[sanst]

If the use of memory aids is not permitted, why is it obligatory to place trumps on the right hand side of the dummy? Instead, the law makers should have ordered the cards of the dummy to be placed in a row in random order. Also, played cards should be placed in such a way that it's not possible to keep track of tricks won and lost.

[1eyedjack]

sanst, on 2016-August-04, 10:07, said:

If the use of memory aids is not permitted, why is it obligatory to place trumps on the right hand side of the dummy? Instead, the law makers should have ordered the cards of the dummy to be placed in a row in random order. Also, played cards should be placed in such a way that it's not possible to keep track of tricks won and lost.

I have already explained this in my previous response. Some specific memory aids are permitted by the laws. See Law 41C that addresses your first point. And Law 65 prescribes the arrangement of completed tricks.

[mycroft]

To add to the chorus answering the original question: it is illegal to have an agreement to put dummy down in any order not specified by the Law that transmits or retains information not allowed to declarer otherwise; that explicitly (in the ACBL at least) includes "put opening leader's suit on the left". In practise, it's a "go ahead, prove it" situation; but it is an illegal aid to memory. So is canting the contract in your bidding box (even though that information is allowed to you at any time you are allowed to act, you're not allowed it globally).

Do people do it? Yes. Do we care? Generally, no. I will explain that the process is illegal when I hear about someone doing it, or someone asking partner to do it; but frankly, compared to the other UI transmitted by the pairs that do that, it's ignorable.

I would be surprised if the Dutch allowed access to the contract and in particular the opening lead during play of the hand universally. It would be legal to make such a regulation, but it would be unusual.

There's a Law that describes how dummy is required to be laid out, which certainly does pass information (but how many people flower or short-side overlap dummy and don't get called on it, or gripe when asked to fix ♥QKJ74 (or even ♥KQ564)?) But that's required by Law. I have a very specific method of putting down dummy, because one of my partners has very bad eyesight, and he wants it that way: [trump]SHDC. But that doesn't pass any information he isn't entitled to know (that my hearts are in fact hearts and not diamonds), so it's legal. There are those who freak if dummy isn't colour-separated; I'll break my habit when partnering one of those, but again, it doesn't pass any UI.

[shyams]

Isn't the contract authorised (or available) information to both sides during the play?

If I recall, declarer or either defender can ask "What is the contract?" at any time in the play. If I am correct, can dummy leave the final contract denomination (plus a dbl or redbl card, if applicable) from his/her bidding box onto the table for all to see? Where in the laws does it say such an overt display of this information is disallowed?

As we all know, in online play, one can see not only the contract but the entire bidding sequence any time during the play. And we accept it/are used to it.

[barmar]

One point about the memory aids provided by dummy's layout and the placement of quitted tricks is that it's equally available to both sides, so it doesn't give either side an unfair advantage. That's probably one of the reasons why the Laws prescribe specific procedures there. I think- trumps on declarer's left comes from rubber bridge. And early days of bridge had those fancy "trump indicators", which also came from whist. So these practices that are prescribed in the laws are derived from longstanding traditions about the way the game is played, and it wasn't felt necessary to remove them in duplicate.

I guess there's never been common practice for how dummy is laid out in notrump contracts, so nothing got promulgated in the Laws.

Lots of people try to alternate the suit colors in dummy. I suppose that could also be considered illegal participation in the play, by assisting declarer in not confusing adjacent suits.

[blackshoe]

shyams, on 2016-August-04, 15:29, said:

If I recall, declarer or either defender can ask "What is the contract?" at any time in the play.

Not quite.

Quote

Law 41C, in part: After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B above), declarer or either defender, at his own* turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

*Declarer may inquire at his turn to play from dummy or from his own hand.

shyams, on 2016-August-04, 15:29, said:

If I am correct, can dummy leave the final contract denomination (plus a dbl or redbl card, if applicable) from his/her bidding box onto the table for all to see? Where in the laws does it say such an overt display of this information is disallowed?

Even if you were correct, absent an enabling regulation by the Regulating Authority, Law 40C3{a} disallows it.

Quote

Law 40C3{a}: Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique.

