Dummy's Rights

[pran]

Except in the cases Barry mentioned earlier, where declarer explicitly mentioned a spade or pointed to the relevant card.

Which is an entirely different situation.

[Zelandakh]

Which is an entirely different situation.

Well yes, and I think we are all in agreement for both cases despite the "interesting" tangent.

[kevperk]

What if declarer says, after he corrects his play, says "Sorry I thought spades(or diamonds, etc.) were trump" ? What if he says it right after he is informed that the contract is notrump? If these are treated differently, then declarer should keep their mouth shut, verbalizing their intent is costly here.

[barmar]

Declarer can say whatever he wants, there's no partner to convey UI to. But if it's misleading it likely would be considered a violation of 73D2, and if the opponents are damaged as a result the TD could adjust based on 73F.

[Vampyr]

Still, from what I read above, it begs the question of what to do after a common auction like 1NT-3NT.

 

It raises the question, but anyway...

 

Except in the cases Barry mentioned earlier, where declarer explicitly mentioned a spade or pointed to the relevant card.

 

It does seem rather unfair that a declarer who uses the correct procedure in designating a card gets punished.

[gnasher]

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.

Well, we could just ask him what he thought trumps were. Then when he gives the answer he's obviously going to give, his intention will become incontrovertible.

[Zelandakh]

Well, we could just ask him what he thought trumps were. Then when he gives the answer he's obviously going to give, his intention will become incontrovertible.

By asking the question so directly, declarer will surely get woken up. That in turn would give an advantage to a dishonest player. More than that, I am not convinced there is any provision in the Laws for such a course of action.

[lamford]

Well, we could just ask him what he thought trumps were. Then when he gives the answer he's obviously going to give, his intention will become incontrovertible.

An SB might reply that, under Law 20F, except under the instruction of the Director you have to ask dummy to explain the final call before the three passes which followed it, and he has no obligation to answer what he thought trumps are.

[kevperk]

Declarer can say whatever he wants, there's no partner to convey UI to. But if it's misleading it likely would be considered a violation of 73D2, and if the opponents are damaged as a result the TD could adjust based on 73F.

I don't understand your reference to UI and misleading the opponents. My point is that if declarer says these things, it IS clear what card he was calling for in dummy.

[blackshoe]

He didn't call for a spade, he called for a trump. There aren't any trump. It doesn't matter what suit he thought was trumps, or how "obvious" that is to Monday morning quarterbacks.

[gnasher]

By asking the question so directly, declarer will surely get woken up. That in turn would give an advantage to a dishonest player. More than that, I am not convinced there is any provision in the Laws for such a course of action.

 

An SB might reply that, under Law 20F, except under the instruction of the Director you have to ask dummy to explain the final call before the three passes which followed it, and he has no obligation to answer what he thought trumps are.

 

I was talking about what a director should do, not what dummy should do.

[lamford]

I was talking about what a director should do, not what dummy should do.

I was aware that you were suggesting that the opponent or the TD should ask the declarer what he thought trumps were (although I was unclear to whom the "we" referred). I agree with Zel that there is no provision for this in the Laws, and I don't think the opponents can ask the declarer any question other than the meaning of any of his partner's calls, which would not include the final contract. I think anyone can ask at any time what the contract is, but the declarer is not obliged to answer.

[blackshoe]

I think anyone can ask at any time what the contract is, but the declarer is not obliged to answer.

Technically correct, but if the question is asked somebody must answer it — the asker (unless he's dummy) is entitled to know the answer.

[pran]

I think anyone can ask at any time what the contract is, but the declarer is not obliged to answer.

Technically correct, but if the question is asked somebody must answer it — the asker (unless he's dummy) is entitled to know the answer.

[...]

After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B), declarer or either defender, at his own*** turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

Dummy may not ask, but anyone (including Dummy) is obliged to answer (as blackshoe also says)

[lamford]

Technically correct, but if the question is asked somebody must answer it — the asker (unless he's dummy) is entitled to know the answer.

So, if declarer says "what is the contract?", the opponents can keep quiet and then dummy has to answer? I note that 41C uses the passive "is entitled to be informed" without establishing who has the duty to inform him. If the opponents had that obligation, the Laws would say "is entitled to be informed by an opponent".

