[Vampyr]

So... now I can touch dummy's cards, as a defender, if declarer gives me "permission".

This has actually happened to me once or twice, and I was able to say, "sorry, it's illegal". Now if it happens again, I will have to say, "I don't want to", which sounds unfriendly.

If this practice becomes widespread, I wonder if we will have more cases like the recent one in which a defender placed the wrong card from dummy in the played position? I cannot find the thread, but i guess it will now be the same as if dummy placed a card in the played position? So the "perpetrators" will be treated as non-offending?

Hmmm... maybe I will play dummy's cards...

[gnasher]

I also don't like playing dummy's cards a defender, because I find it distracting. I generally respond to requests to play dummy's cards by saying "I'd rather not, because I find it distracting".

However, some people don't mind playing dummy's cards for declarer, and prefer that to having declarer reach across the table to play them. It seems a bit unreasonable to expect the lawmakers to inconvenience those players in order to save you the embarrassment of saying no.

[barmar]

How many players do you think will even know about the change in the law? 99.9% of bridge players never read the lawbook.

Just continue as you always have, and there will be no difference.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-February-10, 18:46, said:

How many players do you think will even know about the change in the law? 99.9% of bridge players never read the lawbook.

Just continue as you always have, and there will be no difference.

What I have always done is say it's illegal, so...

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-10, 19:51, said:

What I have always done is say it's illegal, so...

It's still illegal unless you agree to it.

The benefit of the change comes at then end of the hand when an opponent asks whether they may look at your hand and you would like to agree to it without having to call the TD.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-February-11, 02:25, said:

It's still illegal unless you agree to it.

The benefit of the change comes at then end of the hand when an opponent asks whether they may look at your hand and you would like to agree to it without having to call the TD.

Yeah, you know what though? People don't call the TD for this.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2017-February-10, 18:46, said:

How many players do you think will even know about the change in the law? 99.9% of bridge players never read the lawbook.

You don't think we should tell players about changes to the law book?
Especially those changes that change what is legal procedure?

I expect some NBOs will make some effort to inform their members.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-11, 04:19, said:

Yeah, you know what though? People don't call the TD for this.

That's the point. People have been doing this for ages. And if there were no change to the Law, they'd obviously keep on doing it.

Under the current law, both the opponent who asks to look at your hand and the player who gives him permission would be subject to a PP if a hard-nosed TD caught them. With this change it's just the opponent if he does it without your permission -- you can't be penalized for giving permission (and then the opponent is indemnified as well).

[barmar]

RMB1, on 2017-February-11, 06:38, said:

You don't think we should tell players about changes to the law book?
Especially those changes that change what is legal procedure?

I expect some NBOs will make some effort to inform their members.

I expect that NBOs will publicize the major changes to the laws. I'll bet anything that this one doesn't get mentioned in publications intended for players. It might not even get mentioned in communications to TDs.

[weejonnie]

barmar, on 2017-February-11, 11:34, said:

I expect that NBOs will publicize the major changes to the laws. I'll bet anything that this one doesn't get mentioned in publications intended for players. It might not even get mentioned in communications to TDs.

Rather like the change in laws to making claims - it is a sop to expediency.

I sometimes wonder about 7C - it is clear that once a hand has been returned to the board then it cannot be removed (other than by request of the director) - however does it mean that, afer play has been completed then the hands should be shufflied and then returned to the board without passing them between players.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2017-February-11, 02:25, said:

It's still illegal unless you agree to it.

The benefit of the change comes at then end of the hand when an opponent asks whether they may look at your hand and you would like to agree to it without having to call the TD.

Vampyr, on 2017-February-11, 04:19, said:

Yeah, you know what though? People don't call the TD for this.

weejonnie, on 2017-February-12, 06:26, said:

Rather like the change in laws to making claims - it is a sop to expediency.

I sometimes wonder about 7C - it is clear that once a hand has been returned to the board then it cannot be removed (other than by request of the director) - however does it mean that, afer play has been completed then the hands should be shufflied and then returned to the board without passing them between players.

Under current law, and indeed under the new law, if before you have returned your cards to the board a player (any of the other three at the table) asks to see your hand, you can certainly show it to him. Proper procedure though is not to just hand it to him. Face the cards, but keep control of them yourself. After you have returned your cards to the board, if a member of each side is present at the table, there is no prohibition against removing your hand from the board, but again the "owner" of the hand should keep control of it; no other player should handle it. "No player shall touch any cards other than his own" is a blanket prohibition with only one exception - the handling of dummy's cards during the play by declarer or, with declarer's permission, a defender. Note that violation of that blanket prohibition "should incur a procedural penalty more often than not" — but it doesn't.