BBO Discussion Forums: Playing cards from dummy - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Playing cards from dummy what should the laws say?

#21 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,723
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2011-September-25, 22:49

'Why should this offense be singled out?' Well, we gotta start somewhere.

I don't really think the WC thread is pertinent. Bridge is a game, life is not.

'Is this really necessary?' Well, maybe not. But I judge you're not really asking - you're just saying that in your opinion it's unnecessary. You may be right. But that still leaves my question unanswered. Maybe the answer is "we don't [ensure that players obey the laws]." But it's a game. Games have rules — because they need rules. We can establish whatever rules we like, but if people ignore them, and we say "oh, well, never mind, it's just a game" where does that leave us?
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#22 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2011-September-26, 02:51

I agree that it's undersirable for a rule to be broken routinely. However, there are two ways to deal with that: stricter enforcement, or changing the rules to reflect actual practice, the needs of the game, and the wishes of the players. Either may be appropriate, depending on what the rule is and how it's being broken.

In this case, we could deal with it in two ways:
(1) Change the start of Law 46 to say "must" instead of "should". Change the rest of that Law to say that dummy must ignore any incomplete or erroneous designation. Say somewhere that an incomplete or erroneous designation is subject to the provisions of 73F.
(2) Change the start of Law 46 to say "Declarer may designate a card by any means that fully identifies the card to be played. Such designations are interpreted as follows:", followed by the current 43B1-5, perhaps with a bit of clarification of 43B5's meaning.

I prefer option 2, because it isn't unfair, is easy to understand, doesn't cause unreasonable difficulties for the officials, acknowledges reality, and, most important of all, reflects how everybody wants to play the game. I don't see how option 1, or your original suggestion, would benefit the game.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
2

#23 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2011-September-26, 05:07

View Postgnasher, on 2011-September-25, 02:16, said:

I never knew that. I'll remember it next time I'm defending and declarer expects us to play dummy's cards for him. "Sorry, we're not allowed to touch dummy's cards" sounds rather better than "Play them yourself."


You don't have to say anything. When I am defending, and dummy is away from the table, and declarer names a card, clearly expecting someone to play it for him, I do nothing except follow suit. Similarly with quitting dummy's card -- often declarer will look at the card for a couple of seconds and then turn it himself. Anyway, I agree with those who say that declarer should be able to play dummy's cards when necessary. Sometimes players happen to be without sufficient time to leave the table between rounds when nature calls, and also the queues at the bar are much longer between rounds; there would be quite a bit of additional delay if everyone had to go then.

Now, about the other point made in the OP, yesterday I played a woman who named every card. Even when discarding a loser, she would say "Five of Clubs". I noticed this because it was so unusual. Having to name a card in its entirety would be, yes, annoying, and I think that this is a pretty big drawback in a game, which is an activity that people take part in because they enjoy it.

This law change could be combined with Nigel Guthrie's suggestion to require players to sort their cards after playing. Then every session of duplicate will require an additional director just to give out the PPs. And we could have new discussions here -- if declarer generally grunts or says "yeah" when following with a low card in dummy, do we issue one PP per card so designated, or just one for the whole hand. What fun!
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#24 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2011-September-26, 05:09

View Postgnasher, on 2011-September-26, 02:51, said:

I agree that it's undersirable for a rule to be broken routinely.


Blackshoe comes from a country where many regulations, the better-known ones dealing with convention cards and stop cards, are in fact broken routinely, so probably he doesn't feel nearly as strongly about this issue as you do.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#25 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2011-September-26, 05:14

View PostVampyr, on 2011-September-26, 05:07, said:

You don't have to say anything. When I am defending, and dummy is away from the table, and declarer names a card, clearly expecting someone to play it for him, I do nothing except follow suit.


Yes, I do that too. I was thinking of the rarer occasions when they actually ask you to do it.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#26 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2011-September-26, 05:34

View PostVampyr, on 2011-September-26, 05:09, said:

Blackshoe comes from a country where many regulations, the better-known ones dealing with convention cards and stop cards, are in fact broken routinely, so probably he doesn't feel nearly as strongly about this issue as you do.

I don't know - he seems to care about this quite a lot.

In fact, I think we all break the rules all the time. Yesterday I broke all sorts of rules in the course of 40 boards of bridge. Apart from calling for dummy's cards in an improper way, I also committed various other offences. For example:
- Using an improper method to indicate that I was making the final pass in the auction.
- Claiming without stating a line.
- Moving the tray (playing with screens) so that I could see all of the bids, even though I wasn't sitting NS.
- Requesting and giving explanations verbally.
- Alerting without following the proper procedure. (Just once, for entertainment, I followed the correct procedure of placing the Alert card over my partner's bid and leaving it there. To my screenmate's credit, he responded correctly, by picking it up and handing it back to me.)
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#27 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2011-September-26, 06:21

View Postgnasher, on 2011-September-25, 02:16, said:

I never knew that. I'll remember it next time I'm defending and declarer expects us to play dummy's cards for him. "Sorry, we're not allowed to touch dummy's cards" sounds rather better than "Play them yourself."

I notice that the other common practice of declarer playing dummy's cards silently is also a breach of procedure. He has to name it before picking it up.

Very selfish, some people. Do you really play against declarers who "expect" you to play dummy's cards for him? I would routinely refuse such an ill-mannered declarer. Mind you, I have never ever had such an experience in all my years of playing.

