[blackshoe]

Is it permissible to designate a card in dummy by pointing at it? If a player does this, and an opponent objects, how do you rule? If a player does this, and dummy places the card (or the lowest card in the suit, if the specific card is not clear) in the played position, and then an opponent objects, how do you rule?

[aguahombre]

we have a player who mixes up her speech vs what she is trying to say...due to a brain thing.....and she often finds it easier to point at a suit (low or high in the suit). Whether it is permissible or not --it works for me.

[peachy]

I thought you would be one of the first I'd ask if I needed the answer to that question

AFAIK, the law says declarer names suit and rank of the card, or plays the card himself, but for me pointing would be fine at least for the hi or low card in a suit. Less noise, too. If someone does not like the pointing, technically they would be right to call attention to this deviation from correct procedure. But it would not gain them any friends, I'm sure. This is a harmless deviation.

[Chris3875]

We have a player who also has speech problems who points her finger up to the ceiling to indicate a high card, and down at the table to show low - this is when dummy is following suit.

As Peachy has already said, Declarer plays from dummy by naming the card or playing the card himself - I wonder could you run into problems if there became a disagreement about which card was actually pointed at?

[mjj29]

L46B said:

In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played by dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention in incontrovertable)

I would say that clearly indicating a card in a non-spoken fashion is an 'incontrovertable intention'. This is also the law I would use to say that people can call for cards using phrases like "the beer card please partner" or "duck as expensively as possiblle" or "play a card of your choice partner" when there is a singleton in dummy. Also:

L46B2 et al said:

If declarer designates a suit but not rank he is deemed to have called for the lowest card of the suit indicated

I'm pretty sure that 'designating' and 'indicating' can be fulfilled by pointing rather than naming the suit.

Finally, in the case of actually touching a card rather than just pointing:

L45C3 said:

A card in the dummy must be played if it has deliberately been touched by declarer except for the purpose either of arranging dummy's carrd or of reaching a card above or below the cards touched

[Chris3875]

Hmmm what I was thinking mjj was that if you had KJxxx in dummy and declarer pointed in the general direction of the J and RHO came up with Q and declarer said "No, I was pointing at the King !"

I think declarer would have a long bow to draw to convince the TD though.

[mjj29]

Chris3875, on Jan 17 2010, 05:00 AM, said:

Hmmm what I was thinking mjj was that if you had KJxxx in dummy and declarer pointed in the general direction of the J and RHO came up with Q and declarer said "No, I was pointing at the King !"

In that case I don't think it's incontrovertable and has possibly 'designated suit but not rank'.

[bluejak]

Many, if not most, people indicate cards very casually in various ways. So long as the card is clear, I would not be impressed with anyone who objects. It is the sort of thing which has to be tolerated for this game to continue.

But if a card designated is ambiguous in any way, the player who designates it any way except the recommended fashion should expect to be ruled against if there is a problem as a result.

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Jan 16 2010, 09:31 PM, said:

I thought you would be one of the first I'd ask if I needed the answer to that question

Just double checking that I had it right.

Chris: if declarer wants to correct the card dummy picks up, he'd best do it immediately.

[barmar]

Chris3875, on Jan 17 2010, 05:00 AM, said:

Hmmm what I was thinking mjj was that if you had KJxxx in dummy and declarer pointed in the general direction of the J and RHO came up with Q and declarer said "No, I was pointing at the King !"

I think declarer would have a long bow to draw to convince the TD though.

The way cards are generally laid out in dummy, it's inconceivable to me that someone would consider pointing in the general direction to be precise enough to designate a specific card within a suit. Unless you actually get close enough to touch dummy's cards, I don't see how someone could tell whether you were pointing at the king or jack.

On the other hand, I've seen many players use obvious gestures like pointing up or down to indicate high or low. That's not a problem, everyone understands them (much like the phrases "cover" or "win it").

[mycroft]

I've saved myself a couple of times (don't know why I do it) by pointing at the suit I wanted and calling for the other one (seems only to happen in the black suits, for some reason, probably the fact that "diamond" has two syllables). It's usually pretty incontrovertible when I'm pointing to the pointy clubs...