[Vampyr]

shyams, on 2016-August-04, 15:29, said:

Isn't the contract authorised (or available) information to both sides during the play?

The opening lead is not, though.

[mycroft]

The contract is available to you *at your turn to play* (including declarer's play from dummy). It is not available "during the play" when it is not your turn, along with a lot of other information (primarily your oppponents' system card or carding agreements). Yes, I'm nitpicking - remember my self-described nickname - which is why I said earlier: "Do people do it? Yes. Do we care? Generally, no [, but it's] illegal".

Think of defenders. It's gone lead, play, finesse, tank, and I (second to play to this trick) ask "what's the contract?" Having found out the answer to my question, partner takes the setting trick instead of holding up and stopping the suit from running. Or, if that's too obvious, what if I look at my bidding box, where the contract is canted out, "just to remind me"?

It's very clear that the "opening lead on the left" is *intended to remind* declarer of the suit the opponents wanted to attack 5 or 6 tricks later when potentially she had forgotten. Therefore it's clearly an "aid to memory" illegal by 40C3a, unless overridden by the RA. There can not be another reason for the request/agreement.

[barmar]

Are we sure that the reason for putting the opening lead suit on declarer's left is even intended as a memory aid? Some may just put it out first because it seems to be the first suit to think about on the trick, although I suppose this could be considered participating in the play. I've also considered putting it down last, so declarer won't be tempted to consider this suit in isolation before seeing the whole dummy, but that's also participating. Does dummy have to randomize it to avoid violating his restrictions?

[mycroft]

If dummy just does it, fine. But I've been *asked to* do it by partners, and have been at the table and around tables where declarer *tells* dummy to do that. At that point, I can think of no other reason besides memory aid.

Having an agreement to do it, similarly, seems to me to have no valid use other than memory aid.

[1eyedjack]

mycroft, on 2016-August-04, 17:26, said:

There can not be another reason for the request [than as memory aid].

It's a stretch, but I think that there can.
suppose that you have operated this method for the last 10 years in ignorance of its breach of the laws, and now your dummy does it otherwise. You might not have required it as a memory aid but I can well imagine that you could be derailed if someone placed a suit there which was not the one led. Just as the laws seek to outlaw memory aids, they also seek to outlaw deliberate misdirection.

Either way - storm in teacup.

[lexlogan]

It has long been my practice (as dummy at notrump) to avoid placing a suit in the trump position that might be mistaken for trumps. That includes my own long suit or suits partner has bid. Often, but not invariably, I select the suit led. It never occurred to me I might be providing a memory aid regarding the opening lead. I have to agree that would be illegal -- and unfair, if the defenders were not aware of the practice. As it would be difficult to police this practice I think the ACBL should adopt a clear policy.

[blackshoe]

lexlogan, on 2016-August-05, 13:53, said:

As it would be difficult to police this practice I think the ACBL every Regulating Authority should adopt a clear policy.

FYP.

[BudH]

Another one I see is in NOTRUMP ONLY, placing suits with same colors side by side (such as spades/clubs/hearts/diamonds) instead of the "normal" spades/hearts/clubs/diamonds) where all suits alternate color (done only in suit contracts).

[1eyedjack]

And your point is?

That would be quite legal, just as is my own experience mentioned earlier in this thread, of placing clubs on the left if and only if NT.

All that is achieved by either method is to include NT in the perfectly legit memory aid of what is trump, alongside the existing legit aid when there is a trump suit.

[blackshoe]

That declarer has an authorized aid to memory in that he is permitted to ask what the contract is does not imply that he is authorized other aids to the same memory.

[richlp]

FWLIW...........

I usually try to put down the suit led last. The idea is let partner have at least a small opportunity to observe the hand as a whole before focusing on the opening lead.

I had never considered that it could be used as a memory aid but reading this thread has convinced me otherwise.

OTOH.......I won't get worried about it if an opponent does it for that reason. If they can't remember which suit was led, then being reminded of it will be of very small benefit.

[ggwhiz]

This whole thread reminds me of a lawsuit in California(?) against McDonalds in a contest where they got the skill testing question wrong and won on the basis that it discriminated against stupid people.