blackshoe, on 2015-October-14, 16:11, said:
I didn't exempt myself from "we", did I? Do you disagree with any of my three points?
No, I fully agree with your three points.
However, they should be put in perspective. Bridge Laws and regulations are broken all the time.
- Some of these breaches are for personal gain (e.g. conscious use of UI).
- Some are due to laziness or convenience (e.g. when playing with screens: not follow the proper alert procedure but merely pointing at the bid, followed by putting 2 fingers in the air to indicate that the 1♣ opening could have been made on a doubleton).
- Some are because people are trying to be helpful to the opponents (e.g. when defenders play the cards for a dummy who left).
- Some are criminal (e.g. smacking your opponents).
There is no doubt about it, none whatsoever, that it is against the Laws of Bridge for a defender to touch dummy's cards. However, of all the possible infractions that you can have at the bridge table, this one ranks as fairly innocent, particularly in a social setting. So, when the players at a table agree in harmony that the defenders play dummy's cards in his absence, you normally won't hear me. There are bigger fish to fry. And smacking opponents (or even merely suggesting that you will do that) is a biiiig fish.
And when it comes to silliness: What do you think of getting all worked up because the opponents are trying to be helpful?
Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg