What can dummy do?

[Vampyr]

I do not think that everyone anyone 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.

 

FYP

[helene_t]

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.

Wouldn't this suggest that dummy can't ask "no clubs p?" when declarer plays from his hand? What's the difference?

[Vampyr]

Wouldn't this suggest that dummy can't ask "no clubs p?" when declarer plays from his hand? What's the difference?

 

Maybe that declarer's revoke can become established and dummy's can't? Or because dummy can't see declarer's cards so truly does not know whether declarer has any clubs? Or something else.

[blackshoe]

Wouldn't this suggest that dummy can't ask "no clubs p?" when declarer plays from his hand? What's the difference?

Perhaps it would, but Law 61B{2) specifically allows dummy to ask, subject to the provisions in Law 43B2{b}.

[Trinidad]

So, to summarize what the choir thinks (or sings):

 

Declarer plays a card from dummy by designating it.* (45B)

A played card cannot be changed, not even when it was played inadvertently.

A card that was played "by designation" can be changed but only if it was designated inadvertently. (45C4b)

 

Did I summarize that correctly?

 

Rik

 

* This means that the designation and play are, in essence "one action", not two different ones. It also means that a designation is a play and not a request for or announcement of a play.

[blackshoe]

So, to summarize what the choir thinks (or sings):

 

Declarer plays a card from dummy by designating it.* (45B)

A played card cannot be changed, not even when it was played inadvertently.

A card that was played "by designation" can be changed but only if it was designated inadvertently. (45C4b)

 

Did I summarize that correctly?

 

Rik

 

* This means that the designation and play are, in essence "one action", not two different ones. It also means that a designation is a play and not a request for or announcement of a play.

I think so. I would note that your footnote applies to declarer's designation of a card from dummy. I'm not so sure it applies to other designations — that is, designations of cards which are, at the time of designation, in closed hands.

[sanst]

So, to summarize what the choir thinks (or sings):

 

Declarer plays a card from dummy by designating it.* (45B)

A played card cannot be changed, not even when it was played inadvertently.

A card that was played "by designation" can be changed but only if it was designated inadvertently. (45C4b)

 

Did I summarize that correctly?

 

Rik

 

* This means that the designation and play are, in essence "one action", not two different ones. It also means that a designation is a play and not a request for or announcement of a play.

Yes. It's also what Ton Kooijman, WBFLC chairman, said last Saturday during a workshop for Dutch TD's.

[campboy]

So, to summarize what the choir thinks (or sings):

 

Declarer plays a card from dummy by designating it.* (45B)

A played card cannot be changed, not even when it was played inadvertently.

A card that was played "by designation" can be changed but only if it was designated inadvertently. (45C4b)

 

Did I summarize that correctly?

 

Rik

 

* This means that the designation and play are, in essence "one action", not two different ones. It also means that a designation is a play and not a request for or announcement of a play.

No. A designation is a play only in the specific case of declarer designating a card from dummy. If any other player designates a card, or declarer designates a card from his own hand, that card is not yet played. A played card can be changed for any of the several reasons given in Law 47 (but for no other reason: 47F2). In particular this includes withdrawing a played card "to change an inadvertent designation" (47C).

[RSliwinski]

What is the problem?

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

41.D […]Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy.

41.D states that it is declarer and not dummy who plays dummy’s cards. 44C states an absolute obligation for the players who are playing to a trick. Dummy is not playing to any trick. So 44C does not obligate dummy to anything.

[helene_t]

But to be practical, is there any reason to not allow dummy to refuse to revoke?

 

That dummy is not allowed to refuse to lead from the wrong hand makes sense because otherwise there is a risk that dummy would do it selectively.

 

I don't think dummy refusing to revoke selectively would be a problem since it can never be an advantage to revoke.

[Lanor Fow]

It can be an advantage if no-one notices. Unlikely perhaps, but it will happen, and more unlikely things also happen at the table.

[sanst]

Yes. It's also what Ton Kooijman, WBFLC chairman, said last Saturday during a workshop for Dutch TD's.

It was about a card played from the dummy and not unintended.

[pran]

Yes. It's also what Ton Kooijman, WBFLC chairman, said last Saturday during a workshop for Dutch TD's.

 

It was about a card played from the dummy and not unintended.

 

Revoking?

[sanst]

Yes. A card named is a card played. If it's a revoke, the laws take care of that. Besides, you seem to forget that no player is obliged to draw attention to a irregularity, the dummy isn't even allowed to do that.

