[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-October-13, 10:12, said:

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

Errr... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Well, I would smack a defender who tried to play cards from my dummy and I am not sure but I would guess that so would most people.

Anyway, it is an interesting question what happens when a defender who is playing dummy's cards puts the wrong card in the played position and the next hand plays a card...?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-13, 10:51, said:

Errr... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Well, I would smack a defender who tried to,play cards from my dummy and I am not sure but I would guess that so would most people.

They're doing it on your request, it seems like it would be very unreasonable of you to smack them.

OTOH, I can imagine SB asking you to play dummy's card, then calling the TD on you. There's nothing in the Laws that prohibits him from asking you, but there is a Law prohibiting you from doing so, so it seems like a very SBish tactic.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-October-13, 01:51, said:

I think I misinterpreted you:

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.

No. I don't care about specific numbers, I care about general trends and frequency.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-October-13, 10:59, said:

They're doing it on your request, it seems like it would be very unreasonable of you to smack them.

It would be unreasonable for me to request it.

This evening a dummy left the table to get tea for him and his partner (this club does not have a bar). I do not think it would have occurred to declarer to ask us to play his cards for him. But after a couple of tricks I asked him if he would like me to move the cards closer, and I did and that was fine.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-13, 10:51, said:

Errr... Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Well, I would smack a defender who tried to play cards from my dummy and I am not sure but I would guess that so would most people.

I think that "most people" have an aversion to smacking someone who is trying to be helpful... even if that "someone" actually would fail at being helpful.

Fortunately, you won't get in the position to smack a defender, since you wouldn't call a card from dummy, so your opponents wouldn't have a card to play. The fact that it would be unreasonable to you to ask defenders to play a card is perfectly fine. Nobody asks you to allow the defenders to play dummy's cards.

But there is a problem with generalization: The fact that you may think it is unreasonable (and the fact that you are entitled to that view and the fact that it should be respected when you are at the table) does not mean that everybody must think that it is unreasonable. For many people it is entirely normal for declarer to call a card and the defenders to play the card. They don't think anything of it and they enjoy the game.

Rik

[gordontd]

I much prefer to play dummy's cards myself as declarer, but sometimes defenders insist on turning the quitted tricks for me, which I would also much rather do myself. However, I suppose I should give them some leeway since they are allowing dummy to be away from the table, which they don't have to and which might be annoying for them.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2015-October-14, 01:31, said:

they are allowing dummy to be away from the table, which they don't have to and which might be annoying for them.

Which law requires dummy to get permission from the defenders before he leaves the table?

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-14, 01:52, said:

Which law requires dummy to get permission from the defenders before he leaves the table?

Which law allows dummy to leave the table during a hand and fail to honour his responsibilities?

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2015-October-14, 02:02, said:

Which law allows dummy to leave the table during a hand and fail to honour his responsibilities?

Would the defenders' not allowing dummy to get me another glass of wine constitute spoiling my enjoyment of the game?

[weejonnie]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-14, 04:01, said:

Would the defenders' not allowing dummy to get me another glass of wine constitute spoiling my enjoyment of the game?

Only if you could prove that you had to have a glass of wine - otherwise dummy is 'needlessly leaving the table' - a breach of 74C8.

Maybe you could pretend you have a condition like the snooker player Bill Werbeniuk had. See here

[blackshoe]

We're getting silly.

1. Dummy does not need permission from any other player to leave the table. If he needs permission at all, it will come from the director.
2. If dummy has a need to leave the table, he cannot be faulted for doing so. The law does not specify what constitutes a need, so that is up to the director.
3. If dummy is not at the table, declarer and only declarer is legally permitted to touch dummy's cards.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2015-October-14, 01:31, said:

I much prefer to play dummy's cards myself as declarer, but sometimes defenders insist on turning the quitted tricks for me, which I would also much rather do myself. However, I suppose I should give them some leeway since they are allowing dummy to be away from the table, which they don't have to and which might be annoying for them.

I've never seen someone "insist" on this, it's always done with the approval of declarer.

Not everyone has arms long enough to reach across the table. Even if you move dummy closer, leaning over to move the cards makes it hard to hold your own hand without accidentally exposing it to the defenders (lots of players have a hard time with this even when they're not reaching across the table).

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-14, 08:15, said:

We're getting silly.

1. Dummy does not need permission from any other player to leave the table. If he needs permission at all, it will come from the director.
2. If dummy has a need to leave the table, he cannot be faulted for doing so. The law does not specify what constitutes a need, so that is up to the director.
3. If dummy is not at the table, declarer and only declarer is legally permitted to touch dummy's cards.

I am sorry, but if you are talking about getting silly, then smacking a defender should be on top of the list.

Rik

[blackshoe]

I didn't exempt myself from "we", did I? Do you disagree with any of my three points?

[nige1]

TFLB L7B3 said:

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.

When dummy succumbs to a call of nature, an obliging director often takes his seat and plays his cards

[Trinidad]

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

[barmar]

This is the Internet, the voice of reason will not be tolerated. Keep this up, Rik, and I may have to put you on moderation.

[blackshoe]

"Moderation in all things, including moderation." -- R.A. Heinlein.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2015-October-15, 08:21, said:

This is the Internet, the voice of reason will not be tolerated. Keep this up, Rik, and I may have to put you on moderation.

I do #$^%$ apologize. You ask why? Because I can, you @&%!@!



Rik

[barmar]

Thank you for restoring order to the universe.