[Vampyr]

The behaviour in the videos is truly bizarre, and is of course illegal. I must admit, though, to have occasionally been a lawbreaker myself.

Sometimes dummy leaves the table for some reason, and declarer absentmindedly calls a card from the dummy. When this happens, I sometimes move dummy's cards closer to declarer so that he may better reach them. This seems, somehow, more polite than, if I may quote David Burn, "merely sitting there and waiting for all hell to freeze".

Has anyone else ever done this as a player, and how would you rule on this infraction as a director?

[weejonnie]

If this is a problem e.g. you know dummy will be away for a while - you could call the director who would give permission.

Law 7B3

3. During play each player retains possession of his own cards, not
permitting them to be mixed with those of any other player. No player shall
touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy’s cards in
accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of the
Director.

( “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not))

I live in the real world and under the circumstances would probably 'wink' at it, if there was no attempt being made to affect the dummy. To be honest I can't imagine anyone calling the director or drawing the attention to the irregularity under such circumstances. Declarer will be only too happy for the assistance and the defenders aren't going to risk a PP.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2015-October-12, 11:16, said:

If this is a problem e.g. you know dummy will be away for a while - you could call the director who would give permission.

Law 7B3

3. During play each player retains possession of his own cards, not
permitting them to be mixed with those of any other player. No player shall
touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy’s cards in
accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of the
Director.

( “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not))

I live in the real world and under the circumstances would probably 'wink' at it, if there was no attempt being made to affect the dummy. To be honest I can't imagine anyone calling the director or drawing the attention to the irregularity under such circumstances. Declarer will be only too happy for the assistance and the defenders aren't going to risk a PP.

At a North London club, SB would call the TD and seek a PP for someone touching dummy's cards.

[weejonnie]

Yes - but I would decide that this was one of the minority of occasions when a PP wouldn't be given. I would also give SB a PP for trying to breach 10A (determine rectification). AND one for breach of 74A2 (enjoyment of the game). - note the word 'carefully' there.

[Trinidad]

In my world, it is quite common for dummy to politely ask if he can ... (do whatever he needs to do).

From that moment on declarer, the defenders or a kibitzer will play dummy's cards.

It goes without saying that when we are defending we will attempt to play dummy's card only if (we started with an even number in the suit and would be able to beat dummy's card) or (started with an odd number in the suit and cannot beat dummy's card). (Generally known as Modified Slavinsky Dummy Play )

Rik

[Trinidad]

weejonnie, on 2015-October-12, 12:48, said:

Yes - but I would decide that this was one of the minority of occasions when a PP wouldn't be given. I would also give SB a PP for trying to breach 10A (determine rectification). AND one for breach of 74A2 (enjoyment of the game). - note the word 'carefully' there.

I am wondering... Is there ever a session where SB ends the evening with a positive MP score?

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-October-12, 13:37, said:

I am wondering... Is there ever a session where SB ends the evening with a positive MP score?

Rik

Yes, even if he had a PP on every board, he would only need to score 10% to remain positive ... And he only averages one PP per month, which blackshoe considers is far too frequent.

[steve2005]

At my club it is a common occurrence for someone including defence to ask for dummy to adjust their cards, Yes, sometimes I've seen players touch dummies cards but nothing like the mauling the Polish players gave to dummy!

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-October-12, 13:36, said:

In my world, it is quite common for dummy to politely ask if he can ... (do whatever he needs to do).

From that moment on declarer, the defenders or a kibitzer will play dummy's cards.

The defenders? Really?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-October-12, 14:03, said:

Yes, even if he had a PP on every board, he would only need to score 10% to remain positive ... And he only averages one PP per month, which blackshoe considers is far too frequent.

I do? Huh. Thanks for letting me know.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-12, 19:44, said:

The defenders? Really?

Yes, really. I would say that if there is a kibitzer, he will play the cards in 95% of the cases. If there is no kibitzer, the defenders will play the cards in over 80% of the cases.

This is actually quite natural since the defenders are closer to dummy's cards then declarer. So, it is often simply more convenient.

(I know that you have been surprised about the size of bridge tables in the Netherlands in the past.)

Rik

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-12, 21:23, said:

I do? Huh. Thanks for letting me know.

