I know I’m in the wrong, but aren’t I correct???

[P0STM0RTEM]

My first time ever playing ‘Fast Pairs’ I table dummy and efficiently gesture and follow suit with the 3 from the 3-2 doubleton as we were becoming pressed for time. I completely realize that dummy should be silent and only ever merrily follow declarer’s wishes and furthermore that is my obligation to be a courteous partner and never damage the relationship. Playing from equals or following suit with a singleton was less than acceptable to my partner, citing that good declarers make a plan before playing from dummy. Well aware of this imperative, I incredulously added that there shouldn’t be a need for the parenthesizes addendum, ‘(though of course you shouldn’t waste time and brain power pondering how to proceed if RHO plays low, overtakes or ruffs when there’s no choice in dummy.)’ We agreed I wouldn’t do it again.

 

I’m not looking for affirmations for my actions and comments, nor do I need to hear about how disrespectful I acted to my most wonderful partner – I actually want to hear why I’m incorrect and if a reason exists to hold off as declarer from playing a card from dummy. The only thing that comes to mind is attempting to gauge the opponent’s body language which I here I believe is unethical? IMHO, though RHO has as much time as is needed, perhaps just maybe playing from dummy, will elicit a tempo following incorrect play from RHO while declarer can deduce by making a plan before playing on the first trick. So I ask while I know I’m in the wrong, aren’t I still correct to encourage partner to play from a choice-less dummy?

 

In the same vein of thought, as RHO this time, I’d fear after a minute or two that declarer is waiting on me to play. I wouldn’t want to interrupt their thought process, by playing or reminding them it’s their turn when they have no choice. What’s protocol here for RHO? Again, I’m sure I’d be in the wrong, but would I really be impolite to play?

[jjbrr]

Think of these three scenarios as declarer:

 

1) You play instantly from dummy, RHO instantly plays a card

2) You play instantly from dummy, RHO plays a card in normal tempo

3) You play instantly from dummy, RHO tanks for a long time before playing a card.

 

Which of these, as declarer, would you most like to see your opponent do?

[blackshoe]

As dummy, playing cards without instruction from declarer is illegal. That's why dummy shouldn't do it.

 

Here's the way it should go: the opening lead is faced, you put dummy down, partner takes time to plan the play. Then he plays quickly, the hand's over, you go on to the next one. Sometimes something surprising happens, and he has to re-think his plan. But by then he'll have more information, so the thinking shouldn't take long.

 

Beginners tend to not think much (or at all) at trick one, and then think at every subsequent trick. That slows down the game, and can result in slow play penalties or lost boards.

 

Gauging opponents' body language is not illegal or unethical, so long as you don't stare at them intently.

 

"aren’t I still correct to encourage partner to play from a choice-less dummy?"

 

No. Law 43A1[c]: "Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer."

 

If you are declarer's RHO, and he has not yet played from dummy, it is not your turn to play, so doing so is illegal and may result in a TD call, which would further delay the game. So don't.

 

If it's truly been "a minute or two", it would be okay to ask, as declarer's RHO, "I'm sorry, is it my turn?" But be careful that your "minute or two" isn't really more like about 20 seconds.

[P0STM0RTEM]

@blackshoe:

I think I would prefer RHO to either play (too) fast or to tank where I'd still be able to take the same amount of time deciding what to do prior to playing an equal card from dummy. In either case it would be more telling than a tempo play. I think what you may be saying is that RHO would have the opportunity to show LHO that they too had an obvious play, where as if there was a few second delay this inference wouldn't be applicable. As such I'd recommend waiting the few seconds before playing and then thinking where it matters. Was this the intent of your query?

 

@jjbrr:

By "aren’t I still correct to encourage partner to play from a choice-less dummy?" I meant as a general strategy of when to take the time to think, and not while at the table as dummy.

Perhaps I do this incorrectly: I flip my card over as dummy is tabled, should I be waiting on something?

I suppose playing the higher vs lower card etc could be a signal to declarer about something, like I'd really be positioned to advise partner.

What really would the other team call the director to say about what I was doing and what penalty could reasonably be enforced? Again, I full-well realize I shouldn't, I just think my partner ought to be calling for the card to use the time to think more appropriately.

I am very fond of the "I'm sorry, is it my turn?" question as RHO. I just am not certain if I can pull off saying it quite as innocently as it is stated.

[rwbarton]

As blackshoe already mentioned, playing from dummy before declarer has called for a card is against the laws of bridge. Furthermore, it is not a smart thing to do! Declarer can see just as well as you can that you have 32 or whatever in the suit led, and is the only one in a position to judge whether playing quickly from the dummy is a good idea in this situation. So just wait for your partner's request to play a card and you can't go wrong.

