[jh51]

I am curious as to whether something that occured the other night at a club game is considered to be acceptable.

At one point declarer asked whether she was in dummy or her hand. The response by dummy was "You are in your hand. If you were in dummy, my hand would be here." as she placed her hand on the table above dummy's cards.

While dummy hss the right to try to prevent irregularities, I wonder if this particular practice is acceptable.

[blackshoe]

no

[aguahombre]

Profound expression of the obvious here.

Dummy is explaining that the next time Declarer wonders which hand she is in, she need merely look at where dummy is holding his hand (the one with fingers on it). Hence, not acceptable.

[semeai]

Law 42B2 implies dummy can warn declarer if declarer seems about to lead from the wrong hand, in an attempt to prevent an irregularity. The question is how far does "preventing an irregularity" go?

Can dummy answer declarer's question of which hand he's in under 42B2 (or is even this illegal, or is there some other law I've missed that does allow this)?

If dummy can answer declarer's question under 42B2, it's only a small leap to allowing dummy to constantly indicate which hand declarer is in under 42B2. This wouldn't violate 43A1c if 42B2 is what's allowing it.

[aguahombre]

semeai, on 2011-November-17, 15:04, said:

Law 42B2 implies dummy can warn declarer if declarer seems about to lead from the wrong hand, in an attempt to prevent an irregularity. The question is how far does "preventing an irregularity" go?

Can dummy answer declarer's question of which hand he's in under 42B2 (or is even this illegal, or is there some other law I've missed that does allow this)?

If dummy can answer declarer's question under 42B2, it's only a small leap to allowing dummy to constantly indicate which hand declarer is in under 42B2. This wouldn't violate 43A1c if 42B2 is what's allowing it.

Yep, and that is why I used "unacceptable". You guys can determine whether it is legal.

[semeai]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-17, 15:16, said:

Yep, and that is why I used "unacceptable". You guys can determine whether it is legal.

Do you also find it unacceptable that BBO indicates whether you're on lead?

[mycroft]

Dummy is entitled to "try to prevent any irregularity by declarer." L41B2
Dummy is not entitled to "participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer." L42A1c

If Dummy catches Declarer trying to lead from the wrong hand, she may try to stop him (if she fails, oh well). If Dummy is telling Declarer what hand he's in, that's "participating in the play".

I have a couple of those up here, too, and it's really annoying. And when told about it, they say "oh that's interesting", and stop - for the day.

[AlexJonson]

I definitely leave these technical issues to experts. But I would like to express the opinion that the more often the lead comes from the correct hand, the better for everyone and the game.

[mrdct]

I have to disagree with several of the earlier posters suggesting that this practice is illegal and/or unacceptable.

Law 42B2 explicitly gives dummy the right to try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. Leading from the wrong hand is an irregularity, so subject to any other limitations on dummy, he is free to do whatever he likes to try to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand.

Whilst Law 43A1c requires that dummy must not participate in the play, "the play" in that context is the selection and contribution of cards to tricks without instruction from declarer or otherwise communicating to declarer information about the play (such as the 13th ♣ is high or now would be a good time to draw trumps which would be dealt with under Law 45F). Indicating to declarer that the lead is in dummy is not participating in the play.

There is also a strong indication in Law 43B2a that the practice of warning declarer not to lead from the wrong hand is entirely legal until such time as dummy's rights have been limited by a breach of Law 43A2 (looking at declarer's or one of the defender's hands). This player chooses to communicate that warning by placing her hand on the table above dummy's cards dutifully awaiting declarer's instructions and there is nothing wrong with that.

[aguahombre]

semeai, on 2011-November-17, 15:18, said:

Do you also find it unacceptable that BBO indicates whether you're on lead?

There are certain things on-line bridge must do to make the game run more smoothly. That indicator is certainly acceptable; it would probably be annoying if it showed up after every trick. I assume it doesn't.

It is "acceptable" to self-alert on-line and behind screens as a practical matter, as well. Therefore your question doesn't follow from the discussion, IMO.

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-17, 18:39, said:

There are certain things on-line bridge must do to make the game run more smoothly. That indicator is certainly acceptable; it would probably be annoying if it showed up after every trick. I assume it doesn't.

You assumed wrong - the indicator does come up at every trick including a "ding" noise which can be disabled in sound settings.

aguahombre, on 2011-November-17, 18:39, said:

It is "acceptable" to self-alert on-line and behind screens as a practical matter, as well. Therefore your question doesn't follow from the discussion, IMO.

It is "acceptable" mandatory to self-alert on-line and behind screens.

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-November-17, 19:19, said:

You assumed wrong - the indicator does come up at every trick including a "ding" noise which can be disabled in sound settings.

Whatever. Who really cares what happens in online bridge?

[Siegmund]

An interesting thread.

I have tried for several years to cultivate the habit of consistently having my hand on the table if dummy is on lead, and not having it on the table if dummy isn't - but I've never succeeded in making it more than an 80% kind of thing for some reason, and -- solely because I don't want to CAUSE my partner to lead from the wrong place if he looks at my hand and I have it in the wrong place -- I have never told my partners this is what I am doing / encouraged them to use it as a guide.

I had assumed that it was legal under the heading of attempting to prevent the irregularity of leading from the wrong hand. The only analogy I can think of is that saying "no hearts, partner?" after EVERY time partner shows out of a suit, a couple times per deal all night long, is legal even though it's annoying as heck and only very rarely prevents a revoke. Reminding partner what hand he is in every time he is on lead prevents partner from committing an irregularity quite a bit more often, and is much less intrusive.

At least one of my regular partners noticed what I was doing, and commented positively on it as a habit he wished more people had. I've never had an opponent comment on it either way (apparently I've never played at mycroft's table.)

[bluejak]

I certainly would not want my partner to do it, and I certainly never shall!

But the question is whether it is legal. Personally I do not believe it is, since dummy is interfering in play, but I do not feel strongly about it.

Of course, it is a minor thing, so it is one of the many infractions which I would tolerate without comment if an opponent was doing.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-17, 19:36, said:

Whatever. Who really cares what happens in online bridge?

You mean "who really cares what happens in this online game that is mistakenly called bridge?", do you not?

[blackshoe]

Heh. I do recall a time I neglected to ask "no hearts, partner". Partner in fact revoked, and she was extremely annoyed that I had not saved her from it.

[gordontd]

Even after reading all the responses I still don't really know what this thread is about.

[gwnn]

gordontd, on 2011-November-18, 08:03, said:

Even after reading all the responses I still don't really know what this thread is about.

Dummy is signalling to declarer constantly where he/she is. If declarer is in dummy, dummy places her hand on the table. If declarer is in hand, dummy removes her hand from the table. Is this legal?

[Vampyr]

gwnn, on 2011-November-18, 08:13, said:

Dummy is signalling to declarer constantly where he/she is. If declarer is in dummy, dummy places her hand on the table. If declarer is in hand, dummy removes her hand from the table. Is this legal?

If it is, is it legal to make moose antlers on the side of your head when declarer is in his hand?

[bluejak]

For once, I agree with David Burn: the best place for dummy is in the bar, buying the next round.

You really really really do not want dummies starting to involve themselves in the play in any way. It does nothing for the game, and dummies get very fidgety. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Next they will be pointing to an opponent to remind him it is his lead.