What can dummy do?

[fyrish]

Declarer played a club from hand and asked dummy to play a spade even though there were still clubs to play. Dummy was the only one who noticed and pointed out the situation to declarer. One of the defenders objected that dummy shouldn't draw attention to an irregularity. Is this correct? If so what should happen (should the card be changed?)and how should dummy be penalised?

[blackshoe]

Dummy can attempt to prevent an irregularity, but once the spade is called that time is past. So dummy does what dummy is supposed to do: pick up the spade and put it in the played position.

 

Law 43A1{b} prohibits ("may not") dummy from calling attention to an irregularity. "May not" is a very strong prohibition. Dummy should get a PP except in very rare circumstances. Won't happen, but it should.

 

Declarer is required to follow suit (Law 44C), so if there's a club in dummy, declarer must play one. There is no further rectification.

[pran]

Dummy can attempt to prevent an irregularity, but once the spade is called that time is past. So dummy does what dummy is supposed to do: pick up the spade and put it in the played position.

 

Law 43A1{b} prohibits ("may not") dummy from calling attention to an irregularity. "May not" is a very strong prohibition. Dummy should get a PP except in very rare circumstances. Won't happen, but it should.

 

Declarer is required to follow suit (Law 44C), so if there's a club in dummy, declarer must play one. There is no further rectification.

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

One such "other requirement of these Laws" that is overridden by Law 44C is

Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

Consequently, not only "may" Dummy call attention to this particular error, he must refuse to carry out the illegal play!

[barmar]

I'm not so sure about that. Declarer designates which cards to play from dummy, dummy is merely acting as his agent, moving the cards into the played position.

 

This also relates to the discussion we had a month or two ago, about whether dummy moving the card is part of or subsequent to playing a card. If it's subsequent, as I believed, then it's too late for dummy to refuse to carry out the illegal play -- once declarer has designated the card, it's considered played. The exception is if the named card isn't in dummy -- you can't play a card you don't have.

[blackshoe]

Consequently, not only "may" Dummy call attention to this particular error, he must refuse to carry out the illegal play!

Every once in a while, Sven, you come up with something unique. Sometimes what you come up with makes sense to me. This isn't one of those times. B-)

[mycroft]

Note that if this revoke gets established, whether dummy does or does not mention it (or in time), that "failure to play a faced card (including a card from dummy)" is one of those revokes with no fixed penalty (just equity).

 

Came up for me in a 6♥ contract, where T1, spade led, ruffed; T2 heart to the A, crashing the K and Q; T3, club played, ♠A discovered behind the clubs, "DIRECTOR!".6♥, making 7, with the revoke penalty (of zero tricks) applied. Three rounds later, there were still people asking me to show them where in the Laws that was right.

[pran]

Every once in a while, Sven, you come up with something unique. Sometimes what you come up with makes sense to me. This isn't one of those times. B-)

So you consider that contrary to the clear prescription in Law 44C Law 43 takes precedence over Law 44C even in the special situation handled by Law 44C?

[Trinidad]

I'm not so sure about that. Declarer designates which cards to play from dummy, dummy is merely acting as his agent, moving the cards into the played position.

Dummy may be dummy, but that doesn't stop him from being a player. And each player must follow suit. Furthermore, even agents are supposed to follow the law.

 

Furthermore, as we have discussed extensively recently, declarer's designation of a card is not the same as the play of a card.

 

So, when declarer leads a club from hand and calls for a spade from dummy, dummy is not supposed to commit an irregularity by actually playing the spade. Of course, dummy is not allowed to participate in the play, but he can point out that it would be an irregularity if he would follow declarer's orders.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

But if declarer designates a card from dummy while declarer is on lead, dummy does not prevent it. Isn't this similar?

Otoh I can see a reason why dummy is not allowed to prevent a lead from the wrong hand. Dummy not being allowed to prevent a revoke seems pointless.

[Vampyr]

Furthermore, as we have discussed extensively recently, declarer's designation of a card is not the same as the play of a card.

 

Ummm.... the opposite conclusion was reached actually.

[pran]

But if declarer designates a card from dummy while declarer is on lead, dummy does not prevent it. Isn't this similar?

Otoh I can see a reason why dummy is not allowed to prevent a lead from the wrong hand. Dummy not being allowed to prevent a revoke seems pointless.

No, it is not similar.

Law 44C concerns the obligation to follow suit when possible and states that this obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws. This must literally and definitely include also limitations on Dummy.

 

Law 44C does not bother with for instance lead out of turn so the limitations on Dummy are absolutely in force there.

[gordontd]

Ummm.... the opposite conclusion was reached actually.

If you want three different views, ask two bridge players to reach a conclusion.

