[jdonn]

Dummy is not allowed to be the first to call attention to an irregularity during the play.

Why not? If there is something like a proven revoke that no one else has noticed, what would it hurt to have dummy call the director? It must always be better for the irregularity to come to light as soon as possible instead of after the hand.

[blackshoe]

Depends on what the meaning of "better" is.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Oct 30 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

Depends on what the meaning of "better" is.

Well if it's not better to discover irregularities sooner, why not make it illegal for anyone to point them out during the hand?

[blackshoe]

I dunno. It makes more sense to me to prohibit dummy from drawing attention to any irregularity than to make a list of exceptions to which he can draw attention. And it seems to me that drawing attention to an irregularity is "participating in the play" which is another thing dummy is — rightly IMO — prohibited from doing.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Oct 30 2009, 01:50 PM, said:

I dunno. It makes more sense to me to prohibit dummy from drawing attention to any irregularity than to make a list of exceptions to which he can draw attention.

How about no exceptions?

Quote

And it seems to me that drawing attention to an irregularity is "participating in the play" which is another thing dummy is — rightly IMO — prohibited from doing.

I disagree, but anyway you still haven't said why you think so. What is the specific harm that is being prevented?

[Echognome]

In support of Josh's point, I recall a hand as dummy where I noticed one of the defender's revoked and my partner did not. I waited until the end of play (as I understand that I should). In the meantime, the defender that had revoked had taken his quitted tricks and started piling all the cards up together. It looked more like a nervous habit than any deliberate attempt, but made reconstructing the play impossible. I mentioned after the hand that I thought there was a revoke and my partner (declarer) said he didn't think there was. I didn't pursue it, but it bugged me. I talked to a TD friend of mine later who said that if the defenders had bunched up the cards, then they would likely be found to have revoked. But it seems much, much easier if the TD could have investigated right away.

[pran]

This is one of those cases where the decision is that dummy may not participate in the play in any way (except as specifically permitted in the laws; and calling attention to an irregularity is not among what is permitted).

It is a political decision dating back to the earliest days of bridge and has little to do with what would be "better" for the game. The game is that there are only three players performing the actual play. The fourth player, dummy, is just Dummy.

[blackshoe]

I'll defer to Sven, as I certainly wasn't around in the earliest days of bridge. <g, d & r>

[pran]

blackshoe, on Oct 31 2009, 06:38 AM, said:

I'll defer to Sven, as I certainly wasn't around in the earliest days of bridge. <g, d & r>

Neither was I, but I have a library inherited from my grandpa who was very active in bridge (both play and management) since the early thirties and I have learned a lot from him.

My oldest book on bridge[sic!] was published in 1906!

regards Sven

[bluejak]

If dummy thinks there is a revoke then the moment play finishes he should ask the players not to touch their cards.

I think allowing dummy to participate in the play is counter-productive.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Oct 31 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

My oldest book on bridge[sic!] was published in 1906!

My earliest only goes back to 1930 something (guy named Faber, on the Culbertson system).

Auction bridge predates contract, but I don't know when it got started. It's probably in the Encyclopedia of Bridge but I'd have to go upstairs to look.

[barmar]

In rubber bridge, declarer normally plays dummy's cards, and dummy doesn't usually participate at all. When modifying the rules for duplicate bridge, dummy physically plays the cards, but he's considered to be an agent of declarer. He should just be a robot, acting as declarer's hands.

[cherdanno]

Has anyone given Josh a better reply than "it's this way because that's how it is"?

[blackshoe]

Probably not. So now what?

[Vampyr]

cherdanno, on Nov 2 2009, 04:48 AM, said:

Has anyone given Josh a better reply than "it's this way because that's how it is"?

How about: Declarers whose partners smoke (I imagine there are very few jurisdictions in which smoking is allowed in a playing venue these days) or who are seated further from the bar (lengthening dummy's trip) would be at a disadvantage if dummy were allowed to assist declarer. Faster players would gain an advantage, because dummy might then wait until the end of the round for a trip to the smoking area/bar/toilet.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 2 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 31 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

My oldest book on bridge[sic!] was published in 1906!

My earliest only goes back to 1930 something (guy named Faber, on the Culbertson system).

Auction bridge predates contract, but I don't know when it got started. It's probably in the Encyclopedia of Bridge but I'd have to go upstairs to look.

OT:
According to my Encyclopedia of Bridge issued by Ely Culbertson in 1935 [sic!]:
Auction Bridge was the third in succession of the partnership games of the Whist family, the predecessors being Whist and Bridge Whist. ... Auction Bridge was first played in 1904 ... the first club to adopt it as a game being the Bath Club ... The first code of laws ... promulgated in 1908.

My book from 1906 apparently was about Bridge Whist although "Whist" had disappeared from its name. Some of the key elements were that Dealer (after looking at his cards) decided on the denomination in which he wanted to play, but he could also pass this decision to his partner ("You decide").
Once the denomination was decided opponents could double the stakes, after which dealer's side could redouble, after which opponents could again double and so on - the sky was the limit.
Spades was the lowest ranking denominaton followed by Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts and NoTrump with trick values 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 respectively, and playing in spades was the common call when no other denomination seemed favourable. Game was reached by accumulating 30 points.

In the "laws" of (this) bridge I found the first sign of a director: A spectator could be called to resolve any difficulty as to legal play etc.

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

Laughing at Stephanie's post. Sven, that's certainly Bridge Whist, based on the scoring. Interesting about the spectator=director thing.