Dummy's rights - Declarer's rights?

[jillybean]

Law42 gives dummy a number of rights including A.2 Keeping Track of Tricks and B.2 Attempt to Prevent Irregularity

 

My interpretation of this law is that dummy can draw attention to an irregularity in tricks taken after the completion of the play

and prevent declarer from revoking or leading from the wrong hand if caught in the act.

 

Occasionally during a hand, declarer asks 'how many tricks have I taken?" or "which hand am I in" ?

Which law gives declarer permission to ask these questions, and dummy to answer?

 

LAW 42 DUMMY'S RIGHTS

A. Absolute Rights

1. Give Information

Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director's presence, as to fact or law.

2. Keep Track of Tricks

He may keep count of tricks won and lost.

3. Play as Declarer's Agent

He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent as directed (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play).

B. Qualified Rights

Dummy may exercise other rights subject to the limitations provided in Law 43.

1. Revoke Inquiries

Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led.

2. Attempt to Prevent Irregularity

He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer.

3. Draw Attention to Irregularity

[Bbradley62]

It could certainly be argued that Law 43A1(c.) governs this:

"Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer."

[chrism]

The two questions are different. "Which hand am I in?" is essentially equivalent to "If I were to lead a card from my hand now would that be an irregularity?" which dummy is surely allowed to answer as part of 42B2, just as he is allowed to stop declarer in the act of reaching to pull a card out of his hand if the lead is in fact elsewhere.

 

While I suppose declarer is permitted to *ask* "How many tricks have I taken?" (or indeed "Whose turn is it to buy the next round of drinks?" or any other question with no possibility of deceiving or disconcerting the opponents) it is pretty clear that dummy is not permitted to provide any answers that communicate anything about the play. Probably the best answer to all such questions is to treat them as equivalent to the second example above and respond "It's my turn, someone turn the dummy while I'm at the bar", which is of course part of dummy's extended rights and duties as described some time ago by David Burn.

[blackshoe]

Heh. What bar? B-)

[jillybean]

Yes, we agree that dummy is allowed to prevent an irregularity. We were wondering what gives declarer the right to actively engage dummy by asking the question(s).

[blackshoe]

The only provision in law that mentions a player asking questions of his partner is in regard to asking partner if he's really out of the suit led when he discards from another suit. Law 41C does say that declarer is "entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled". Since dummy is not mentioned in that law, and Law 42 does not give dummy an rights regarding answering it, declarer should not ask the question of dummy — it is properly answered only by an opponent.

 

As for "which hand am I in?" I agree that it's equivalent to acting as if about to lead from hand or dummy, and that dummy is allowed to attempt to prevent a lead from the wrong hand. As the director, I would not penalize dummy for answering this question, but as dummy, I would not answer it — I would leave it to the defenders. As declarer, if I asked the question and neither defender responded, I would call the director.

[barmar]

I think we've had this discussion before, but what about the annoying habit some dummies have of reminding declarer, unprompted, before every trick: "In your hand", "on the table"? Is that participating, or is it preventing an irregularity?

[GreenMan]

I think we've had this discussion before, but what about the annoying habit some dummies have of reminding declarer, unprompted, before every trick: "In your hand", "on the table"? Is that participating, or is it preventing an irregularity?

 

That's participating. Anyone who does that at my table gets told so, by the director if necessary. It's usually men partnering their wives IME.

[barmar]

That's participating. Anyone who does that at my table gets told so, by the director if necessary. It's usually men partnering their wives IME.

I haven't noticed that; if anything, I think I've seen the opposite. The more general thing seems to be that declarer is very elderly, so they've reached an age where they become very forgetful, and dummy is trying to make up for that.

[GreenMan]

I haven't noticed that; if anything, I think I've seen the opposite. The more general thing seems to be that declarer is very elderly, so they've reached an age where they become very forgetful, and dummy is trying to make up for that.

 

Yeah, my perception may be biased by the last pair I saw doing it. Very much a mansplaining thing in that case.

[aguahombre]

Yes, we have had this discussion before, about the difference between proactively participating in the play by constantly reminding Declarer which hand he/she is in and spotting a move to play from the wrong hand then preventing it.

 

Some people in the previous discussion didn't care about the distinction and thought it was just splendid. Others believed there had to be a trigger before dummy could intercede. I voted for the trigger.