If someone's eating, and points at a card, fine. If someone has a speech issue - even one that means that the chance of hearing "spade" and saying "club" is one in 100 instead of my one in 5000 - then anyone who objects (and isn't blind or otherwise impaired by it) is going to get a Lesson. If it's frequently, or regularly, ambiguous, then we may step in and see what kind of compromise we can make. If it's someone who points thumb up or thumb down for "high" and "low", fine, whatever.

Yes, I know one or two people who have a suit-naming impairment (to go with those who can convert a direction to "left" or "right" or vice versa about 80% of the time, those who revert to "valet" or "dame" every once in a while, and so on).

And to steal from Probst (and I do), anyone who complains about "high" vs "eight-spot"...

[aguahombre]

Yes, Awareness and tolerance for problems some (very few) people have in matching their words to their thoughts allows those people to enjoy our game like the rest of us do.

Bid boxes have helped solve the problem during the auction. Allowing pointing for those who have trouble naming suits is another. Our 'problem lady' can always name a 9 or a jack or whatever, but will point to the spade suit and call for the 9 of diamonds. We already know from the pointing what suit she wants, and the denomination called for is always there in that suit. As long as we are paying attention to her finger pointing, all is well.

[jeremy69]

I have a partner who hovers with his finger over the spade suit and you are held in expectation of which spade it will be. Eventually you are put out of your misery when still pointing at a spade he says "small diamond, please!"

[barmar]

I don't generally see a problem with designating the suit by pointing, that's usually pretty clear. It was the earlier suggestion that you could indicate a specific card within a suit that way that seemed unreasonable, except for the lowest or highest.

I would give a warning to a player who pointed to one suit and then named a different one. It might not be strictly illegal, but it's bound to cause problems that would have been totally avoidable. Kind of like fingering cards in the bid box or your hand while making a decision.

[bluejak]

It is extremely common, and I really do not think we want to start warning players for this sort of thing. If it causes a problem, fine, we deal with it, but let us not go looking for trouble. If warn for this sort of thing you will have to warn about half the players in any club.

[blackshoe]

I had a player tell me this weekend that the only legal way to call for a card from dummy is to name the suit and the rank. He then went on to tell me that any other method is illegal, and that he expects me, as a director, to "step up". He didn't explain what he meant by that last, but it occurs to me (because he was obnoxious about it) that one way for me to "step up" would be to hit him with a major PP next time he calls "club" (or whatever) when declaring.

[bluejak]

Of course, the obvious way to "step up" is to hit him with a DP for rudeness, but he probably will not appreciate - or understand - that.

[barmar]

It's hard to argue with him, since he's absolutely correct by a strict reading of the Laws. Everything else is simply how we deal with cases where someone doesn't follow that prescription in the Law correctly. Not all violations of the Laws require punishment, and this is an area where the Laws are quite lenient. So much so, that they almost endorse incomplete designations. There's certainly no justification from the Laws for directors to be anal about it.

[mycroft]

Well, I wouldn't do this - I'd talk about the fact that strictly speaking, if everything that happened at every table that wasn't explicitly according to law were penalized, we'd be playing 4 boards an hour. But if I were to be mean...

Get another director to watch the room. Follow the curmudgeon's table. The first time he picks up his bidding cards as a third pass, or leads after partner does, or fails to skip bid/honour a skip bid warning, or deals the hand in 5s or counterclockwise, or asks "weak" instead of "please explain" or answers "Flannery" instead of "11-15, 4spades and 5, maybe 6 hearts" (or any other such cheat), or fails to count his cards before looking at them, or... stop the game and give a warning. Second warning is 1/10th board. Third is 1/5 board. And so on. One night of that should get the point across...

Of course, a quick recitation of Law 46B - and, with reference to pointing in particular, an emphasis of "except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible" - should be all the "stepping up" that is required. If the Powers That Be are willing to deliniate what happens when players cut corners, then who am I to be more strict?

[McBruce]

Hard to believe it was a quarter-century ago, but a partner of mine with a non-contagious throat problem once used a conductor's baton to designate cards from dummy at the first Regional I ever played in. Worked like a charm.