Hidden communication between dummy and declarer
Playing on RealBridge.
North becomes declarer, at which point dummy mutes his computer and phones declarer, having a short conversation.
There is no suggestion by opponents of impropriety.
I can't see anything in the rules against this, but it doesn't seem right.
What, if anything, can we do about such a situation?
Comments
Well, we can certainly define the conditions of contest such that this is banned. I think, without having checked, that the laws are probably written assuming over the table play and hence that any spoken communication would be audible to all sides. Law 73A1 does cover this though, I think. "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be affected only by the means of calls and plays, except as specifically authorised by these laws." Admittedly, we don't usually enforce that for any kind of remark. Also parts of Law 74 about ettiquette can probably be applied if we're feeling creative.
I am assuming that this is hypothetical? If it isn't , what happened at the time?
How can the opponents know that there is no impropriety? Declarer may just listen and would still be heard (silence) and seen by the opponents. Or has declarer turned off their mic as well?
I agree with JamesC on Law 73A1.
Have you thought that it might also come under Law 74 C 8. I think they have effectively left the table.
They may have been saying "i have ordered up the takeaways for 10.30pm". Or they could be suggesting the best way to make 4 tricks from one of the suits. No one knows and the individual has put themselves in a silly position.
Ok, it might be private information but the time to do that is after the last card is played and the "pause" button should be pressed and an explanation given to opponents and TD.
Whatever happens, is there a method to record this, say on RealBridge, so that if it happens more often by the same players the situation can be escalated for appropriate action?
To me, this is in procedural penalty territory – it's unlikely to have had an impact on the board, but it's a serious violation of proper procedure. Although there's nothing similar in the Schedule of Standard Penalties, it seems somewhat more serious than the "warning for a first offence" offences listed, but less serious than the offences that give an immediate DP, so a PP seems right.
I agree with JamesC that Law 73A1 seems to unambiguously ban this. (The usual law to use for intentional unauthorised communications between partners is 73B2, but I don't think it fits if the partners aren't using them to exchange information that could potentially be relevant to the bidding or play.) Law 74B1 probably also applies but 73A1 is clearer.
It may also be a breach of mobile phone regulations, if the event uses those. (Online events usually don't, but there's no reason why they couldn't.)
Something that crossed my mind as a result of working this out – do Laws 74B1 or 74C6 require dummy to concentrate on the game? It's quite common in practice for dummy to not pay any attention to the board once they become dummy (e.g. to save mental energy for future boards).
Although the laws are designed for face-to-face play, there is some (new) general laws which apply.
Law 73
Law 73 does not prescribe a penalty, but a procedural penalty can be applied.
Law 89
We don't know if Law 89A3 has been breached but there can be investigation.
White Book 8.89.1
The Regulation Committee has replaced L&EC as the (National) Regulating Authority.
Thanks everyone.
No it was real. I wasn't directing but (as the club's lead director) I was told about it afterwards. I said they should have called the director at the time, and then I sent a very nicely worded email to the pair in question asking them not to do it again.
It is difficult to call the director at the time. It's such a WTF moment that you don't really have the mental capacity to process it quickly enough and may still be processing it at the end of the hand/round.
Yep very difficult. Although, I really didn't expect it to have happened!
You never know they might respond "but nobody's mentioned it before". Any way of finding out whether they have done it before on RealBridge? What about the board that was in play? An unexpected result?
Be interesting to hear what they said was discussed!
Waiting on a response (although I didn't ask that specific question).
Poor result for them on the board.
I can't actually see anything useful that dummy could have told partner. The auction was over, but play hadn't started so dummy cannot see declarer's hand. I suspect it was an explanation of why he'd made a particular bid ("I thought I had 11 points when I bid it!")
Reminds me of a club session in the early days of RB. We had a married couple playing on RB, sitting next to each other in the kitchen chatting about the hands.
They had no idea they were doing anything wrong.
What is obvious to us...
It was, as I anticipated, an apology for a bidding misunderstanding.
Thinking about it, this is not really any different to when the opponents converse in a language you don't understand.
Which is also improper.
Just a thought. I bet they discuss the bidding and play between boards when playing F2F. An old habit not many can get out of, but should.