[helene_t]

hehe great use of passive voice, Stephanie :)

[aguahombre]

Dummy can attempt to prevent an irregularity, but once the spade is called that time is past. So dummy does what dummy is supposed to do: pick up the spade and put it in the played position.

 

Law 43A1{b} prohibits ("may not") dummy from calling attention to an irregularity. "May not" is a very strong prohibition. Dummy should get a PP except in very rare circumstances. Won't happen, but it should.

 

Declarer is required to follow suit (Law 44C), so if there's a club in dummy, declarer must play one. There is no further rectification.

Dummy would be attempting to prevent an irregularity -- not the revoke itself (which has occurred), but the establishment of that revoke (for which there is no penalty anyway, merely confusion and possible equity rectification).

 

Good job, Dummy.

[blackshoe]

So you consider that contrary to the clear prescription in Law 44C Law 43 takes precedence over Law 44C even in the special situation handled by Law 44C?

No, I do not. I consider that dummy has various rights and responsibilities. Among them are to act as declarer's agent in placing cards played from the dummy by declarer in the played position, and to attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer. However, once declarer names a card in the dummy, that card is played, and if it's irregular (a revoke) the irregularity has already occurred, and dummy can no longer prevent it and is therefore constrained to place the card named in the played position, and otherwise keep his mouth shut. Unless an opponent draws attention to the irregularity before dummy moves the card, when dummy must not move the card, and instead all four players must ensure that the director is called.

[blackshoe]

Dummy may be dummy, but that doesn't stop him from being a player. And each player must follow suit. Furthermore, even agents are supposed to follow the law.

 

Furthermore, as we have discussed extensively recently, declarer's designation of a card is not the same as the play of a card.

 

So, when declarer leads a club from hand and calls for a spade from dummy, dummy is not supposed to commit an irregularity by actually playing the spade. Of course, dummy is not allowed to participate in the play, but he can point out that it would be an irregularity if he would follow declarer's orders.

 

Rik

I am not aware that we arrived at the consensus that you claim we did wrt when a card from the dummy is played. I (still) vehemently disagree with your position. So your conclusion as to what dummy is supposed to do is not valid. Also, I believe we discussed here some years ago the question whether dummy is a 'player' in the legal sense, and concluded that he is not.

[mycroft]

Dummy would be attempting to prevent an irregularity -- not the revoke itself (which has occurred), but the establishment of that revoke (for which there is no penalty anyway, merely confusion and possible equity rectification).

Oh, that's a good question. Dummy can ask "no clubs, partner?" when declarer plays from hand. Can she so ask when declarer plays from dummy?

[blackshoe]

Oh, that's a good question. Dummy can ask "no clubs, partner?" when declarer plays from hand. Can she so ask when declarer plays from dummy?

Law 61B2{a}: Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2{b}).

Law 43B2{b}: If dummy, after his violation of the limitations listed in A2 above… is the first to ask declarer if a play from declarer’s hand constitutes a revoke, declarer must substitute a correct card if his play was illegal, and the provisions of Law 64 then apply as if the revoke had been established.

43B2{b} does not apply to the situation mycroft brings up. However,

 

Law 43A1{b}: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

Law 43A1{c}: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

These last provisions suggest to me that dummy may not ask "no clubs, partner?" because once the declarer calls for a card from dummy that card is played, and asking the question violates both of these laws.

[Trinidad]

Dummy would be attempting to prevent an irregularity -- not the revoke itself (which has occurred), but the establishment of that revoke (for which there is no penalty anyway, merely confusion and possible equity rectification).

 

Good job, Dummy.

Dummy will not be able to prevent declarer's irregularity of designating the spade from dummy. That irregularity has already taken place and cannot be prevented anymore.

 

But dummy is allowed to prevent declarer from playing the card if playing it would be an irregularity. Remember that declarer is only forced to play the designated csrd if it is a legal play (and he intended to play it). And the play of the card is still in the future and can be prevented.

 

Technically, the way for dummy to handle this would be to say: "It would be an irregularity to play a spade. I am preventing you from playing it." Dummy should not point out that the designation was wrong. That would be drawing attention to an irregularity that had already happened.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

It's already played. It was played when declarer named it.

[Trinidad]

I am not aware that we arrived at the consensus that you claim we did wrt when a card from the dummy is played. I (still) vehemently disagree with your position. So your conclusion as to what dummy is supposed to do is not valid. Also, I believe we discussed here some years ago the question whether dummy is a 'player' in the legal sense, and concluded that he is not.