 

Why wouldn't declarer want to always play from equal cards in dummy immediately? Good declarers take the time when dummy comes down to make a note of the initial contents of the dummy, make inferences about the opponent's hands from the bidding and from the lead, ask questions about the opponent's leads and carding and bidding if necessary, and form a plan, all before playing the first card from dummy. I can only speak with surety for myself, but I would guess that many declarers find it quite distracting if a card is detached from the dummy and then RHO plays a card while they're trying to work all this out.

 

There is also at least one specific situation where it is very important to take one's time as declarer before playing from the dummy at trick one: when deciding whether to make a deceptive play from *hand* on trick one, which must be made in tempo to be effective. Since taking time to think about dummy's play at trick one is completely normal, you should think about whether to make this play when dummy comes down, not when about to play from hand!

[Siegmund]

As has already been stated in the thread...

 

Dummy does not ever play a card on his own initiative, and dummy does not ever tell declarer what to play next.

 

Whether declarer chooses to do his thinking before or after he calls from a card is his own business - but thinking before is certainly the more usual way.

 

As a defender, I will a) take my time to plan the defence before I play to trick one whether declarer pauses or not, and b> if dummy plays a card on his own initiative, I make a point of refusing to play until I hear declarer say something. On my nice days I ask declarer "are you ready for that card?"; on my less nice days I more actively abuse the dummy. (Yeah, against ZT. I admit it.)

[ggwhiz]

I can't remember the name but there is a conventional agreement that after a hairy auction, declarer can high-low from worthless spots to tell pard, "relax, we're good".

 

Don't deprive your pard of this tool which can also be used as a bluff against other pairs that play it.

[CSGibson]

I can't remember the name but there is a conventional agreement that after a hairy auction, declarer can high-low from worthless spots to tell pard, "relax, we're good".

Something in the back of my mind is whispering "Cooper Echo".

 

Edit: I looked it up, it is indeed named a Cooper Echo. Maybe I should listen to those voices more often...(kidding. You hope.)

[the hog]

I can't remember the name but there is a conventional agreement that after a hairy auction, declarer can high-low from worthless spots to tell pard, "relax, we're good".

Something in the back of my mind is whispering "Cooper Echo".

 

Edit: I looked it up, it is indeed named a Cooper Echo. Maybe I should listen to those voices more often...(kidding. You hope.)

Is a fake Cooper echo a deliberate attempt to mislead the opponents? This was a serious topic for discussion at a club in Oz some time ago.

[aguahombre]

A deliberate attempt to mislead the opponents by the cards you play cannot be improper....using tempo would be improper. Leading a wide open suit as declarer in NT, as a psychic action to get them to lead something else and help you would be an example of a deliberate attempt to mislead; and when that is ruled improper, I will find a different game.

 

But, I really doubt that was the subject of a "serious" anything at the OZ club, unless they were very drunk.

[JoAnneM]

It's illegal to play a card from dummy before declarer has called for it, as all posters have mentioned. Is there a specific reason why you are in such a hurry and don't want to wait for your partner to plan his/her play? It seems like aside from the law it is just a matter of being a helpful partner.

[gnasher]

Is a fake Cooper echo a deliberate attempt to mislead the opponents?

Yes. It's also perfectly legal and morally impeccable.

 

Similarly, if I see ♦7 in dummy and I'm in a difficult contract, I usually try not to play it early in the hand. I don't care in the slightest what card will win the last trick, but maybe one of my opponents will think that I'm playing for that rather than for my contract.

[Finch]

Is a fake Cooper echo a deliberate attempt to mislead the opponents?

Yes. It's also perfectly legal and morally impeccable.

 

Similarly, if I see ♦7 in dummy and I'm in a difficult contract, I usually try not to play it early in the hand. I don't care in the slightest what card will win the last trick, but maybe one of my opponents will think that I'm playing for that rather than for my contract.

We've always called it the Walton echo if you are in a doubled or redoubled contract, and I always believed that you aren't allowed to psyche it.

 

Then at the premier league last weekend someone did it from dummy at trick one against me when I _knew_ it was a psyche: I knew enough about declarer's hand to know that he could have been going two off. My opinion of that player has gone down dramatically.

[Bbradley62]

What really would the other team call the director to say about what I was doing and what penalty could reasonably be enforced?

When the director responded to my call, I'd say "Dummy thinks it's his right or responsibility to play cards before Declarer has called for them. Please explain otherwise."

 

Law 90A says "The Director... may also assess procedural penalties for any offense that... violates correct procedure..."

