[barmar]

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

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.

So is declarer reaching across the table.

Put simply, if dummy leaves and no one takes his place, any alternate method of playing his cards is going to be annoying. It's true that declarer is legally allowed to play his cards for him, but in a casual game no one gives a damn that the more convenient method of having defenders do it is illegal.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2016-November-28, 16:21, said:

Put simply, if dummy leaves and no one takes his place, any alternate method of playing his cards is going to be annoying. It's true that declarer is legally allowed to play his cards for him, but in a casual game no one gives a damn that the more convenient method of having defenders do it is illegal.

Declarer reaching for a card in Dummy is not nearly as distracting to the defense as playing cards from the Dummy is to the defender who is dividing his time between the defense and the chore.

It is mildly interesting that the Declarer might be distracted from his/her declarer play by having to do the additional job.

In your casual game, the defenders might not show that they are being inconvenienced; they are being inconvenienced, and the laws (accidentally) are there to prevent them from being inconvenienced.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2016-November-28, 17:27, said:

Declarer reaching for a card in Dummy is not nearly as distracting to the defense as playing cards from the Dummy is to the defender who is dividing his time between the defense and the chore.

No one is forcing them to do this. If the trivial task of moving a card a few inches would impact their ability to concentrate on their play, they don't have to acquiesce.

My general point is that this "violation" only happens if both sides are agreeable to it. So no one should be irritated by it.

[blackshoe]

Yesterday, at one point, as dummy, on the opening lead when I put down my hand I first moved the board and table card closer to partner, and then put the cards down as close to him as possible. I may have said something like "you should be able to reach these". Then I got up and headed for the bathroom. When I got back four tricks had been played. I have no idea who moved dummy's cards, but I hope it was partner.

On another board, as declarer, with partner away from the table, I didn't designate cards at all; I just played them. One of the defenders said something to the effect of "I can move those for you". I said "no thanks".

[pgoddard]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-29, 10:23, said:

On another board, as declarer, with partner away from the table, I didn't designate cards at all; . . .

If one is being picky about violations then this too is probably a violation of 45B:

TFLB 45B said:

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy’s hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself".

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-29, 10:23, said:

Yesterday, at one point, as dummy, on the opening lead when I put down my hand I first moved the board and table card closer to partner, and then put the cards down as close to him as possible. I may have said something like "you should be able to reach these". Then I got up and headed for the bathroom. When I got back four tricks had been played. I have no idea who moved dummy's cards, but I hope it was partner.

You should have been able to tell; if partner was my vine the cards he would probably have had trouble reaching the normal played position and would have put the cards into he board.

Quote

On another board, as declarer, with partner away from the table, I didn't designate cards at all; I just played them. One of the defenders said something to the effect of "I can move those for you". I said "no thanks".

I have never designated cards when I was playing dummy myself. I didn't realise, as per the post above, that it was required.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2016-November-29, 16:06, said:

I have never designated cards when I was playing dummy myself. I didn't realise, as per the post above, that it was required.

It seems to me that the wording is ambiguous.

[blackshoe]

pgoddard, on 2016-November-29, 15:35, said:

If one is being picky about violations then this too is probably a violation of 45B:

Uh, huh. Sorry, I don't think even the Secretary Bird would try to pull that one, even if the words might literally be interpreted that way.