Layout of dummy in No Trumps
The laws specify how dummy should lay out each suit. However apart from specifying that trumps shall be placed on dummy's right the laws are silent on the order of suits.
When playing No Trumps my partner and I following Burn's Corollary try to avoid placing a suit bid by our side on dummy's right so that partner is not mislead into believing they are playing in a suit contract.
Recently a number of players who have completed beginners courses and started started playing in the club have said that they have been taught that when playing in No Trumps they should put the suit initially lead by the defence on dummy's right as an aide-memoire to declarer as to which the suit the defence has attacked. Some have suggested that this advice is contained in EBU training materials although I have not seen this myself.
Are either or both of these practices contrary to the Laws? Does it make a difference that the former is based on the bidding while the latter is based on the play?
Comments
This was discussed recently (although without, I believe, resolution) in https://www.ebu.co.uk/forum/discussion/489/where-cards-are-in-hands
I don't think this is permitted and, having just gone and asked, don't think it's contained in EBED's teaching materials - unless anyone can actually provide a reference.
I wonder if the EBU needs to explicitly allow some methods of ordering suits in dummy in no trumps, and thereby prohibit other methods of encoding information. Nobody seems to complain about avoiding placing a could-be-trump suit on dummy's right, but more recent innovations such as placing the suit led on dummy's right have raised complaints.
What happens when the defence leads dummy's suit? :)
A simple method would be, which I use and encourage others in my club to follow, is to always place dummy's cards in suit order from dummy's right to left, i.e. spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs, regardless of which suit was bid or led.
I believe that any other order which serves to remind declarer of a suit that was bid or was the opening lead violates Law 40 B 2 (d) as being an aid to his memory.
I think many players like to alternate colours for visual recognition reasons. I tend to put suits down in an order that fits easily around the board, so long suits are either first or last.
The policy of putting the suit led on dummy's right condemns itself "out of its own mouth". The purpose is acknowledged to be an aide memoire, and is thus clearly banned by Law 40B2(d) (unless authorised by the Regulating Authority).
I think it is less clear whether using Burn's Corollary constitutes an aid to memory. Probably it does, so if it is considered harmless perhaps Robin is right that as RA the EBU should specifically permit it.
I normally put my longest suit on my left when putting dummy down in a no trump contract, but sometimes I forget and then rearrange things. Nobody has ever objected, so I think that the uses of BC is generally considered harmless.
I don't think that we should be thinking in terms of being more prescriptive than Law 41D about how dummy should be displayed (does the RA or TO even have that power?), but clarification that certain things are or are not permitted would be helpful.
It would be going somewhat to insist that dummy is laid out in a precise order (eg. spades, hearts, clubs, diamonds) when the contract is no trumps. But saying what things are or are not permitted would would take up a lot of space in the White Book and be hard to memorise (and who, other than directors or SBs, reads it anyway?).
?
I'm not sure that the "(by dummy)" is necessary. If dummy puts the suits down in a NT contract in an order nearest his thumb, and declarer says: "can I have the hearts on your right, please?", hearts being the suit led, this should not be permitted, surely?
I would be very happy to play against opponents who are so forgetful that they need dummy to be paid out in a particular way in order to remind themselves which suit is trumps or was led.