 

The standard procedural penalty is 3 IMPS or 25% of a board in matchpoints. A director could certainly impose that penalty for each occurrence in an attempt to get you to stop deliberately violating the rules.

[Bbradley62]

Is a fake Cooper echo a deliberate attempt to mislead the opponents?

Wouldn't a fake Cooper Echo simply be equivalent to a falsecard, not a psyche?

 

My college friends played these echos in the early 1980s, thinking we had created them for our own amusement. Oh well...

[Bbradley62]

Here is an interesting (though possibly ethically questionable) defense to your itchy fingers:

 

Law 45D says:

If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it. If declarer’s RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16D).

 

So, the sequence could be:

West leads. North (dummy) prematurely plays a card. East and South play in order. West says "declarer never called for a card from dummy". Dummy's card is withdrawn, then, re-played. East withdraws his played card and plays a different one. South does the same. Defenders have now seen extra cards, which might be helpful to them. And yes, if you have a reputation for this, EW can preplan this sequence.

[blackshoe]

The standard procedural penalty is … 25% of a board in matchpoints.

In the ABCL, yes. Elsewhere, no. In the EBU, the "standard" MP PP is 10% of a board.

[Phil]

If my partner started playing cards from dummy without my instruction to 'speed things up', he'd have more to worry about than a rules infraction.

[aguahombre]

If my partner started playing cards from dummy without my instruction to 'speed things up', he'd have more to worry about than a rules infraction.

Like a broken hand?

[Scoti]

:o hmmm, and this is why no forks are allowed at the table ?! :unsure:

[mycroft]

I have two responses, one as defender, one as declarer.

 

I will ask "I didn't hear. Did you call for [card]?" as defender.

I will think about my hand, the play, and otherwise at trick 1, and then call for the card I want to play as declarer. It doesn't matter that dummy has already moved it out of position. It matters even less if RHO has played out of turn, even though of course there is no penalty for doing so. It is my hope that after doing that a couple of times, partner will get the hint.

 

Oh, and as dummy I will not play a card until it's called for. The same dummies that play my cards tend to expect me to extend the same "courtesy" to them when they're declarer. "Why do you do that?" "because I'm not allowed to play a card you haven't named." They usually learn to do the right thing after that. They also think I'm anal-retentive, but that's okay, I'm a TD, I'm supposed to be.

[billw55]

At times, I have played with declarers who seem to expect me to play cards from dummy unprompted in certain situations. For example, the last remaining card in the suit led, or when playing out a dead dummy over the last few tricks. More than once, declarer has been actually annoyed when I asked which useless spot card he wanted played, or when I sat doing nothing rather than play the singleton. Strangely, this does not seem to happen when playing from equals early in the hand.

 

Also, in the case of playing out a dead dummy, declarer will often say "anything", seemingly suggesting that I may choose which card, even among multiple suits. I generally hesitate to do so, after which declarer either names a card, or else repeats "anything" louder and in an annoyed tone. Is there a law that applies to this?

[ArtK78]

Declarer's partner's main purpose is to physically move the cards indicated as played by declarer from the dummy to the played card pile. Declarer's partner cannot do so on his or her own initiative - declarer is playing the hand.

 

So for a declarer to be annoyed that his partner didn't play one of several useless but equal cards from the suit led or his partner didn't play a singleton in the suit led is really inappropriate. It is not the job of declarer's partner to play the hand. It is also not the job of declarer's partner to determine which cards are worthless and which are not (yes, it will be painfully obvious that a number of dummy's cards are equal and that it doesn't matter which is chosen, but that is not the point).

[blackshoe]

Also, in the case of playing out a dead dummy, declarer will often say "anything", seemingly suggesting that I may choose which card, even among multiple suits. I generally hesitate to do so, after which declarer either names a card, or else repeats "anything" louder and in an annoyed tone. Is there a law that applies to this?

Yes.

If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying “play anything” or words of like meaning), either defender may designate the play from dummy.

 

If you really want to wind partner up, ask the defenders which card they'd like. :)

[mycroft]

Again, as defender, I will say "Queen of clubs, please" to "anything". And then they gripe, because anything means "whatever you think is safe, partner", not, in fact, "anything". Or they'll say "it doesn't matter", in which case, "Okay, play the CQ then. Or are you claiming?"

 

Of course, never has my suggested "anything" been a problem, but declarer loves it anyway...I wonder. Is the fact that partner wants card X played on an "anything" AI to me? Is the fact that partner actually cares, one way or the other, AI? After all, it is part of a legal play from dummy.

 

Oh, and have I mentioned my passive-aggressive teaching methods recently?