I will refer to your own conclusion in the recent thread:

 

Denny, you've reached the point of preaching to the choir, I think.[]

 

The "preaching to the choir" refers to Denny pointing out (with the aid of WBF Chief TD Laurie Kelso) in the post immediately above yours that designating a card and playing a card are two different things:

 

[]

Here is what Laurie Kelso, Chief Tournamen Director for WBF kindly answers me in a mail:

[] The word 'designation' usually refers to the naming of a card or very occasionally a player might point to a card, wishing it to be played.

I emphasized the word "wishing".

 

If you say that Denny was preaching to the choir then that meant that you thought he was writing this to a BBF forum of people who all agreed with him that designating a card and playing a card are different things. (e.g. A played card cannot be taken back (Denny's case), but an inadvertantly designated card does not need to be played (Law 45C4b).)

 

I certainly agree with the conclusion that Denny was preaching to the choir since I have rarely seen such unanimity on BBF.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I do not think that everyone here agrees that when declarer designates, in turn, a card to be played from dummy, that card is not played until dummy moves it into the played position. I for one do not think Law 45B is at all ambiguous, and it does not say what the choir thinks it does. Did I acquiesce to the choir? Maybe so, but I should not have done so if I did.

 

Another point: dummy refuses to place in the played position a card that would be a revoke if played. How is this not "participating in the play"?

[pran]

I do not think that everyone here agrees that when declarer designates, in turn, a card to be played from dummy, that card is not played until dummy moves it into the played position. I for one do not think Law 45B is at all ambiguous, and it does not say what the choir thinks it does. Did I acquiesce to the choir? Maybe so, but I should not have done so if I did.

 

Another point: dummy refuses to place in the played position a card that would be a revoke if played. How is this not "participating in the play"?

 

 

Law 44C which says "This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." certainly overrides Law 43A1c about not participating in the play when the sole purpose of such "participation" is to avoid a revoke.

 

 

And for the record: A scan for the Word "Dummy" in the laws will reveal (many places) that dummy is indeed one of the four players at the table during the entire play period.

 

If this were not the case then there would for instance be no legal reason for including the words "except dummy" in the leading clause of Law 45A: "Each player except dummy ..."

[sanst]

Dummy will not be able to prevent declarer's irregularity of designating the spade from dummy. That irregularity has already taken place and cannot be prevented anymore.

 

But dummy is allowed to prevent declarer from playing the card if playing it would be an irregularity. Remember that declarer is only forced to play the designated csrd if it is a legal play (and he intended to play it). And the play of the card is still in the future and can be prevented.

 

Technically, the way for dummy to handle this would be to say: "It would be an irregularity to play a spade. I am preventing you from playing it." Dummy should not point out that the designation was wrong. That would be drawing attention to an irregularity that had already happened.

 

Rik

Sorry Rik, but I think this is a lot of gibberish. The declarer plays a card by naming it, the rest of the first sentence of 45B, which is seperated from the first part by a colon, describes what the dummy should do with the named card. In what way the dummy doesn't draw attention to a irregularity when (s)he says "It would be an irregularity to play ..." Is beyond me. When I see a dog and say "I see a dog" the attention of anyone who is with me is drawn to the fact that there is a dog.

According to your reasoning the card isn't played until the dummy holds it in the played position. But that is not what 45B says. And making remarks like the one you give, is a violation of 43A1c.

FWIIW: the dummy is a player, since there are four players at the table (Law 3). So there is a contradiction in the laws with 44C, which comes to light in this case. But for me and others it's obvious that the dummy has to do as told and be silent.

 

Joost

[blackshoe]

Law 44C which says "This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." certainly overrides Law 43A1c about not participating in the play when the sole purpose of such "participation" is to avoid a revoke.

So dummy is allowed to "participate in the play" in this case. Or so you claim. IAC, that's not the question I asked. Legal or not (and we can discuss that question separately) dummy is "participating in the play" when he refuses to follow declarer's instruction.

 

And for the record: A scan for the Word "Dummy" in the laws will reveal (many places) that dummy is indeed one of the four players at the table during the entire play period.

 

If this were not the case then there would for instance be no legal reason for including the words "except dummy" in the leading clause of Law 45A: "Each player except dummy ..."

Okay, I'll play your game. Such a scan finds the word on 36 pages in the law book. The first three are in the table of contents, and the last four are in the index (ACBL version, btw, though I don't think that matters) so let's ignore them. That leaves 29 pages. Most of them do support your contention that dummy is a player, at least in the general sense. But several of them (footnote to law 20C2, law 20F2, parenthetical expression in law 41B, footnote to that law, last sentence of 41D, law 45A, law 45B, law 45F, law 46, law 52B1{b}, law 55, law 57C, and law 68D) indicate to me at least that while dummy may be a player in the general sense he does not play dummy's cards. Declarer does that.

 

and yes, there is good reason to indicate when dummy, although a player in the general sense, may not do something another player is permitted to do.