[mycroft]

Interestingly enough, I got several side-eye and grumbles a week ago for asking for dummy to be set properly, especially when it was KJ978 and the like. I did note that even then, though, when declarer called for "diamond" they figured out how to play the actual smallest, not the one on the bottom, so I guess it matters for *them*.

I didn't ask for the flower children and the horizontal suit people to fix dummy, although that also bothers me. But hiding spot cards is a really good way for me to misread signals, and putting down JKQ (and playing the top card) is a good way for me to misremember the suit, so I insist on that part.

But I did in fact get a lot of grief for it :-)

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2016-August-22, 09:41, said:

The Law describes the proper procedure, it doesn't define the procedure in general. If you lay out dummy in the wrong order you have completed your 41D obligations, but you did it wrong. Doing something incorrectly is not the same as not completing it.

In general, your last sentence would be true. But not so in this case. Law 41D describes precisely what should happen to complete spreading the dummy:

• Put cards on the table. Check!
  
• Face up. Check!
  
• Sorted in suits. Check!
  
• Trumps to the right. Check!
  
• Sorted by rank. Still to do.

Task not completed.

barmar, on 2016-August-22, 09:41, said:

If that weren't true, we couldn't issue PPs for mistakes like this, we would just wait for you to finish doing it correctly.

And that's pretty much how SB would read it... (which is the only thing that matters).

On top of that, it is important to realize that there is no Law requiring the other players to wait until dummy has been spread (completely, partially, at all, whatever). One could say that the other players are disconcerting dummy (as I did before, Law 74), but that would be far fetched.

Just for 100% clarity: This is not how I would read the Law book. How I read it is irrelevant. This is how SB would read it, or alternatively, how I would read it to SB.

In real life, there would not be a player in the world who would object to dummy correcting the cards after the dummy had initially been layed out incorrectly.

In Lamford's imaginery life, there is a SB who doesn't understand bridge at all. He only understands the Lawbook. He does not realize that the game of bridge is older than the Lawbook and that the Lawbook is only trying, as good as it can, but not perfect, to describe the game of bridge. You cannot tell the SB that it is nonsense to complain about dummy correcting the layout: The lawbook doesn't say that it is nonsense.

So, what you need to do when you are dealing with SB, is:
- Come up with a ruling that follows the spirit of the game of bridge. (In this case: "Stop this nonsense and play on!")
- Find a way to justify this ruling by a careful reading of the Laws in such a way that SB can't logically object. (In this case: "Dummy hadn't yet finished spreading his hand according to Law 41D, otherwise the cards would be ordered by rank.")

In real life none of us would, obviously, construct a ruling in such a way. But here we are not dealing with real life. We are talking about that imaginery North London bridge club where the even more imaginary SB plays bridge the lawbook.

Rik

[blackshoe]

I am reminded, in reading your description of how to present your ruling to the SB, of a line from a Dorothy Parker story. The context is long forgotten, only the line remains. It is '"Shut up!" he explained.'

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2016-August-22, 14:39, said:

In general, your last sentence would be true. But not so in this case. Law 41D describes precisely what should happen to complete spreading the dummy:

• Put cards on the table. Check!
  
• Face up. Check!
  
• Sorted in suits. Check!
  
• Trumps to the right. Check!
  
• Sorted by rank. Still to do.

Task not completed.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think he completed it, he just made a mistake.

Suppose you're following a recipe, and you leave out an ingredient or leave out a step. Did you not finish cooking? Of course not. You did, it just won't taste right.

Is it because it was the very last step that you think this is different?

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2016-August-23, 08:12, said:

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That is fine.

barmar, on 2016-August-23, 08:12, said:

Suppose you're following a recipe, and you leave out an ingredient or leave out a step. Did you not finish cooking? Of course not. You did, it just won't taste right.

Is pancake batter the same as a pile of pancakes (oops, I forgot a step)?

barmar, on 2016-August-23, 08:12, said:

Is it because it was the very last step that you think this is different?

The order plays a role, but it is not significant. The reason is that the ordering with respect to rank simply was not done (yet).

To take your recipe example:

Suppose you make pancakes. The recipe tells you to mix 1 pound of flour, 1 quart of milk and 4 eggs.

- If you mix 2 pounds of flour with 1 pint of milk and 3 eggs, you have done it wrong.
- If you mixed 1 pound of flour with 1 quart of milk and 3 eggs then you are busy doing it right, but you have not finished yet.
- Similarly, if you mixed 1/2 pound of flour with 1 pint of milk and 3 eggs, you are not finished yet: You just need to add another 1/2 pound, another pint and another egg to complete the 1 pound flour, 1 quart of milk and 4 eggs.

The last situation would be somewhat equivalent to dummy putting all his cards on the table, then sort the honors from the spot cards, then the majors from the minors, ... (Not recommended for dummy putting, but perfectly fine for making pancakes. )

Rik

[blackshoe]

The law does not define these, but: there is a period of time beginning with the facing of the opening lead, and ending when dummy is satisfied that he has properly deployed his hand. This is followed by a period of time in which three players should be deciding on a plan for the play or defense of the hand. This is followed by declarer's play from dummy, which is followed by third seat's play from his hand, which is followed by declarer's play from his hand. This is followed by a period of contemplation by three (or four) players regarding what the play to the first trick suggests about the concealed hands and the players' plans. This is followed by everyone, usually starting with whoever won the first trick, quitting that trick. This is followed by the winner of that trick leading to the next trick.

