Playing cards from dummy

[gnasher]

Blackshoe comes from a country where many regulations, the better-known ones dealing with convention cards and stop cards, are in fact broken routinely, so probably he doesn't feel nearly as strongly about this issue as you do.

I don't know - he seems to care about this quite a lot.

 

In fact, I think we all break the rules all the time. Yesterday I broke all sorts of rules in the course of 40 boards of bridge. Apart from calling for dummy's cards in an improper way, I also committed various other offences. For example:

- Using an improper method to indicate that I was making the final pass in the auction.

- Claiming without stating a line.

- Moving the tray (playing with screens) so that I could see all of the bids, even though I wasn't sitting NS.

- Requesting and giving explanations verbally.

- Alerting without following the proper procedure. (Just once, for entertainment, I followed the correct procedure of placing the Alert card over my partner's bid and leaving it there. To my screenmate's credit, he responded correctly, by picking it up and handing it back to me.)

[bluejak]

I never knew that. I'll remember it next time I'm defending and declarer expects us to play dummy's cards for him. "Sorry, we're not allowed to touch dummy's cards" sounds rather better than "Play them yourself."

 

I notice that the other common practice of declarer playing dummy's cards silently is also a breach of procedure. He has to name it before picking it up.

Very selfish, some people. Do you really play against declarers who "expect" you to play dummy's cards for him? I would routinely refuse such an ill-mannered declarer. Mind you, I have never ever had such an experience in all my years of playing.

 

Declarers, in my experience, expect to play the cards themselves, and are grateful if an opponent offers. That is how the game should be played, with courtesy, and usually is, in my experience.

 

I remember being appalled in the ACBL Nationals when my partner as dummy left the table and an opponent called the TD and told him he did not think it fair that he was "expected" to play the cards from dummy. I told him and the TD in no uncertain terms that of course he was not expected to do anything, and it was merely a figment of his imagination. If dummy leaves the table, I play cards from dummy, and am surprised at any pair that expects to do otherwise.

[Vampyr]

Yes, I do that too. I was thinking of the rarer occasions when they actually ask you to do it.

 

They never actually ask me. I suppose I look more intimidating than you.

[gordontd]

I wonder if anyone will disagree with that? :)

[bluejak]

Not me :(

[blackshoe]

Now, about the other point made in the OP, yesterday I played a woman who named every card. Even when discarding a loser, she would say "Five of Clubs". I noticed this because it was so unusual. Having to name a card in its entirety would be, yes, annoying, and I think that this is a pretty big drawback in a game, which is an activity that people take part in because they enjoy it.

 

Not sure I understand. You appear to be saying that a law that requires you to name a card by rank and denomination would annoy you. Yet the situation you describe was one in which someone else was in fact naming cards in that way, and I wonder whether you found that annoying. IAC, the annoying law you mention (whoever it might annoy) already exists. It's just routinely ignored.

 

I do like players to follow the rules, and I do try (not always successfully) to do so myself. I suppose I'm a little OCD about it.

[Vampyr]

Not sure I understand. You appear to be saying that a law that requires you to name a card by rank and denomination would annoy you. Yet the situation you describe was one in which someone else was in fact naming cards in that way, and I wonder whether you found that annoying.

 

No, I didn't find the lady's naming the cards annoying. I would, however, find it annoying if I had to do it myself, since I normally designate a small card by saying "mmm".

 

Not that I find it impossible to be annoyed by another person's designation of cards. When a visiting American friend wanted a small card he would instruct me simply to "play". This nearly drove me round the bend.

 

IAC, the annoying law you mention (whoever it might annoy) already exists. It's just routinely ignored.

 

No. L46 has a fairly exhaustive list of what card is played when the designation is incomplete.

[blackshoe]

I sympathize with your reaction to "play" — but imagine how I feel about it, since almost everybody here uses it. :blink: :lol:

 

I disagree with your "no". Law 46B describes how to deal with an irregularity - the irregularity being the failure to follow

Law 46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

Note 'should' in this law, which means that declarer's failure to follow it is an infraction.

[Vampyr]

I sympathize with your reaction to "play" — but imagine how I feel about it, since almost everybody here uses it. :blink: :lol:

 

Yuck! No wonder you would prefer everyone to use a complete designation :)

[WellSpyder]

When a visiting American friend wanted a small card he would instruct me simply to "play". This nearly drove me round the bend.

I think I would be tempted to reply "I can't until you tell me which card to play".....

[blackshoe]

I think I would be tempted to reply "I can't until you tell me which card to play".....

 

Or "Sorry, I left my violin at home." :P

[barmar]

Very selfish, some people. Do you really play against declarers who "expect" you to play dummy's cards for him? I would routinely refuse such an ill-mannered declarer. Mind you, I have never ever had such an experience in all my years of playing.

 

Declarers, in my experience, expect to play the cards themselves, and are grateful if an opponent offers. That is how the game should be played, with courtesy, and usually is, in my experience.

 

I remember being appalled in the ACBL Nationals when my partner as dummy left the table and an opponent called the TD and told him he did not think it fair that he was "expected" to play the cards from dummy. I told him and the TD in no uncertain terms that of course he was not expected to do anything, and it was merely a figment of his imagination. If dummy leaves the table, I play cards from dummy, and am surprised at any pair that expects to do otherwise.

