The little things that they do

[blackshoe]

I don't know why we're even talking about this - dummy cannot say anything until it at least appears that declarer might be about to commit an irregularity.

 

According to Law 9A3, any player may attempt to prevent another player from committing an irregularity. Dummy is a special case because of Law 42 and 43. So "obviously" defenders can say to each other "spades led, partner" to prevent partner from revoking. I don't think so.

[barmar]

We're talking about it because the language in the Laws is not very precise. "Prevent an irregularity" is a somewhat vague concept, and can be interpreted in many ways. I can try to prevent myself from spreading disease by covering my face when I sneeze, or by living in a hermetically sealed home.

 

What we learn from this (and many other) discussion is that the Laws cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. They're expected to be used by people who are familiar with the way bridge is generally played. While they try to spell out many details, it's still necessary to read between the lines sometimes, filling in the holes based on tradition and common sense.

 

As another analogy (admittedly kind of poor), you can't learn to drive merely by reading the traffic laws.

[Zelandakh]

The real issue is when Dummy says "You're in hand".

I would say the real issue here is that a vast number of players automatically look more intently at their partner when the lead is in Dummy. They are not meaning to participate in the play, just following social norms. In the same way as most people look at someone when they are speaking.

 

What we learn from this (and many other) discussion is that the Laws cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. They're expected to be used by people who are familiar with the way bridge is generally played.

Anyone familiar with the way bridge is played in practise, at least at club level, should come to the opposite conclusion of the majority in this thread imho, that prompting Declarer is allowed. The fact that this is generally done silently through body language rather than explicitly does not mean that it does not happen. Good luck in trying to regulate this - I am sure if I pointed it out at every table where I saw this behaviour that I would be told to "get a life".

[GreenMan]

I would say the real issue here is that a vast number of players automatically look more intently at their partner when the lead is in Dummy. They are not meaning to participate in the play, just following social norms. In the same way as most people look at someone when they are speaking.

 

That sort of unconscious body language isn't what we're talking about. If you explained the ethical implications to the club players you mention, I believe that most of them would make an effort to control their movements, at least until force of habit reasserted itself.

 

That's qualitatively different from deliberately passing information to partner, which is what we're talking about here, and which CAN be regulated (and is).

[Zelandakh]

How can you tell the difference between someone unconsciously telling their partner where the lead is through body language and someone making the exact same actions deliberately?

[barmar]

How can you tell the difference between someone unconsciously telling their partner where the lead is through body language and someone making the exact same actions deliberately?

You don't need to. There's a qualitative difference between subtle cues and overt acts. Worrying about this would be like trying to make a UI ruling based on the difference between taking 1 and 1.5 seconds to bid.

[blackshoe]

Well, clearly the player's normal tempo must be precisely 1.25 seconds, and therefore both 1 second and 1.5 seconds are breaks in tempo. :P