[VixTD]

This occurred in a club teams event:

---

South led ♠7. East won the king, played four rounds of diamonds, throwing a club, then ♥KQ, ♠A8 and led the jack from dummy in this position:

---

Dummy now asked "Is the jack of hearts dropping or not?". North insisted that dummy should not interfere with play. West protested that the play was essentially over, as declarer was stuck in dummy.

Do you think there's a problem with dummy doing this?

[pran]

VixTD, on 2014-May-01, 06:44, said:

This occurred in a club teams event:

---

South led ♠7. East won the king, played four rounds of diamonds, throwing a club, then ♥KQ, ♠A8 and led the jack from dummy in this position:

---

Dummy now asked "Is the jack of hearts dropping or not?". North insisted that dummy should not interfere with play. West protested that the play was essentially over, as declarer was stuck in dummy.

Do you think there's a problem with dummy doing this?

Sure there is, and the fact that declarer is stuck in dummy and that the play was essentially over is definitely irrelevant.

Just to teach West a lesson I might consider ruling adjusted score (Law 45F) as if Declarer carelessly led the ♥10 rather than the Ace to the next trick, but I think that this is really bending Law 45F too far.

(West did remind East that the ♥J is still out!)

However, a procedure penalty is certainly in order.

(If anybody is in a position to curtail the play here it must be South who can see that all Dummy's Cards are winners with any "normal" play.)

[WellSpyder]

VixTD, on 2014-May-01, 06:44, said:

Do you think there's a problem with dummy doing this?

Yes, I guess I do think it's a problem, although I have some sympathy for dummy. There appear to be at least two players at the table who are guilty of unnecessarily prolonging play - declarer can make a conditional claim; and the defender with ♥J can either make a claim or a concession, depending on whether it is guarded or not. But I think dummy just needs to grin and bear it if neither player is prepared to do that. I don't suppose I would expect to do more than warn dummy if I was called to the table, though.

[RMB1]

I have some sympathy with dummy but the laws do not: Law 43A1(c)

Quote

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

I think "must not" here means I must issue a procedural penalty (a fine of the standard amount) to dummy.

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2014-May-01, 07:57, said:

Yes, I guess I do think it's a problem, although I have some sympathy for dummy. There appear to be at least two players at the table who are guilty of unnecessarily prolonging play - declarer can make a conditional claim; and the defender with ♥J can either make a claim or a concession, depending on whether it is guarded or not. But I think dummy just needs to grin and bear it if neither player is prepared to do that. I don't suppose I would expect to do more than warn dummy if I was called to the table, though.

I don't think declarer is guilty of unnecessarily prolonging play. Sometimes you play out in the hope that an opponent will make a mistake, e.g. the player with ♥Jx discards the spot. Or declarer simply forgot that there's only one heart honor outstanding.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2014-May-01, 06:59, said:

Sure there is, and the fact that declarer is stuck in dummy and that the play was essentially over is definitely irrelevant.

Just to teach West a lesson I might consider ruling adjusted score (Law 45F) as if Declarer carelessly led the ♥10 rather than the Ace to the next trick, but I think that this is really bending Law 45F too far.

(West did remind East that the ♥J is still out!)

However, a procedure penalty is certainly in order.

(If anybody is in a position to curtail the play here it must be South who can see that all Dummy's Cards are winners with any "normal" play.)

I pretty much agree with all of this, nobody is going to make a stupid discard from here on, declarer will always play the 2 aces then the 10♥ left to his own devices.

I'd award a PP if dummy should know better and a lecture if not.

[mycroft]

I don't have sympathy for dummy; if he (and it almost always is a he) is that impatient with his partner's experience level and claim habits, he can find another partner. I will admit I get impatient (much as I try to ignore the play when I'm dummy) on a claimer; but I try to stop my impatience to "look like I'm ready to pull a card, when in fact I'm ready to sweep them up". This is at least two steps farther than that. I also know that when I claim on "does the J drop or not" or "who has the ♥K?" or "I'm taking the finesse", many opponents act like I'm trying to rip them off; so I don't tend to do it except against real A players - maybe declarer has been burned by that often enough (or burned by "claims where it's not 'I have all the rest of the tricks, 100%'" often enough) that he's going to play it out.

Having said that, I don't think there's either a normal* line of play or a logical alternative to cashing my winners and then playing the ♥T, so no worries. As with all, at least a stern talking to to dummy, and if I think he's going to continue this kind of impatience, he can take a PP as well (but I don't really want to hurt declarer for her partner's idiocy).

[blackshoe]

"Must not" in Law 43A1{c} indicates that dummy's comment is a very serious matter - worse than "shall not" or "may not". I would issue a PP even to a novice, to reinforce the prohibition in the law.

Adjusting the score under 45F is just wrong - the way to "teach West a lesson" is to give him the PP.

When you claim, you are supposed to state a line of play. "I have the rest" doesn't do that. Even "if the ♥J drops I have the rest" doesn't do it. I would state a line of play, in this case "playing" the ♥10 last, saying perhaps, at the point where I'd play the ♥A "if the J doesn't drop, you get a trick"*. If there's is a conditional finesse involved, I would do something similar. If after that an opponent thinks he's being "ripped off", that's his problem.

* Depending on the perspicacity of my opponents, this layout might be a reason not to claim, because a poor player might pitch his ♥J on an early trick, if I don't remind him not to. So there is no case, IMO, for "unnecessarily prolonging play" against declarer unless he's playing against players good enough to know to keep the J - and if South is that good, he's guilty of that offense because he should see that's the only trick the defense will get, and claim that trick himself, conceding the rest.