[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-11, 13:40, said:

No, that means you can refuse to do it without incurring a penalty, but you will still probably seem impolite...

Not as impolite as the person who asks, though. And it's not that you can avoid incurring a penalty; you can be assessed one if you do agree to touch dummy's cards.

Anyway, I at least am safe, because as noted in another thread my opponents would not dare to ask me.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-11, 13:50, said:

Anyway, I at least am safe, because as noted in another thread my opponents would not dare to ask me.

Are you that scary a Vampyr?

[barmar]

In fact, you'll seem like an annoying stickler for silly rules, and if you actually point out the Law supporting your position you'll seem like a Secretary Bird.

[mycroft]

And, of course, that's a problem for some of us. Others...

[RMB1]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-11, 14:05, said:

Are you that scary a Vampyr?

Oh yes!

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-January-10, 20:17, said:

If you put cards in the board [as my regular partner does] I hope you remember to take them out and shuffle them at the end.

Why? As far as I can see, there is no Law which requires, or even permits, declarer to shuffle dummy's cards. On the other hand, Law 7C seems to require you (dummy) to return to the table to shuffle your own cards at the end of the play period.

[barmar]

jallerton, on 2012-January-11, 16:51, said:

Why? As far as I can see, there is no Law which requires, or even permits, declarer to shuffle dummy's cards. On the other hand, Law 7C seems to require you (dummy) to return to the table to shuffle your own cards at the end of the play period.

I think the point is that SOMEONE should shuffle the cards after play is over, which is likely not to happen with this method of quitting dummy's cards.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2012-January-11, 16:51, said:

Why? As far as I can see, there is no Law which requires, or even permits, declarer to shuffle dummy's cards. On the other hand, Law 7C seems to require you (dummy) to return to the table to shuffle your own cards at the end of the play period.

No doubt technically true, but childish in the extreme. If dummy returns to the table when the next board is ready and waiting for him only Secretary Bird types expect to get the old board out and shuffle the cards because declarer would not do so.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-January-12, 10:53, said:

No doubt technically true, but childish in the extreme. If dummy returns to the table when the next board is ready and waiting for him only Secretary Bird types expect to get the old board out and shuffle the cards because declarer would not do so.

Would a Secretary Bird have allowed opponents to play his cards for him, or even have left the table? Is there a name for a hypocritical Secretary Bird?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-January-13, 09:47, said:

Would a Secretary Bird have allowed opponents to play his cards for him,

You mean a law-abiding player? No.

Quote

or even have left the table?

I don't see why not. I couldn't find a prohibition in the laws.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-January-10, 20:17, said:

If you put cards in the board [as my regular partner does] I hope you remember to take them out and shuffle them at the end.

jallerton, on 2012-January-11, 16:51, said:

Why? As far as I can see, there is no Law which requires, or even permits, declarer to shuffle dummy's cards. On the other hand, Law 7C seems to require you (dummy) to return to the table to shuffle your own cards at the end of the play period.

bluejak, on 2012-January-12, 10:53, said:

No doubt technically true, but childish in the extreme. If dummy returns to the table when the next board is ready and waiting for him only Secretary Bird types expect to get the old board out and shuffle the cards because declarer would not do so.

But Law 7C is a "Secretary Bird" Law which is of no practical use except when the board has been passed out or perhaps when there has been a claim at trick 1. After a hand has been played out, the main reason for you shuffling your cards is to comply with this Law; it doesn't help in this regard if your partner shuffles your cards.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2012-January-14, 16:38, said:

But Law 7C is a "Secretary Bird" Law which is of no practical use except when the board has been passed out or perhaps when there has been a claim at trick 1. After a hand has been played out, the main reason for you shuffling your cards is to comply with this Law; it doesn't help in this regard if your partner shuffles your cards.

Well I read a story a couple of years ago about a team where the rule was to take the cards from the board while carefully avoiding any disordering of the cards which they then studied (before sorting them) in order to get an indication on how the play had gone at the previous table.

At least in theory this is quite possible, and I have a suspicion that this article may have been the direct cause for the introduction of Law 7C

[bluejak]

Despite all the BLML stuff, it is a requirement that cards are shuffled before being put away. As a practical matter, if dummy is not at the table, declarer should shuffle dummy'cs cards before proceeding to the next board.

[mycroft]

I didn't mind the EBU requirement to sort before putting away, but the 800 lb. Gorilla had its way (not unreasonable in this case, of course - as long as something is done to ensure that previous play records were erased, it doesn't much matter what).

I always loved the tournaments (before the rule change) where I'd get a mildly irate call round 2 saying "my hand's sorted". I'd look down the row at who had it the last time, and say "I'm not surprised. I expect this won't be the last time" (there are two people I know of that are ex-EBU, and didn't break their habit until the Law change). If they didn't clue in from my comment, I'd make it clear that "this gentleman sorts his cards consistently before putting them away. They'll *all* be coming to you sorted." - but they usually clued in.

[jallerton]

pran, on 2012-January-14, 17:44, said:

Well I read a story a couple of years ago about a team where the rule was to take the cards from the board while carefully avoiding any disordering of the cards which they then studied (before sorting them) in order to get an indication on how the play had gone at the previous table.

At least in theory this is quite possible, and I have a suspicion that this article may have been the direct cause for the introduction of Law 7C

As you say, "in theory". Perhaps that is what Bluejak means by "all that BLML stuff". I suspect it would take a Lamfordian construction to come up with a hand where anyone might try to, and succeed in, gaining from knowing this information. Quite apart from anything else, how would the player even know that the cards had not been shuffled or other disturbed from the play order at the previous table?

[axman]

jallerton, on 2012-January-17, 17:49, said:

As you say, "in theory". Perhaps that is what Bluejak means by "all that BLML stuff". I suspect it would take a Lamfordian construction to come up with a hand where anyone might try to, and succeed in, gaining from knowing this information. Quite apart from anything else, how would the player even know that the cards had not been shuffled or other disturbed from the play order at the previous table?

a Lamfordian construction is necessary [here are some data points-]

I would say that there have been about 1000 occasions where I discerned the cards had not been mixed. On some of those occasions [about 40] I was particularly bored I played a little game of 'what happened'. Most of the time I discerned the denonination, half I discerned the level, somewhat less than half I discerned the direction, and about one third I discerned the number of tricks taken. Rather scary. The last occasion [2008] was notable being that I discerned the contract to be 4S my direction making 9 tricks- where I stopped in 3S, crashed the KQ on the first round of a side suit to take 10 tricks.

In practice, the opportunities are not frequent enough to work at it constantly, and I don't care to consume so much brain matter doing it because all other aspects would go to hell. But that's my view.

[aguahombre]

I would need wider slots for the cards to do that; so, I could see which tricks had been turned as lost and won during the play. But, some people who didn't shuffle might still fool me by putting the cards back straight, and I would think a grand had been made.