[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

Today the OPS got the bid and the opening lead was made. After the
dummy's hand was tabled the dummy counted the number of cards in
one of the suits out loud. It was a 6 card suit that was not trump.
Seems like this was UI to the declarer. Is it legal?

Jerry D.

[blackshoe]

No.

[ehhh]

It certainly is UI and if there is damage from this UI the bd can be adjusted.
How you would ever prove that is beyond me.
Sounds more like a PP is in order much in the same manner as if dummy was guilty od directing the play.

[1eyedjack]

It would be UI under Law 16, which would give you a route to an adjusted score through Law 12C

However it is also a specific offence under Law 43A1( c), for which Law 43B1 prescribes a penalty under Law 90.

Law 90A suggests the possibility of both.

[helene_t]

A PP would be overkill IMHO. A warning is plenty.

No adjustment. How on Earth would you argue that declarer would have miscounted the suit otherwise, and that he would therefore have taken a specific other line of play?

[pran]

 helene_t, on 2015-October-29, 01:15, said:

A PP would be overkill IMHO. A warning is plenty.

No adjustment. How on Earth would you argue that declarer would have miscounted the suit otherwise, and that he would therefore have taken a specific other line of play?

A warning is itself also PP.

You don't need to argue that declarer might(!) have miscounted the suit, the fact is that Dummy called attention to a specific fact about his hand.

[chrism]

 helene_t, on 2015-October-29, 01:15, said:

A PP would be overkill IMHO. A warning is plenty.

No adjustment. How on Earth would you argue that declarer would have miscounted the suit otherwise, and that he would therefore have taken a specific other line of play?

I would argue that if dummy didn't trust declarer to count the hand accurately, neither should the director!

[helene_t]

Is that really the reason why dummy counted out loud? I would think it's just pointless small talk, along the line of "happy birthday darling, I have nice trumps for you!". Or maybe dummy wanted to preempt a remark about his poor bidding.

[billw55]

How can the number of cards in a suit in dummy be UI? That doesn't make sense.

Agree with Helene, the comment is obviously just petty small talk. Also I can imagine cases where declarer's eyesight is poor. If he simply asked, "how many clubs over there?" would that be an infraction?

[blackshoe]

 billw55, on 2015-October-29, 06:24, said:

If he simply asked, "how many clubs over there?" would that be an infraction?

Asking, no. Answering (by dummy) yes.

[billw55]

 blackshoe, on 2015-October-29, 08:40, said:

Asking, no. Answering (by dummy) yes.

OK, so a vision impaired player is just out of luck? That doesn't sound reasonable. Even in a tournament I would be fine with this.

[Zelandakh]

 billw55, on 2015-October-29, 06:24, said:

How can the number of cards in a suit in dummy be UI? That doesn't make sense.

Take a hypothetical example. Suppose I was teaching a beginner and had a lesson with them about developing tricks in a long suit before losing the entries to it. Now I table ♠AK ♥xxx ♦xx ♣KQJTxx in 3NT opposite a weak NT after a spade lead. Is it perfectly ok for me to point out the 6 card club suit? How about being dummy in slam opposite a relay auction when I can work out the problem in the play without seeing Declarer's hand? Or sneaking a peek at my opponent's hand and, on seeing that the queen is offside, mention the length of a suit where I know we have a 9 card fit? There are plenty of ways this could transmit UI under the right circumstances.

[RMB1]

 billw55, on 2015-October-29, 09:59, said:

OK, so a vision impaired player is just out of luck? That doesn't sound reasonable. Even in a tournament I would be fine with this.

If a player has an impairment then the tournament organiser can/should make special regulations to allow the player to be able to play the game. One example would be for dummy to name all the cards in dummy as dummy is spread and for players to name cards as they play them.

[mycroft]

I have a partner with vision impairment. I still make sure to, with as little emphasis as possible, call *all* cards, in the same order every time (top down, like everybody does when describing a hand) if he's looking at a suit in obvious distress, not just the relevant ones. Of course it helps that pretty much everybody in the area knows there's an issue.

Pointing out a specific factor in my hand without prompting is definitely a violation. Doing it in a way that aids declarer is something that needs to be stopped (it's a classic "devious pro tactic").

While it's just as wrong, and just as deserving of official opprobrium, I do like the story of the pro who dropped his 9-card, non-trump, suit on the table, one card at a time, spaced as to take the *entire* length of the table. What, me passive-aggressive? Never.

[billw55]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-October-29, 10:37, said:

Take a hypothetical example. Suppose I was teaching a beginner and had a lesson with them about developing tricks in a long suit before losing the entries to it. Now I table ♠AK ♥xxx ♦xx ♣KQJTxx in 3NT opposite a weak NT after a spade lead. Is it perfectly ok for me to point out the 6 card club suit? How about being dummy in slam opposite a relay auction when I can work out the problem in the play without seeing Declarer's hand? Or sneaking a peek at my opponent's hand and, on seeing that the queen is offside, mention the length of a suit where I know we have a 9 card fit? There are plenty of ways this could transmit UI under the right circumstances.

I suppose I can see that drawing attention to a particular suit and its length might suggest a line of play. I would not call that a UI issue though, rather dummy participating in the play. While that is still an infraction, I would consider the nature of the remark and context before making a complaint. As I said, it is almost always just small talk, and I am fine with giving declarer credit for correctly counting dummy's length.

[blackshoe]

 billw55, on 2015-October-29, 09:59, said:

OK, so a vision impaired player is just out of luck? That doesn't sound reasonable. Even in a tournament I would be fine with this.

Sorry, I missed that declarer is vision impaired. The laws do not contemplate players with physical disabilities. In practice we make allowances for them.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
The OPS at this table were relatively new players and no one was
vision impaired. Because I didn't know if it was an infraction
and because they were inexperienced I was hesitant to call attention
to the action. I started this post to find out what the directors
here thought. So far it seems that it may or may not be an infraction
depending on the situation. Does that make it director's discretion?

Jerry D.

[billw55]

 jerdonald, on 2015-October-29, 17:27, said:

BBO forum,
The OPS at this table were relatively new players and no one was
vision impaired. Because I didn't know if it was an infraction
and because they were inexperienced I was hesitant to call attention
to the action. I started this post to find out what the directors
here thought. So far it seems that it may or may not be an infraction
depending on the situation. Does that make it director's discretion?

Jerry D.

While I am not a director, the consensus seems to be that in this situation, it is an infraction.

For new players, we want to provide a comfortable and welcoming environment. But we also want to teach them to play the right way, following all the rules. My own choice would be to mention it to them casually after the session, or perhaps before the beginning of the next session.