I've never run into a declarer who "expected" us to play dummy's cards when dummy excused himself (when you gotta go, you gotta go). But we just do it routinely (ignoring the fact that it's against the Laws). Dummy's cards are easier for defenders to reach than declarer, so it always seemed natural to do so. When dummy requests to leave, he asks "I need to go to the restroom, can someone play my cards for me?", and we just say "sure, go ahead".

 

Dummy's role is so mechanical that we'd never consider it critical who actually performs it -- a well-trained chimpanzee could take his place.

 

This is one of those silly Laws that I plan on continuing to ignore. Feel free to give me a PP if I do it while one of you is directing.

[bluejak]

Sorry, please explain: why would I give you a PP?

[barmar]

Because the Laws don't allow anyone other than dummy or declarer to touch dummy's cards, right?

[bluejak]

And why would I give you a PP?

[blackshoe]

I think barmar's point is that a player who ignores the law should be penalized, while David is saying that he is disinclined to penalize someone for trying to be helpful.

 

Law 7 says "no player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may …) during or after play except by permission of the director". The construction indicates that infractions of this law "will incur a procedural penalty more often than not". That indication notwithstanding, it is AFAIK very rare for a director to issue such a PP. In effect, they give blanket after the fact permission to touch other players' cards. Directors certainly have the power to do that, whatever the legal niceties. I'm not so sure it's such a great idea though. In effect, the result is that the situation now seems to be that this particular part of the Law is "non-operative", being ignored by players and directors alike.

[barmar]

And why would I give you a PP?

Because I violated correct procedure and you caught me. Isn't that what PP's are given for?

 

Or am I misunderstanding the point you're trying to make with this question?

[bluejak]

When I direct, I give PPs when necessary. I do not give PPs every time someone breaks a rule - if i did then I would wreck the game I was directing, and would be fairly swiftly sacked as a TD. I find it difficult to believe, barmar, that you really play somewhere where you receive a PP every time you do something not according to the rules, and if you do I suggest you find somewhere else to play pretty quickly.

 

There is an enormous difference between making sure the rules are right and making sure that a player is penalised every single time he breaks one. If you think the purpose of this forum is to try to produce rules that will always lead to as many penalties as possible, I sincerely hope not because that would kill the game. Fortunately, I doubt anyone is that stupid.

 

The suggestion that I should issue a PP every time a defender touches dummy's card I find beyond belief.

[blackshoe]

We were discussing a proposed change in the laws. I was deliberately over the top in my initial proposal. I was hoping for "that's too much, let's try this instead", but what I seem to have got is "it ain't broke, leave it alone". <shrug> Okay, fair enough.

[barmar]

The suggestion that I should issue a PP every time a defender touches dummy's card I find beyond belief.

It was a rhetorical statement, not serious advice on how to direct. Kind of like saying "So sue me."

[bluejak]

It did not read that way. Ok, we allow a different approach in this specific forum, but the prime purpose of these four forums overall is to improve and understand the application of Laws, not their theory. So if you ask me whether I would give a PP to a player who touched another players' cards you will get an honest answer because I do not want people out there thinking it is correct to do so, because it isn't. Of course, like so much of a TD's work, it is a matter of judgement: no doubt you could come up with a situation where I believe it is correct to do so.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that in cases where accepted practice deviates from the literal wording of the law, we should say so, and explain why. For example, Law 7 says "no player shall touch any cards other than his own (except that declarer may play dummy's card in accordance with Law 45)". The introduction to the laws indicates that a violation of this law "should draw a procedural penalty more often than not". And yet you say "it is not correct to do so". Fair enough. Please explain why it's not correct. It's a matter of judgement, I get that, but people whose judgement is not as refined as yours need some guidance; I would expect an explanation of the reasons behind the practice (as long as it's more than just "because that's what we do") to provide such guidance.

[bluejak]

I think custom and practice is important. If one player gets a PP from touching another's cards when most people do not, that is unfair and not good for the game.

 

In general, I do not think PPs are right in clubs unless

 

• someone suffers, especially if a board is lost, or
  
• someone does something serious and keeps repeating it after warnings, or
  
• someone upsets people a lot
  

Now, touching dummy's cards is helpful, so none of the above apply.

[qwery_hi]

No, I didn't find the lady's naming the cards annoying. I would, however, find it annoying if I had to do it myself, since I normally designate a small card by saying "mmm".

 

Not that I find it impossible to be annoyed by another person's designation of cards. When a visiting American friend wanted a small card he would instruct me simply to "play". This nearly drove me round the bend.

 

 

 

No. L46 has a fairly exhaustive list of what card is played when the designation is incomplete.

 

Did I understand you right? You normally designate a small card by saying "mmm" but are annoyed by someone else saying "play" to designate a small card. Perhaps "ppp" would be more to your liking?

[aguahombre]

In an event where I don't know the table numbers for the various strata, I can often judge the quality and experience of the opponent by his/her verbage.

 

I assume "C" or low "B" when I hear "play", or they say "please" every time a card is designated.

It doesn't annoy me.