showle Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 We had a strange situation at our table in a sectional Swiss last weekend. The opponents are silent, and our side was bidding spades, but ended up in 3NT by my partner, so I was the dummy. Partner mistakenly assumed that he was declaring a 4 spade contract, and early on led a low diamond towards dummy's void, and said 'trump it'. Can the dummy remind partner that he was declaring 3NT, and that there were no trumps with which to ruff in the dummy? Perhaps this would fall under the dummy's right to prevent an irregularity by partner. Or does anybody feel like dummy should remain silent here, since by speaking up it would aid his partner in the play? There was a good natured difference of opinion at the table as to the specific rule that would apply in this situation. After the play ended (partner did make his contract!)we all laughed about the situation. If nobody spoke up to remind declarer of the contract, we may have sat there for hours, all the while declarer demanding that I trump the card, and with me sitting there and not doing as instructed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 We had a strange situation at our table in a sectional Swiss last weekend. The opponents are silent, and our side was bidding spades, but ended up in 3NT by my partner, so I was the dummy. Partner mistakenly assumed that he was declaring a 4 spade contract, and early on led a low diamond towards dummy's void, and said 'trump it'. Can the dummy remind partner that he was declaring 3NT, and that there were no trumps with which to ruff in the dummy? Perhaps this would fall under the dummy's right to prevent an irregularity by partner. Or does anybody feel like dummy should remain silent here, since by speaking up it would aid his partner in the play? There was a good natured difference of opinion at the table as to the specific rule that would apply in this situation. After the play ended (partner did make his contract!)we all laughed about the situation. If nobody spoke up to remind declarer of the contract, we may have sat there for hours, all the while declarer demanding that I trump the card, and with me sitting there and not doing as instructed.I think that while dummy is allowed to attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer (Law 42B2), he is not allowed to say anything once the irregularity has happened (Law 42A1{b}). Here, the irregularity has already happened (Law 46A, Law 46B4), so dummy can't say anything. I also think that if declarer gives dummy an instruction with which dummy cannot comply, he should (technically) just sit there and do nothing until either declarer wakes up or somebody else calls attention to the irregularity, at which point anyone, including dummy, can call the director (Law 42A1{a}, Law 9B1{b}). In practice I would expect that dummy would rarely be penalized in such cases just because his timing in attempting to prevent an irregularity is a little off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlson Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 "I'd love to" is the only proper response to "trump it". Think it was a Kaplan story originally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showle Posted July 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 "I'd love to" is the only proper response to "trump it". Think it was a Kaplan story originally? Ha! I wish I had thought of that at the table. As it was, I suppose I actually broke the law, because I did end up reminding partner of what the contract was, but only after an awkward pause. I almost said 'partner, please specify the specific suit and rank and I will play that card.' As for the rest, the defenders were apparently asleep. Partner was in 3NT and led their best suit, but they did not continue diamonds and take their tricks. Instead they switched back to the original suit that they led. You could say that I, as the dummy, broke the law, but that they failed to continue to play bridge, hence were not damaged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 I think we should interpret "trump it" as designating the spade suit, and make dummy play a spade. That is obviously what declarer intended that dummy should do. If he had made a proper designation, he would have been obliged to play a spade and live with the consequences. I don't think he should gain by his use of an improper designation. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 I think we should interpret "trump it" as designating the spade suit, and make dummy play a spade. That is obviously what declarer intended that dummy should do. If he had made a proper designation, he would have been obliged to play a spade and live with the consequences. I don't think he should gain by his use of an improper designation."Trump" has never been, and can never be a valid denomination regardless of the auction leading up to a Notrump Contract. The OP case is similar to Declarer requesting (for instance) a Diamond from a Dummy who is void in Diamonds at the time of the request. If it is OK for Dummy then to state that he has no Diamonds (or Words to that effect) then it must be OK for Dummy in the OP case to state that he has no trumps. Alternatively Dummy must keep quiet in either case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Always thought the contract was AI to all players, so dummy would be within their rights to say "I can't" instead of sitting there like a bump on a log. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Always thought the contract was AI to all players, so dummy would be within their rights to say "I can't" instead of sitting there like a bump on a log.That's a good point, Phil. The question is, does it violate Law 43A1{b} or {c} (dummy can't call attention to an irregularity during play; dummy can't participate in the play nor communicate anything about the play to declarer)? I think "I can't" violates that last prohibition, at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Seems as if this was a case of bad dummy-putting. There's nothing improper in putting the spade suit somewhere other than to Dummy's far right at the start of play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showle Posted July 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 The strange part is that the opponents have no obligation to remind declarer of the contract, and apparently dummy *must* remain silent. Theoretically at least the table could stall out, with all four players looking at one another and rolling their eyes for the duration of the round. Meanwhile, you could say that it is not in the opponents best interest to call the director, since that would likely 'wake up' the declarer. They would lose their advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 I think the correct response is "Which one?" so as not to provide an additional clue to declarer that they are playing NT. