blackshoe Posted November 25, 2016 Report Share Posted November 25, 2016 But how do you expect the defender (or other person) to read your refusal of a friendly intended and innocent offer?Well, I certainly don't expect him to read into it anything that isn't there — and if he does so, that's on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 26, 2016 Report Share Posted November 26, 2016 I do not know what is your experience with Dummy having to temporarily leave the table during play and another person stepping in and assisting with performing the handling of dummy's cards according to Declarer's orders. As Director I have seen this happening many times, and Declarer has always been grateful for such assistance, never been irritated by the so called "infraction" of Law 7B3. I have no problem with someone else playing dummy's cards when my partner is getting my red wine, unless it is the defenders. If they tried to touch dummy's cards I would be irritated, not grateful. However, it is of course easy to prevent -- if you don't name any cards the defenders will not touch any. I don't think that anyone has ever offered, or asked me, to do this, except many years ago when I lived in the US. Pran, above, is right, IMO, regarding the human aspects. However, when I run a game, I still try to avoid letting the defenders handle Dummy if I can sit in or get someone to do so -- and if not, I tell them I would prefer that Declarer play the Dummy's cards if physically able. It has nothing to do with being a stickler rules pedant. Having to do Dummy's job is distracting to the defense, whether the opponents graciously volunteer or not -- avoiding that makes the game more enjoyable for them. This is very true, and is a big reason that I would never touch dummy's cards or allow my partner to do so. Unless of course the declarer is not, as mentioned, physically able. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 26, 2016 Report Share Posted November 26, 2016 But how do you expect the defender (or other person) to read your refusal of a friendly intended and innocent offer? Blackshoe said that he said "no thank you". Sounds pretty inoffensive to me. What would you have him do, ignore the opponent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 26, 2016 Report Share Posted November 26, 2016 Blackshoe said that he said "no thank you". Sounds pretty inoffensive to me. What would you have him do, ignore the opponent?I have never, ever experienced any problem with situations like this: If Dummy has left the table and Declarer just names a card then usually one of the defenders automatically handles that card for him. If a spectator offers to sit down and act as Dummy then Declarer just nods gratefully. And if Declarer simply handles Dummy's cards himself then so be it. We are all comfortable and have a nice game of bridge. (And nobody has any problem with which side is "responsible" for the Dummy substitute.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 26, 2016 Report Share Posted November 26, 2016 I have never, ever experienced any problem with situations like this: If Dummy has left the table and Declarer just names a card then usually one of the defenders automatically handles that card for him. I have experienced an absent-minded declarer naming a card. My reaction is to move the dummy closer so,he can reach it better. Playing his cards for him is anything but "automatic". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 26, 2016 Report Share Posted November 26, 2016 I have experienced an absent-minded declarer naming a card. My reaction is to move the dummy closer so,he can reach it better. Playing his cards for him is anything but "automatic".On a point of order:The card is played from Dummy at the moment Declarer names it. What the defender in case does is not playing the card but just marking it as having been played. Most often I have seen this done by RHO before he plays his own card to the trick, so that there can be no question about him playing out of turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 26, 2016 Report Share Posted November 26, 2016 On a point of order:The card is played from Dummy at the moment Declarer names it. What the defender in case does is not playing the card but just marking it as having been played. LOL has anyone questioned this? Have you difficulty in understanding that in this case "play" is a convenient shorthand for "place in the played position"? Or did you think we were discussing Christmas party bridge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 26, 2016 Report Share Posted November 26, 2016 LOL has anyone questioned this? Have you difficulty in understanding that in this case "play" is a convenient shorthand for "place in the played position"? Or did you think we were discussing Christmas party bridge?Your post made me wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 27, 2016 Report Share Posted November 27, 2016 I have no problem with someone else playing dummy's cards when my partner is getting my red wine, unless it is the defenders. If they tried to touch dummy's cards I would be irritated, not grateful. However, it is of course easy to prevent -- if you don't name any cards the defenders will not touch any. I don't think that anyone has ever offered, or asked me, to do this, except many years ago when I lived in the US.In the US it's extremely common for dummy and/or declarer to authorize the defenders to play dummy's cards if he has to leave the table. The cards are easier for them to reach than declarer reaching across the table. It's rare that defenders do this unbidden, so declarer has no cause to be irritated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 27, 2016 Report Share Posted November 27, 2016 In the US it's extremely common for dummy and/or declarer to authorize the defenders to play dummy's cards if he has to leave the table. The cards are easier for them to reach than declarer reaching across the table. It's rare that defenders do this unbidden, so declarer has no cause to be irritated. You can just push the cards closer to,the declarer. I mean, if it is so difficult to play dummy's cards, how does anyone play rubber bridge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 27, 2016 Report Share Posted November 27, 2016 You can just push the cards closer to,the declarer. I mean, if it is so difficult to play dummy's cards, how does anyone play rubber bridge?Who may "push" if Dummy has left the table? