[Hanoi5]

Let's say I, when being the dummy, always place the suit led on my right. If my partner is playing I place the suit led right next to the trumps. Are we cheating if my partner is aware of this situation?

What if I place the suit that I think should be played soon or set-up on my right? Would that be cheating?

What about writing down the lead (e.g. ♣5) on my scorecard as declarer and checking it while playing?

What if I do a weird play that will make my partner aware of certain situation he might not know on his own while being declarer? Let's say I have K432 from dummy and I ask for the 4. Would this be cheating?

Thanks for your input.

[blackshoe]

Hanoi5, on Oct 30 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

Let's say I, when being the dummy, always place the suit led on my right. If my partner is playing I place the suit led right next to the trumps. Are we cheating if my partner is aware of this situation?

No. You might get some aggro from opps if the suit led is the same color as trumps.

Quote

What if I place the suit that I think should be played soon or set-up on my right? Would that be cheating?

Yes.

Quote

What about writing down the lead (e.g. ♣5) on my scorecard as declarer and checking it while playing?

You can write it down. You can't refer to your scorecard during play.

Quote

What if I do a weird play that will make my partner aware of certain situation he might not know on his own while being declarer? Let's say I have K432 from dummy and I ask for the 4. Would this be cheating?

Since dummy can't participate in the play, you can tell him whatever you like. And no, you don't have to tell the opponents what's going on.

[jdonn]

1 is not cheating but is useless. 2 and 3 are cheating. 4 I don't understand, is declarer trying to send secret signals to dummy or is it the other way around?

[dellache]

Hanoi5, on Oct 30 2009, 07:28 PM, said:

What if I do a weird play that will make my partner aware of certain situation he might not know on his own while being declarer? Let's say I have K432 from dummy and I ask for the 4. Would this be cheating?

Thanks for your input.

With one of my previous partners, I used to do this (echoing with dummy) when I thought the oppos just allowed me to make an unmakeable contract. That was in my junior days. This is not cheating, obviously.

[Jlall]

You're not allowed to use any memory aids, this includes looking at your convention card or writing things to help you on your score card.

[Hanoi5]

Jlall, on Oct 30 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

You're not allowed to use any memory aids, this includes looking at your convention card or writing things to help you on your score card.

Exactly, and if I know the suit they led at the notrump contract is the first in dummy , isn't this an aid and therefore cheating?

[dellache]

Hanoi5, on Oct 30 2009, 09:18 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 30 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

You're not allowed to use any memory aids, this includes looking at your convention card or writing things to help you on your score card.

Exactly, and if I know the suit they led at the notrump contract is the first in dummy , isn't this an aid and therefore cheating?

You are absolutely right.

The WBF is currently discussing about a new rule to prevent this unacceptable way of cheating : I have been told that before 2043 dummy's cards will be exposed only for 10 seconds at most. Then the partner of the declarer (which will be called the "zombie") will hold his cards as any other player around the table. Declarer will still tell him what to play at each turn.

Penalties when declarer calls for a wrong card in zombie's hand are still under discussion. That may include copying the 10000 first decimals of PI a certain number of times, until you know them by heart (I'm not so sure about this last point though).

[Jlall]

Hanoi5, on Oct 30 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 30 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

You're not allowed to use any memory aids, this includes looking at your convention card or writing things to help you on your score card.

Exactly, and if I know the suit they led at the notrump contract is the first in dummy , isn't this an aid and therefore cheating?

Seems that way to me, but I am not a laws expert.

[jdonn]

In that case isn't putting trumps on the left cheating?

Quite honestly I'm not that worried about a player who thinks they can remember this secret signalling system but can't remember what suit is led.

[gwnn]

in Iceland I've been told more than once to put trumps to my right, and then the most expensive suit second from the right and so on (i.e. in a club contract D-H-S-C). I'm pretty sure there is no law that says this but maybe there was?

[Ant590]

I normally use the 'dummy echo' in a doubled contract to say "relax partner, this is making"... perhaps this should be disclosed to the opponents too!

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Oct 30 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

In that case isn't putting trumps on the left cheating?

No, because you can always ask what the contract is. You cannot always ask what suit was led.

[blackshoe]

gwnn, on Oct 30 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

in Iceland I've been told more than once to put trumps to my right, and then the most expensive suit second from the right and so on (i.e. in a club contract D-H-S-C). I'm pretty sure there is no law that says this but maybe there was?

Law 41D said:

After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy’s right. Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy.

The placement of non-trump suits is not specified by law.

[mjj29]

gwnn, on Oct 30 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

in Iceland I've been told more than once to put trumps to my right, and then the most expensive suit second from the right and so on (i.e. in a club contract D-H-S-C). I'm pretty sure there is no law that says this but maybe there was?

Alternatively, what I always do is put trumps on the right, and then alternate colours in suit contracts. In no trumps I put two of the same colour together in the middle and a suit which is unlikely to be trumps on the right. This is often the suit they have lead (as it would be), but that's coincidence.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

Alternatively, what I always do is put trumps on the right, and then alternate colours in suit contracts. In no trumps I put two of the same colour together in the middle and a suit which is unlikely to be trumps on the right. This is often the suit they have lead (as it would be), but that's coincidence.

That's where I got this idea from. I was often told not to put a likely trump suit first in a NT contract, so I usually put my shortest suit which happened to be the one they led quite often. But then I thought about putting always the suit led first and they I wodered what if my partner knows what I'm doing, and that's why I was asking but I seem to be assured it is not cheating.

[TimG]

I once read somewhere that it was a good idea to put down the suit led last. The idea is that if declarer sees the suit led first he will focus on that suit, but if he sees the suit led last, he is more likely to consider the whole hand rather than the suit of the opening lead in isolation. But, there's nothing saying you always have put the suits down left to right or right to left.

I tend to think that all of this is much ado about nothing for any decent player. If you're playing with a partner who is apt to forget the contract you probably have other even more important issues to deal with. If your opponents do something like this because they might forget the contract, don't sweat it, you're going to do well.

[aguahombre]

This is not an inane thread, as far as I am concerned. Not putting a long major down on my right when pard is declaring NT seemed natural to me, but now I am not sure if it is proper (whether legal or not). Other considerations mentioned on this subject haven't entered my pee brain --except never putting the same colors together.

But, now that I think about it more: not putting a long suit down on my right when the contract is NT is helpful to all players at the table, and the opps are far more likely to forget the strain than MY partner.

[blackshoe]

Heh. If by "proper" you mean "ethical within the rules of the game" then if it's legal, it's "proper". If you're talking about what some in these discussions have called "personal ethics", well, my take on that is that you do whatever your personal ethics tell you to do — or not do — so long as it's legal within the laws and regulations of the game. But you don't expect others to follow your personal ethics if what they do or do not do is also within the laws and regulations of the game.

[dellache]

This makes me think about something that really annoys me a lot against some (fortunately rare) dummies : some of them, instead of placing the cards "vertically", sort of "fan" them oblically (or even horizontally) on the table (suit by suit). Is this legal or not ?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Oct 31 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

But you don't expect others to follow your personal ethics if what they do or do not do is also within the laws and regulations of the game.

I neither said nor implied that I did. Was merely saying what does, or does not, come into my head while putting down the dummy. Your take on what I meant by proper vs. legal is accurate. It is a personal ethics issue not to be confused with laws, rulings, or expectations of the same from others.

Also, playfullness comes into play. It is always fun for me to put down half of my six-card support for pard's trump suit, then the other suits, then the other half. Usually Terry says "knock it off" before I get finished.