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Always thought the contract was AI to all players, so dummy would be within their rights to say "I can't" instead of sitting there like a bump on a log.It is AI, but it doesn't follow that dummy is allowed to wake up declarer. He is not allowed to say "remember that they play Rusinoff leads" either, even though declarer could get the information legally by looking at the defenders' CC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 He is not allowed to say "remember that they play Rusinoff leads" either, even though declarer could get the information legally by looking at the defenders' CC.What is Dummy supposed to do when Declarer calls a card that is not in Dummy's hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 What is Dummy supposed to do when Declarer calls a card that is not in Dummy's hand?But this is different. Here declarer obviously intended to play a small spade so dummy just does that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 But this is different. Here declarer obviously intended to play a small spade so dummy just does that.Do we know for certain that Declarer did not think they were playing 4♥? or 5♣? I think we need to treat this as an ambiguous designation and ask for clarification without providing additional assistance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrice Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 I think we should interpret "trump it" as designating the spade suit, and make dummy play a spade. That is obviously what declarer intended that dummy should do. If he had made a proper designation, he would have been obliged to play a spade and live with the consequences. I don't think he should gain by his use of an improper designation. Once the director is called and has made appropriate investigations, the play of a small spade from dummy may well be the ruling. Until then - as pran says -dummy might say "you have no trumps" (and await developments) or remain silent. Dummy should be under no obligation to move a card declarer has not properly designated to the played position - no matter how clear the intent. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 What if he said "trump with a spade" or pointed to the spades while he said "trump it"? Might these not be interpreted as non-standard ways of simply calling for a spade? Everyone will probably give him strange looks, and he'll get a surprise when he tries to lead from dummy to the next trick and someone points out that he didn't win the trick. But in the case where he just says "Trump it", I think dummy can respond similarly to if declarer called for a card or suit not in dummy, e.g. "I can't, there's no trump suit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 What if he said "trump with a spade" or pointed to the spades while he said "trump it"?In this case I would say that Declarer's intention to play the lowest spade was incontrovertible and it will be ruled to be played. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Dummy should be under no obligation to move a card declarer has not properly designated to the played position - no matter how clear the intent. Were this the procedure, few cards would ever be played from dummy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Were this the procedure, few cards would ever be played from dummy.Or people would have long ago learned to designate cards more carefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showle Posted July 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 Still, from what I read above, it begs the question of what to do after a common auction like 1NT-3NT. Declarer again leads a small diamond towards dummy's void, and says 'trump it'. Now the card that declarer likely meant to play from dummy cannot be known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 16, 2015 Report Share Posted July 16, 2015 The word "trump" is defined in chapter one of the laws as "Each card of the denomination named in a suit contract." This is not a suit contract, there are no "trump" so "trump it" is a call for a card not in dummy, and Law 46B4 applies. The suggestion that declarer may, in a particular situation, "obviously" have meant to play a particular card is not relevant. You're reading his mind, and in this case we are not to read his mind, we are to rule on what he did. No other interpretation makes sense to me. More generally, any call for a card from dummy which does not conform to Law 46A is irregular. While dummy may attempt to prevent declarer's irregularities, once they have happened — and once he's called for a card in an irregular way, the irregularity has happened — dummy cannot say anything until after the play. So in these cases, whether there's an "obvious" not-really-trump suit or not, he should sit on his hands and keep his mouth shut until either his partner wakes up, or an opponent calls the director. Yeah, yeah, "anti-social", "waste of time", yada, yada, yada. Sorry folks, that's what the law says. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 The word "trump" is defined in chapter one of the laws as "Each card of the denomination named in a suit contract." This is not a suit contract, there are no "trump" so "trump it" is a call for a card not in dummy, and Law 46B4 applies. The suggestion that declarer may, in a particular situation, "obviously" have meant to play a particular card is not relevant. You're reading his mind, and in this case we are not to read his mind, we are to rule on what he did. No other interpretation makes sense to me.I disagree. Law 46B4, like all the other sub-parts of Law 46B, only applies "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". So, yes, "obviously" is not enough, but did he "incontrovertibly" intend to play a particular card? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 The fact that somebody bid spades during the auction does not mean that declarer incontrovertibly intended to play a spade. He didn't say what he thinks is trump, so the assertion that he thinks spades are trump is an assumption, not a fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 The fact that somebody bid spades during the auction does not mean that declarer incontrovertibly intended to play a spade. He didn't say what he thinks is trump, so the assertion that he thinks spades are trump is an assumption, not a fact.Except in the cases Barry mentioned earlier, where declarer explicitly mentioned a spade or pointed to the relevant card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.