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 27, 2016 Report Share Posted November 27, 2016 Who may "push" if Dummy has left the table?Dummy can do it right before he leaves. But even if you push it closer, reaching across is still more awkward -- the cards are in easy reach of opponents. If declarer doesn't mind the opponents doing dummy's work, why would he prefer this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 27, 2016 Report Share Posted November 27, 2016 Dummy can do it right before he leaves. This is what I do, but also as a defender if the declarer calls a card by mistake I will move the cards as a closer. But even if you push it closer, reaching across is still more awkward -- the cards are in easy reach of opponents. If declarer doesn't mind the opponents doing dummy's work, why would he prefer this? I am not sure why declarer wouldn't mind, but it is even more of a mystery why the defenders would want to do this; as mentioned above it is distracting. Also it happens to be illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 27, 2016 Report Share Posted November 27, 2016 This is what I do, but also as a defender if the declarer calls a card by mistake I will move the cards as a closer. I am not sure why declarer wouldn't mind, but it is even more of a mystery why the defenders would want to do this; as mentioned above it is distracting. Also it happens to be illegal.Goodwill? (And the distraction must be artificial?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 27, 2016 Report Share Posted November 27, 2016 If declarer doesn't mind the opponents doing dummy's work, why would he prefer this?The question is not whether declarer minds, because it's not up to him. The law makes that clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 28, 2016 Report Share Posted November 28, 2016 I am not sure why declarer wouldn't mind, but it is even more of a mystery why the defenders would want to do this; as mentioned above it is distracting.So is declarer reaching across the table. Put simply, if dummy leaves and no one takes his place, any alternate method of playing his cards is going to be annoying. It's true that declarer is legally allowed to play his cards for him, but in a casual game no one gives a damn that the more convenient method of having defenders do it is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted November 28, 2016 Report Share Posted November 28, 2016 Put simply, if dummy leaves and no one takes his place, any alternate method of playing his cards is going to be annoying. It's true that declarer is legally allowed to play his cards for him, but in a casual game no one gives a damn that the more convenient method of having defenders do it is illegal.Declarer reaching for a card in Dummy is not nearly as distracting to the defense as playing cards from the Dummy is to the defender who is dividing his time between the defense and the chore. It is mildly interesting that the Declarer might be distracted from his/her declarer play by having to do the additional job. In your casual game, the defenders might not show that they are being inconvenienced; they are being inconvenienced, and the laws (accidentally) are there to prevent them from being inconvenienced. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 29, 2016 Report Share Posted November 29, 2016 Declarer reaching for a card in Dummy is not nearly as distracting to the defense as playing cards from the Dummy is to the defender who is dividing his time between the defense and the chore. No one is forcing them to do this. If the trivial task of moving a card a few inches would impact their ability to concentrate on their play, they don't have to acquiesce. My general point is that this "violation" only happens if both sides are agreeable to it. So no one should be irritated by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 29, 2016 Report Share Posted November 29, 2016 Yesterday, at one point, as dummy, on the opening lead when I put down my hand I first moved the board and table card closer to partner, and then put the cards down as close to him as possible. I may have said something like "you should be able to reach these". Then I got up and headed for the bathroom. When I got back four tricks had been played. I have no idea who moved dummy's cards, but I hope it was partner. On another board, as declarer, with partner away from the table, I didn't designate cards at all; I just played them. One of the defenders said something to the effect of "I can move those for you". I said "no thanks". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgoddard Posted November 29, 2016 Report Share Posted November 29, 2016 On another board, as declarer, with partner away from the table, I didn't designate cards at all; . . . If one is being picky about violations then this too is probably a violation of 45B:Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy’s hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 29, 2016 Report Share Posted November 29, 2016 Yesterday, at one point, as dummy, on the opening lead when I put down my hand I first moved the board and table card closer to partner, and then put the cards down as close to him as possible. I may have said something like "you should be able to reach these". Then I got up and headed for the bathroom. When I got back four tricks had been played. I have no idea who moved dummy's cards, but I hope it was partner. You should have been able to tell; if partner was my vine the cards he would probably have had trouble reaching the normal played position and would have put the cards into he board. On another board, as declarer, with partner away from the table, I didn't designate cards at all; I just played them. One of the defenders said something to the effect of "I can move those for you". I said "no thanks". I have never designated cards when I was playing dummy myself. I didn't realise, as per the post above, that it was required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted November 29, 2016 Report Share Posted November 29, 2016 I have never designated cards when I was playing dummy myself. I didn't realise, as per the post above, that it was required.It seems to me that the wording is ambiguous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 If one is being picky about violations then this too is probably a violation of 45B:Uh, huh. Sorry, I don't think even the Secretary Bird would try to pull that one, even if the words might literally be interpreted that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.