Declarers, in my experience, expect to play the cards themselves, and are grateful if an opponent offers. That is how the game should be played, with courtesy, and usually is, in my experience.

I remember being appalled in the ACBL Nationals when my partner as dummy left the table and an opponent called the TD and told him he did not think it fair that he was "expected" to play the cards from dummy. I told him and the TD in no uncertain terms that of course he was not expected to do anything, and it was merely a figment of his imagination. If dummy leaves the table, I play cards from dummy, and am surprised at any pair that expects to do otherwise.
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#28 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2011-September-26, 07:03

View Postgnasher, on 2011-September-26, 05:14, said:

Yes, I do that too. I was thinking of the rarer occasions when they actually ask you to do it.


They never actually ask me. I suppose I look more intimidating than you.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
1

#29 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2011-September-26, 07:11

I wonder if anyone will disagree with that? :)
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#30 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2011-September-26, 07:14

Not me :(
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#31 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,723
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2011-September-26, 08:33

View PostVampyr, on 2011-September-26, 05:07, said:

Now, about the other point made in the OP, yesterday I played a woman who named every card. Even when discarding a loser, she would say "Five of Clubs". I noticed this because it was so unusual. Having to name a card in its entirety would be, yes, annoying, and I think that this is a pretty big drawback in a game, which is an activity that people take part in because they enjoy it.


Not sure I understand. You appear to be saying that a law that requires you to name a card by rank and denomination would annoy you. Yet the situation you describe was one in which someone else was in fact naming cards in that way, and I wonder whether you found that annoying. IAC, the annoying law you mention (whoever it might annoy) already exists. It's just routinely ignored.

I do like players to follow the rules, and I do try (not always successfully) to do so myself. I suppose I'm a little OCD about it.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#32 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2011-September-26, 09:02

View Postblackshoe, on 2011-September-26, 08:33, said:

Not sure I understand. You appear to be saying that a law that requires you to name a card by rank and denomination would annoy you. Yet the situation you describe was one in which someone else was in fact naming cards in that way, and I wonder whether you found that annoying.


No, I didn't find the lady's naming the cards annoying. I would, however, find it annoying if I had to do it myself, since I normally designate a small card by saying "mmm".

Not that I find it impossible to be annoyed by another person's designation of cards. When a visiting American friend wanted a small card he would instruct me simply to "play". This nearly drove me round the bend.

Quote

IAC, the annoying law you mention (whoever it might annoy) already exists. It's just routinely ignored.


No. L46 has a fairly exhaustive list of what card is played when the designation is incomplete.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#33 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,723
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2011-September-26, 09:33

I sympathize with your reaction to "play" — but imagine how I feel about it, since almost everybody here uses it. :blink: :lol:

I disagree with your "no". Law 46B describes how to deal with an irregularity - the irregularity being the failure to follow

Quote

Law 46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

Note 'should' in this law, which means that declarer's failure to follow it is an infraction.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#34 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2011-September-26, 10:05

View Postblackshoe, on 2011-September-26, 09:33, said:

I sympathize with your reaction to "play" — but imagine how I feel about it, since almost everybody here uses it. :blink: :lol:


Yuck! No wonder you would prefer everyone to use a complete designation :)
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#35 User is offline   WellSpyder 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,627
  • Joined: 2009-November-30
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England

Posted 2011-September-26, 10:13

View PostVampyr, on 2011-September-26, 09:02, said:

When a visiting American friend wanted a small card he would instruct me simply to "play". This nearly drove me round the bend.

I think I would be tempted to reply "I can't until you tell me which card to play".....
0

#36 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,723
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2011-September-26, 16:57

View PostWellSpyder, on 2011-September-26, 10:13, said:

I think I would be tempted to reply "I can't until you tell me which card to play".....


Or "Sorry, I left my violin at home." :P
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#37 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,618
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2011-September-26, 23:43

View Postbluejak, on 2011-September-26, 06:21, said:

Very selfish, some people. Do you really play against declarers who "expect" you to play dummy's cards for him? I would routinely refuse such an ill-mannered declarer. Mind you, I have never ever had such an experience in all my years of playing.

Declarers, in my experience, expect to play the cards themselves, and are grateful if an opponent offers. That is how the game should be played, with courtesy, and usually is, in my experience.

I remember being appalled in the ACBL Nationals when my partner as dummy left the table and an opponent called the TD and told him he did not think it fair that he was "expected" to play the cards from dummy. I told him and the TD in no uncertain terms that of course he was not expected to do anything, and it was merely a figment of his imagination. If dummy leaves the table, I play cards from dummy, and am surprised at any pair that expects to do otherwise.

I've never run into a declarer who "expected" us to play dummy's cards when dummy excused himself (when you gotta go, you gotta go). But we just do it routinely (ignoring the fact that it's against the Laws). Dummy's cards are easier for defenders to reach than declarer, so it always seemed natural to do so. When dummy requests to leave, he asks "I need to go to the restroom, can someone play my cards for me?", and we just say "sure, go ahead".

Dummy's role is so mechanical that we'd never consider it critical who actually performs it -- a well-trained chimpanzee could take his place.

This is one of those silly Laws that I plan on continuing to ignore. Feel free to give me a PP if I do it while one of you is directing.

#38 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2011-September-27, 10:44

Sorry, please explain: why would I give you a PP?
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#39 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,618
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2011-September-28, 00:56

Because the Laws don't allow anyone other than dummy or declarer to touch dummy's cards, right?

#40 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2011-September-28, 06:45

And why would I give you a PP?
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users