A nice neat sequence of events. Problem is it doesn't always happen that way, and in many cases the laws do not disallow whatever deviation (e.g., leading to trick two while trick one has not yet been quitted) has occurred. But the main point is that if dummy is not messing around with his cards during the play of tricks two and three (or two, three, and four, or whatever) then he must have been satisfied at some point prior to the play of those tricks that he has properly deployed his hand. If he then starts adjusting the order of cards in a suit, he has discovered, belatedly, that he was wrong to be so satisfied. IOW, the deployment of the dummy is not a continuous process starting immediately after the opening lead is faced and ending whenever the dummy finally gets it right, whatever the SB thinks. Or claims to think.

[Vampyr]

If the dummy has not been displayed when a couple of spot cards are out of order, I suspect that most of us are still in the middle of a hand, and we should revisit the sessions and replay the hands.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2016-August-23, 21:22, said:

If the dummy has not been displayed when a couple of spot cards are out of order, I suspect that most of us are still in the middle of a hand, and we should revisit the sessions and replay the hands.

I dread to think what your current slow-play penalties look like...

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2016-August-23, 10:14, said:

The order plays a role, but it is not significant. The reason is that the ordering with respect to rank simply was not done (yet).

If they obviously made no attempt to put the cards in order, I would agree with you. But if they did, and just missed one card, I say that's a mistake in procedure, not a failure to perform the procedure at all.

I suppose the problem for SB is that this is a fuzzy boundary, which doesn't fit his process of interpreting everything absolutely literally. But the real world is full of fuzzy definitions.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2016-August-24, 08:26, said:

I suppose the problem for SB is that this is a fuzzy boundary, which doesn't fit his process of interpreting everything absolutely literally. But the real world is full of fuzzy definitions.

Exactly, and when dealing with that $^%^@% of an SB, I think you should use his fuzziphobia against him to get to the reasonable outcome (the one that would have been obtained had a normal player been sitting in SB's seat).

Rik

[sanst]

Trinidad, on 2016-August-23, 10:14, said:

Suppose you make pancakes. The recipe tells you to mix 1 pound of flour, 1 quart of milk and 4 eggs.

- If you mix 2 pounds of flour with 1 pint of milk and 3 eggs, you have done it wrong.
- If you mixed 1 pound of flour with 1 quart of milk and 3 eggs then you are busy doing it right, but you have not finished yet.
- Similarly, if you mixed 1/2 pound of flour with 1 pint of milk and 3 eggs, you are not finished yet: You just need to add another 1/2 pound, another pint and another egg to complete the 1 pound flour, 1 quart of milk and 4 eggs.
Rik

Totally OT: almost any mixture of flour and water, if sufficiently moist, will make a usable pancake batter. You can put in milk, eggs, salt, sugar and what have you in almost any quantity you think fit, and it would still be good enough to make pancakes. But you're right in one aspect, you need to bake them.
SB would probably disagree. Pancakes are only pancakes if they are exactly identical to those his mum/nan used to make.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2016-August-23, 10:14, said:

- If you mixed 1 pound of flour with 1 quart of milk and 3 eggs then you are busy doing it right, but you have not finished yet.

But suppose you pour that mixture onto the griddle. Now you've done it wrong -- it's too late to "finish" making the batter.

Quote

The last situation would be somewhat equivalent to dummy putting all his cards on the table, then sort the honors from the spot cards, then the majors from the minors, ... (Not recommended for dummy putting, but perfectly fine for making pancakes. )

But when you add my modification, starting play with dummy mis-sorted is like cooking the batter that doesn't have enough of the ingredients.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-August-23, 13:36, said:

IOW, the deployment of the dummy is not a continuous process starting immediately after the opening lead is faced and ending whenever the dummy finally gets it right, whatever the SB thinks. Or claims to think.

SB agrees with you and everyone else except Trinidad that "putting the dummy down" ended just before a card was called for from dummy at trick one.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2016-August-22, 10:22, said:

Interestingly enough, I got several side-eye and grumbles a week ago for asking for dummy to be set properly, especially when it was KJ978 and the like. I did note that even then, though, when declarer called for "diamond" they figured out how to play the actual smallest, not the one on the bottom, so I guess it matters for *them*.

I didn't ask for the flower children and the horizontal suit people to fix dummy, although that also bothers me. But hiding spot cards is a really good way for me to misread signals, and putting down JKQ (and playing the top card) is a good way for me to misremember the suit, so I insist on that part.

But I did in fact get a lot of grief for it :-)

My god, how many people put the dummy down incorrectly? I see this (or do it) once every couple of sessions.

lamford, on 2016-August-24, 18:08, said:

SB agrees with you and everyone else except Trinidad that "putting the dummy down" ended just before a card was called for from dummy at trick one.

Yes, and we have all been drawn into this big discussion attempting to explain the circumstances of the problem to him, and being deflected from the issue that was raised by the OP.

When I was in high school, I took many tests in calculus class. On one, I got a problem wrong. Am I still taking the test? Have I not actually graduated from high school?