[barmar]

Reminding declarer of which hand he's in as a way to prevent an irregularity is as ridiculous as putting up signs reminding drivers not to text while driving as a way to prevent accidents. We should clearly wait until the driver is apparently about to text and then warn him not to.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-July-22, 20:26, said:

Reminding declarer of which hand he's in as a way to prevent an irregularity is as ridiculous as putting up signs reminding drivers not to text while driving as a way to prevent accidents. We should clearly wait until the driver is apparently about to text and then warn him not to.

Maybe just punish him adequately when caught texting at the wheel.
After all, that's the way laws work in the real world and in most other sports too.
But for some strange reason bridge laws bend over backwards to forgive mistakes.
Declarer plays from wrong hand or dummy interferes in play? - infraction, 10% of top score or 2 tricks to opponents or whatever.
Harsh? Maybe. But the players won't repeat the same mistake and TDs won't need to read forums to know how to rule

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2018-July-23, 10:21, said:

But for some strange reason bridge laws bend over backwards to forgive mistakes.
Declarer plays from wrong hand or dummy interferes in play? - infraction, 10% of top score or 2 tricks to opponents or whatever.
Harsh? Maybe. But the players won't repeat the same mistake and TDs won't need to read forums to know how to rule

It's not the laws that bend over backwards to forgive mistakes, it's the directors.

If dummy interferes in the play, he has done something that he "must not" do. Such an offense is, according to the laws, "a serious matter indeed". His side should incur a procedural penalty for a first offense. Directors will rarely if ever do that. If dummy's interference damages the opponents, the score will be adjusted — if the director follows the law.

If declarer plays from the wrong hand, it may be accepted by an opp, or not. If not, it's withdrawn and he leads from the correct hand. If he gains in the play from this infraction, the score will be adjusted. If he makes a habit of leading or playing from the wrong hand, as one of my partners does, he should at some point get a procedural penalty. "Oh, that's just not done" you say? Perhaps that's at least part of the problem.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2018-July-23, 12:46, said:

It's not the laws that bend over backwards to forgive mistakes, it's the directors.

If dummy interferes in the play, he has done something that he "must not" do. Such an offense is, according to the laws, "a serious matter indeed". His side should incur a procedural penalty for a first offense. Directors will rarely if ever do that. If dummy's interference damages the opponents, the score will be adjusted — if the director follows the law.

To be fair, the line between "preventing an infraction" (allowed) and "participate in the play" (not allowed) is not so clear.

Some people have opined that dummy can only try to prevent an infraction when it's clear that declarer is about to commit one. But the Law never actually says this. This is a matter of interpretation, and other interpretations are possible.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-July-24, 09:12, said:

To be fair, the line between "preventing an infraction" (allowed) and "participate in the play" (not allowed) is not so clear.

Some people have opined that dummy can only try to prevent an infraction when it's clear that declarer is about to commit one. But the Law never actually says this. This is a matter of interpretation, and other interpretations are possible.

Then please clarify exactly how you interpret the laws and rule on:
Dummy who at each and every trick, before declarer initiates any action to that trick
"prevents declarer from committing an irregularity" by announcing (as the case might be):
- "It is not your lead"
- "It is your lead from your own hand"
- "It is your lead from dummy"

and claims that he is only executing his right as Dummy according to Law 42B2.

(ref. my post #16)

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

Thanks for all the replies.

It's been pointed out here that the dummy can't
participate in the declarer's play of the hand.

Also the dummy can prevent declarer from making
a mistake if it appears that he is about to.

So if the dummy sometimes or often preemptively
tells declarer where the next lead should come
from is he not participating in the play?

Doesn't seem like rules 42 and 43 are explicit
enough to make a definite distinction. Leaving
it up to the directors means that the ruling
will vary from club to club.

Jerryd

[blackshoe]

Club directors, given the option to be "kind" to their players, will generally let them off the hook. It's probably not the best way to run a duplicate game, but they'll do as they please.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-July-24, 16:27, said:

Then please clarify exactly how you interpret the laws and rule on:

I'm not really sure, it's a conundrum. IWBNI the Laws Commission clarified where the line is.

As a player I find the practice annoying, but I've never complained to anyone about it.