The second sentence of 44C doesn't add anything to the first. You must follow suit if possible. I've no idea where the second sentence comes from, but it looks to me some remnant of a long forgotten past, because there is no reason why this obligation should have precedence over other laws. Why is it more important to follow suit than say, play with more or less than 52 cards, than not to have hidden agreements with your partner or to remain courteous?

There is also 45F. When the dummy interferes in the way you suggest, I would say he indicates a card, which is forbidden. And do you allow the dummy to interfere if the declarer touches a card in the dummy?

It's conceivable that it is in the interrest of the opponents to let the revoke from the dummy's hand stand. Do you compensate for that after the dummy has drawn attention to it?

If your reasoning is right, even spectators might try to prevent a revoke, from any hand for that matter. I simply don't believe we would allow that, but maybe you disagree.

 

Joost

[mycroft]

mycroft' date=' on 2015-May-06, 10:28, said:

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?

[/quote']

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.

I'm not sure I agree with you - if we're playing the pedantic game (and of course we are). Law 61B, in full:

 

Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke

 

1. Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led.
   
   1. Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2(b)).
      
   2. Dummy may not ask a defender and Law 16B may apply.

[*] Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information).

The relevant text is "who has failed to follow suit". Nowhere in the Law does it say "from their hand" - explicitly not in L61B2a.

Law 45B, as has been discussed (my emphasis):

Declarer plays a card by...

 

When declarer plays a card, dummy may ask declarer if he has failed to follow suit.

 

Therefore, it is allowed to do so when declarer plays a card from dummy if he has possibly failed to follow suit.

 

I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying I'm not wrong - and the logic above allows both interpretations.

 

And man, but that was an ugly ugly formatting task.

[Trinidad]

So, in short, no matter how we interpret the process of playing a card from dummy which would be a revoke, all roads lead to the same conclusion: Dummy does not need to play the revoke card:

 

If the designation and the play are different actions, then not playing the revoke card is preventing an irregularity, one of dummy's rights.

If the designation and play are the same action, then dummy is allowed to ask declarer whether dummy fails to follow suit. (Mycroft)

 

So, dummy does not need to sit idle and play the revoke card.

 

And if these two arguments would not be convincing, we still have the law that following suit is more important than any other law. (Pran)

 

That is very fortunate, since it fits well with the practice in clubs and tournaments.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

So, in short, no matter how we interpret the process of playing a card from dummy which would be a revoke, all roads lead to the same conclusion: Dummy does not need to play the revoke card:

 

Dummy plays nothing, but I am pretty sure that he has to put the revoke card in the played position and unface it when the trick is quitted.

[helene_t]

Please note that after these answers were written the WBF Laws Commission made a ruling that,

when declarer calls for a card from dummy that is a revoke card, dummy may enquire of declarer

concerning his possible revoke under Law 42B1.

Jan Peach

http://www.qldbridge.com/director/congress/5B.pdf

[pran]

[...]

The second sentence of 44C doesn't add anything to the first. You must follow suit if possible. I've no idea where the second sentence comes from, but it looks to me some remnant of a long forgotten past, because there is no reason why this obligation should have precedence over other laws.

[...]

For the record:

I could not find anything like that second sentence in the laws of 1935 (the first internationally agreed upon laws), but it was certainly included in 1949 and has apparently not been changed in any way since then.

 

That sentence has probably been inserted as a safety catch against any SB who might otherwise come up with some inventive argument about conflicting laws.

[blackshoe]

I think we need an original source for the claim that the WBFLC "ruled" that dummy may ask declarer whether he has any cards of the suit led when playing from dummy. A minute, perhaps? Other official statement or correspondence from the LC?

[sanst]

http://www.qldbridge.com/director/congress/5B.pdf

It's in the WBFLC Minutes of October 28, 2001: "It was agreed that when declarer calls for a card from dummy that is a revoke card, dummy may enquire of declarer concerning his possible revoke under Law 42B1". IMO that settles it. It's also in the EBU White Book 2014.

[helene_t]

7. It was agreed that when declarer calls for a card from dummy that is a revoke card, dummy may enquire of declarer concerning his possible revoke under Law 42B1.

[secretary’s note: the above is amended wording as agreed in the meeting of 30th October; it makes it clear that a dummy who has lost his rights is not barred from making such an enquiry in relation to declarer’s play from dummy.]

http://www.figbemilia.it/arbitri/SezEng/WBFLawsCommittee-Complete.pdf

[blackshoe]

Fair enough.

 

Thanks for the link, Helene. I have all the minutes in separate files, but having them in one makes things a bit easier.