I think I misinterpreted you:

blackshoe, on 2015-September-14, 10:17, said:

120 DPs over ten years? Sounds to me like the SB now considers a DP once a month as part of his "table fee".

Screw that. Suspend him for 30 days, since you haven't seen fit to suspend him before this. When he comes back, the first outburst that would have netted him a DP before should result in permanent expulsion — and that should be explained to him when he is suspended, and again on the first day of his return.

I presume therefore that you think that the number of PPs he gets does not matter, but the number of DPs he gets is way too many.

[StevenG]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-12, 19:44, said:

The defenders? Really?

Yes, very common here (mainly in the lower level clubs - but if dummy is making coffee for the defenders as well as her side, it would be very unhelpful not to. ) As Rik says elsewhere, the defenders are nearer dummy.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-October-13, 01:44, said:

This is actually quite natural since the defenders are closer to dummy's cards then declarer. So, it is often simply more convenient.

More convenient for whom? I find defence hard enough work when I am responsible for one hand.

[helene_t]

It also has the advanatage that if declarer touches dummy's cards there can be no doubt that it is in order to rearange the cards, not in order to play a card.

It is common in some English clubs as well. It might be slightly less common in England than in the Netherlands, though.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-13, 02:49, said:

More convenient for whom? I find defence hard enough work when I am responsible for one hand.

Nobody is forcing any defender to play dummy's cards. But in 80% of the cases, the defenders themselves will offer to play them. In the remaining 20%, declarer will reach across the table.

When defenders offer to play dummy's cards, I assume they don't mind doing that. If they don't offer to play the cards then that is fine too.

Personally, when I am declaring and dummy is gone, I prefer to play dummy's cards myself. But usually the defenders have already offered to play them. And, I am fine with that too. It is certainly no big deal.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-October-13, 03:08, said:

Nobody is forcing any defender to play dummy's cards. But in 80% of the cases, the defenders themselves will offer to play them.

...

Personally, when I am declaring and dummy is gone, I prefer to play dummy's cards myself. But usually the defenders have already offered to play them.

Hmmm. Interesting that so many are eager to take on this distraction and inconvenience. i'm sure not all of them have an ulterior motive though.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-13, 04:39, said:

i'm sure not all of them have an ulterior motive though.

I'm sure close to nobody has an ulterior motive. If they wanted to cheat they would find a code that would work also when dummy doesn't go to the toilet.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-October-13, 05:46, said:

I'm sure close to nobody has an ulterior motive. If they wanted to cheat they would find a code that would work also when dummy doesn't go to the toilet.

In my experience dummy makes much more frequent trips to the bar!

But there's nothing entirely illogical about opportunistic cheating. In fact maybe aome players will subconsciously play a card differently from dummy depending on their holding in the suit. I guess I just feel that there must be some reason a player would choose to be constantly distracted and have his thought process repeatedly interrupted.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-13, 06:18, said:

In my experience dummy makes much more frequent trips to the bar!

But there's nothing entirely illogical about opportunistic cheating. In fact maybe aome players will subconsciously play a card differently from dummy depending on their holding in the suit. I guess I just feel that there must be some reason a player would choose to be constantly distracted and have his thought process repeatedly interrupted.

How about: It doesn't distract him and the Golden Rule.

Don't worry. I believe you when you say that it distracts you. I know more people who get distracted by that, so I am not at all surprised. But the fact that it distracts you doesn't mean it distracts everybody. And if it doesn't distract you, then why wouldn't you be nice to your opponents?

And about opportunistic cheating...

So, you believe that:
once every 5 evenings, defenders are playing dummy's cards
they will have a subconscious habit of playing those cards in a certain way, depending on their holding.

Now, how is that cheating? It isn't.

It only gets in UI territory if partner has determined a pattern (in a series of events that happen once every 5 weeks, yeah right). And then it is still not even a Law 16 case. For that to happen, the partner needs to actually use the information from this pattern. That would be unethical and a breach of bridge Laws, but still not cheating.

It only becomes cheating if both partners agree beforehand that they will play dummy's cards in a certain manner depending on their holding (Law 73B2). And as Helene has pointed out, that would be a terribly inefficient way to cheat.

Rik