One option is to tell opponents to get a life. A 2nd is to show them Law 41D and ask what is wrong with the action that Declarer/Dummy has taken. Are trumps still on the right? Are the cards highest to lowest towards declarer? Are they still in separate columns? If so then opponents have no reason for their complaint to be upheld
The only problem I can think with this is if dummy did it unprompted, then it might be considered to somehow be communicating to declarer (I'm not sure exactly what in this case). So long as the cards remain in clear view of the defence I'm not sure what the objection is.
Having said that, I'm not sure it's explicitely allowed either. But probably just because nobody thought it needed to be allowed or otherwise.
I don't see the problem if Dummy still conforms to L41D and it was Declarer that asked Dummy to take the action. There seems to be no instruction - apart from "Trumps are placed to dummy's right." - on suit order. Were dummy to have only 3-suits, would this pair require a gap?
The opponents argued that remembering the intial placment of the cards in Dummy is one memory technique they use to keep track of cards played. Moving them about disrupts this process (which they are perfectly entitled to use), contrary to law 74A2.
I can imagine a defender becoming discombobulated by dummy moving the suits around mid-play. If I were ever called to a table for this scenario, I'd listen to why declarer wanted the suits rearranged and then why defender objected and weigh the arguments against each other. The defender's argument to Jeremy is not about aid to memory but more about disruption to memory processes, and has some merit.
The original description did not, I thought, involve rearranging the suits but closing up a gap. It's hard to think that could cause any memory problem for anyone unlike say swapping over columns 2 and 3. If I originally looked at a dummy with four suits and now it only had 3 because one was exhausted it is hard to believe that by losing the gap anyone would be inconvenienced. 74A2 is poorly written because, of course, anyone can decide an action causes them annoyance nonetheless a director may be called upon to judge and on any sensible planet closing a gap between suits cannot reasonably cause annoyance.
I know at least 2 people that really do not like moving the suits about in dummy, one being me.
I also dislike cards being moved "up" towards the table edge when playing a long suit "from the top".
In part it is a distraction and in part it does not aid me in counting cards or remembering how many rounds have gone for a particular suit, or, to remember that some low spot card is boss and better take it while still in dummy etc.
It does not put be off enough to care if others do it, however.
To my mind, this is the same as dummy telling declarer that a trick 3 tricks ago has been put the wrong way around. Then declarer checks which trick and corrects. This distracts from the hand and card play and (I suspect) is the reason that this is not allowed?
The other person I know that does not like it will tell their partners to never move dummy around.
It seems to me that being precise about leaving gaps in dummy (in the suit) when cards are played could be quite a useful aide-memoire.
Previous observations would suggest this is OK (like the way you sort your hand) - so could a defender object if Dummy were to close up the gaps in the suits (rather than between them)?
@Martin said:
...
To my mind, this is the same as dummy telling declarer that a trick 3 tricks ago has been put the wrong way around. Then declarer checks which trick and corrects. This distracts from the hand and card play and (I suspect) is the reason that this is not allowed?
...
I suspect the actual reason is that dummy is participating in the play and communicating unauthorised information to their partner. In extremis the TD can rule that a line of play based on the information supplied by dummy must be changed. e.g. if without the information declarer would have finessed for the contract, but with it they don't have to then the unauthorised information suggests not finessing and finessing is a logical alternative - so the result will be based on declarer finessing.
Comments
One option is to tell opponents to get a life. A 2nd is to show them Law 41D and ask what is wrong with the action that Declarer/Dummy has taken. Are trumps still on the right? Are the cards highest to lowest towards declarer? Are they still in separate columns? If so then opponents have no reason for their complaint to be upheld
The only problem I can think with this is if dummy did it unprompted, then it might be considered to somehow be communicating to declarer (I'm not sure exactly what in this case). So long as the cards remain in clear view of the defence I'm not sure what the objection is.
Having said that, I'm not sure it's explicitely allowed either. But probably just because nobody thought it needed to be allowed or otherwise.
I don't see the problem if Dummy still conforms to L41D and it was Declarer that asked Dummy to take the action. There seems to be no instruction - apart from "Trumps are placed to dummy's right." - on suit order. Were dummy to have only 3-suits, would this pair require a gap?
The opponents argued that remembering the intial placment of the cards in Dummy is one memory technique they use to keep track of cards played. Moving them about disrupts this process (which they are perfectly entitled to use), contrary to law 74A2.
Does this fall foul of aids to memory restriction? 40B2d?
I doubt it!
I can imagine a defender becoming discombobulated by dummy moving the suits around mid-play. If I were ever called to a table for this scenario, I'd listen to why declarer wanted the suits rearranged and then why defender objected and weigh the arguments against each other. The defender's argument to Jeremy is not about aid to memory but more about disruption to memory processes, and has some merit.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
The original description did not, I thought, involve rearranging the suits but closing up a gap. It's hard to think that could cause any memory problem for anyone unlike say swapping over columns 2 and 3. If I originally looked at a dummy with four suits and now it only had 3 because one was exhausted it is hard to believe that by losing the gap anyone would be inconvenienced. 74A2 is poorly written because, of course, anyone can decide an action causes them annoyance nonetheless a director may be called upon to judge and on any sensible planet closing a gap between suits cannot reasonably cause annoyance.
I know at least 2 people that really do not like moving the suits about in dummy, one being me.
I also dislike cards being moved "up" towards the table edge when playing a long suit "from the top".
In part it is a distraction and in part it does not aid me in counting cards or remembering how many rounds have gone for a particular suit, or, to remember that some low spot card is boss and better take it while still in dummy etc.
It does not put be off enough to care if others do it, however.
To my mind, this is the same as dummy telling declarer that a trick 3 tricks ago has been put the wrong way around. Then declarer checks which trick and corrects. This distracts from the hand and card play and (I suspect) is the reason that this is not allowed?
The other person I know that does not like it will tell their partners to never move dummy around.
It seems to me that being precise about leaving gaps in dummy (in the suit) when cards are played could be quite a useful aide-memoire.
Previous observations would suggest this is OK (like the way you sort your hand) - so could a defender object if Dummy were to close up the gaps in the suits (rather than between them)?
I suspect the actual reason is that dummy is participating in the play and communicating unauthorised information to their partner. In extremis the TD can rule that a line of play based on the information supplied by dummy must be changed. e.g. if without the information declarer would have finessed for the contract, but with it they don't have to then the unauthorised information suggests not finessing and finessing is a logical alternative - so the result will be based on declarer finessing.