 

In response to gnasher, if the declarer is asked "what do you think the contract is?", he should reply, "Don't ask me, I came for the Scrabble tournament, but there was a 3/4 table."

[gnasher]

Sorry, I should have been more explicit about who I meant by "we". And when I said "I was talking about what a director should do", I should have used a more annoying font.

 

This is what I think should happen:

 

- Declarer says "ruff"

- Dummy does nothing

- An opponent calls the director and explains what happened.

- The director collects evidence as to the facts. As part of that process, he examines the bidding and play so far, and asks declarer what he thought the contract was when he said "ruff".

- In the unlikely event that declarer declines to answer, the director penalises him for a breach of Law 90B8.

- The director determines that declarer's intention was incontrovertibly to play dummy's lowest spade, and therefore rules that a spade was played.

 

It's true that there is no rule that says "Before the director makes a ruling, he gathers the evidence that he needs to make that ruling". Perhaps the Lawmakers thought it was obvious.

[blackshoe]

It's true that there is no rule that says "Before the director makes a ruling, he gathers the evidence that he needs to make that ruling". Perhaps the Lawmakers thought it was obvious.

I think it's implicit in Law 84's "When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed…" and Law 85's "In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect" and "If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84".

[pran]

So, if declarer says "what is the contract?", the opponents can keep quiet and then dummy has to answer? I note that 41C uses the passive "is entitled to be informed" without establishing who has the duty to inform him. If the opponents had that obligation, the Laws would say "is entitled to be informed by an opponent".

[...]

 

The obligation to give that information is a collective obligation on all the players at the table (including Dummy).

[barmar]

Maybe we should bring back trump indicators.

[aguahombre]

Maybe we should bring back trump indicators.

You mean like the suit on Dummy's right? I believe Peg Kaplan provided a thread on dummy-putting. Perhaps it was on BridgeWinners, not here.

 

If nt is the contract, don't put your own long suit or a suit bid by Declarer in that position.

[blackshoe]

You mean like the suit on Dummy's right? I believe Peg Kaplan provided a thread on dummy-putting. Perhaps it was on BridgeWinners, not here.

 

If nt is the contract, don't put your own long suit or a suit bid by Declarer in that position.

That's a suggestion, and a good one, but it's not a rule. However, I think he's talking about something else, something which I only vaguely remember, perhaps some kind of token.

[aguahombre]

That's a suggestion, and a good one, but it's not a rule. However, I think he's talking about something else, something which I only vaguely remember, perhaps some kind of token.

It is not a rule in the rule books; it is our rule to prevent confusion when we declare. A token would have to been declared an exception to the rules since it would be an aid to memory or technique introduced onto the table.

[blackshoe]

Barry can say what he meant. What I was thinking of probably predates any "aids to memory" rule.

[jeffford76]

The ACBL Laws Commission addressed this issue in November 2013 (I think because of an email I sent to rulings@acbl.org earlier that year). Here's the relevant quote from http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/about/laws-commision-minutes/13-3-Laws-Commission-Minutes.pdf

 

If after 1C-2C-3N Declarer leads a diamond when Dummy is void and says “ruff it.”

1. What is Dummy to say?

2. Has Declarer called a low club?

A. The call to “ruff it” brings into question the concept of “Declarer’s Incontrovertible Intent.” Dummy is Declarer’s agent—if Dummy was absent at the time it is clear that Declarer would reach for a club to play to the trick.

B. Dummy should endeavor not to announce the contract should it become clear that Declarer has “lost his way.”

C. In private conversations with Declarers, most would admit that they had intended to call a small club and that they had indeed forgotten the contract.

D. Even if clubs were not put in the trump slot it may still be an Incontrovertible Intent to play a card from the trump slot. (Such as situations where dummy has put Declarer’s long suit in the trump slot.)

E. In rare cases Declarers are making a glib statement. Here it should be obvious that it is not Declarer’s Incontrovertible Intent to call for a non-existent trump card.

F. We should not allow Dummy to claim he is “preventing an irregularity” by trying to point out he can’t play a card that doesn’t exist. He may try to prevent a subsequent lead from the wrong hand.

 

So in the ACBL, at least, this is settled.

[gnasher]

Barry can say what he meant. What I was thinking of probably predates any "aids to memory" rule.

Most trump indicators predate all the rules of bridge. If you want to remind yourself of what they are, you could try a Google search for "trump indicator".