the experience of the player.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-13, 14:48, said:

Again...PP stands for procedural penalty. A warning does not penalize.

Yes it does. Its just that the penalty is not measured in points.

A player without a warning is not in the same state as one with a warning. That difference is a penalty.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-13, 12:47, said:

I see no indication that Dummy had been warned on a prior occasion, or that what he did was blatant --- or that he did anything to compound the issue later.

What I do see is a lot more recommendations for actual penalties (separate from adjustments) on BBF than I would ever see in real life.

On BBF, I see a lot of people advocating PP for "blatant use of UI". I am usually one of the people opposing those PPs because:

• UI situations are particularly unclear to the player at the table
  
• UI situations call for judgement
  
• Players generally try their best to follow the UI laws, but can't do any better.

In those UI situations it is both unfair to penalize (IMO it is unfair to penalize someone who has acted to the best of his/her ability) and unhelpful to penalize (it will not lead to improving the culprit's behavior).

That is entirely different in this case.

• The situation is clear: Dummy is supposed to keep his mouth shut.
  
• There is no room for judgement: Mouth shut is mouth shut.
  
• Anybody should be able to keep his mouth shut.

When dummy violates this simple rule, he will get a PP: He has not tried his best to follow the laws and a PP is likely to help prevent him from committing this infraction again.

Rik

[gordontd]

Cascade, on 2015-March-13, 20:02, said:

Disagree the penalty should not be dependent on the experience of the player.

Really? So an experienced player who tells you that he bid the way he did because his partner's lack of alert indicated that there had been a misunderstanding should be treated in this regard in the same way as a first-time player at a congress who says the same thing?

I was asked the other day to what extent I thought rulings should depend on the experience of players and I said that I thought the only things that should be different were the issuing of PPs.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2015-March-14, 02:25, said:

Really? So an experienced player who tells you that he bid the way he did because his partner's lack of alert indicated that there had been a misunderstanding should be treated in this regard in the same way as a first-time player at a congress who says the same thing?

I was asked the other day to what extent I thought rulings should depend on the experience of players and I said that I thought the only things that should be different were the issuing of PPs.

Include judgement rulings and I shall agree.

I particularly remember one occasion when I had a judgement case involving one of the best Norwegian Directors as a player at that table. My ruling went in favour of the other pair, not exactly the most experienced players in the field, and I added: "This is a case where I rule differently in first and fifth division". She burst out in laughter and said that she had absolutely no problem with my ruling.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-13, 16:28, said:

A prior warning is not a prerequisite to a PP.

No, but it is one of the three things I mentioned which could justify a PP. I don't believe violation of a procedure should go directly to procedural penalty without one of those three things occurring -- nor have I seen it happen.

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on 2015-March-13, 20:05, said:

A player without a warning is not in the same state as one with a warning. That difference is a penalty.

I guess if I wanted to violate procedures, and had been warned previously, I would feel penalized because the guy next to me gets a freebee, but I have used mine up.

I don't think like that, but someone who does has indeed been penalized by that warning.