[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-November-24, 22:33, said:

Is this how you automatically rule whenever you become aware of a defender assisting Declarer in quitting a card played from Dummy while Dummy is away from the table? That seems a funny way to encourage a friendly atmosphere at the tables.

(Don't try to convince me that this never happens.)

I will never understand why so many people think it is "friendly" to allow all kinds of infractions.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-25, 08:54, said:

I will never understand why so many people think it is "friendly" to allow all kinds of infractions.

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 cannot understand the logic behind why Declarer in such situations should be exempted from his responsibility for the play of Dummy's cards, and I cannot understand why the Director should enforce Declarer to refuse such assistance instead of accepting it (of course under his own responsibility).

What I do know is that the atmosphere in a club where the Director strictly enforces every law in the book to its limits without any reasonable leniency, will sooner or later drive the players away to other clubs. (I have seen it happen!)

I certainly hope that I shall never experience a Declarer refusing an offer of assistance with words like: "No thank you, that is none of your business!

[aguahombre]

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.

[blackshoe]

It is not a "so called" infraction of Law 7B3, it is an actual infraction of Law 7B3. Have you, as director, forgotten Law 81C3?

Last time I, as declarer, "refused" a defender's offer of assistance I simply said "no thank you". I saw no reason to inject "it's none of your business!" into it.

Part of the TD's job is to educate players. If you let them do this without saying anything, they're never going to learn the right way to do things. Also, as director, it is incumbent on you to intervene when you see this. It is not incumbent on you to be a jerk about it.

Note that Law 7B3 authorizes the director (not the declarer) to grant permission to a defender to touch dummy's cards. When I'm pretty sure that nothing seriously untoward, other than the literal violation of 7B3, is involved in a case like this, I will often, at least the first time, "give permission" after the fact, but I think the table needs to understand what the rule is and why it is.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-25, 14:57, said:

It is not a "so called" infraction of Law 7B3, it is an actual infraction of Law 7B3. Have you, as director, forgotten Law 81C3?

Certainly not. And rest assured that I do enforce Law 7B3 whenever I notice a player touching another player's card for any other purpose than friendly assisting as agent for an absent Dummy.

blackshoe, on 2016-November-25, 14:57, said:

Last time I, as declarer, "refused" a defender's offer of assistance I simply said "no thank you". I saw no reason to inject "it's none of your business!" into it.
[...]

But how do you expect the defender (or other person) to read your refusal of a friendly intended and innocent offer?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2016-November-25, 16:59, said:

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.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-November-25, 09:57, said:

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.

aguahombre, on 2016-November-25, 10:21, said:

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.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-November-25, 16:59, said:

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?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-25, 23:55, said:

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.)

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-November-26, 03:36, said:

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".

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-26, 10:03, said:

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.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-November-26, 10:36, said:

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?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-26, 10:40, said:

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.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-25, 23:48, said:

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.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2016-November-27, 00:40, said:

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?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-27, 04:00, said:

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?

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-November-27, 07:42, said:

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?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2016-November-27, 09:13, said:

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.

Quote

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.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-27, 12:01, said:

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?)

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-November-27, 09:13, said:

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.