Played Card or Card Misplayed by Dummy

[inquiry]

ACBL Question: I received the following email

 

Hi Ben

I bet even <name deleted> hasn't seen this one:

Contract is 2 S by my LHO.

Partner leads D and dummy excuses himself for bathroom. My pard agrees to pull dummy cards. Declarer wins with A in dummy. Declarer pauses to think then says two S. My pard pulls two of S off dummy to play. Declarer says nothing. I play 10S in tempo. Declarer then says he was just reiterating the contract and wants a do over. Now declarer has seen one of my trump holdings and I'm not happy. We call director. What is director's ruling?

 

In reply giving my judgement to the emailer, I mentioned that defenders should never touch dummy cards (despite how incredibly common defender turns cards when dummy gets call of nature or a need for coffee). and the violation of law 7 and 45 by "your" partner (defender) (at the request of declarer or dummy) is the direct cause of the problem. So without getting into any PP for defender turning the cards, what factor would you use in determining declarer's intent? Would it hinge on specific wording 2 spades versus spade 2 ( if he said spade 2, we would all read it as card played). Since I know we will all rule 45C3 or 45D. As an aside, I will not tell you how the director ruled, but it involved the card played by the emailer as a penalty card.

 

 

 

Since this was a club game, I would rule card misplayed by dummy if I was certain the declarer didn't say spade 2 instead of 2 spades. Would you issue a procedure penalty, if so to both sides?

[blackshoe]

What would the ruling be if dummy were still at the table and the defender did not touch dummy's cards but dummy did?

[Vampyr]

What would the ruling be if dummy were still at the table and the defender did not touch dummy's cards but dummy did?

 

It seems to me that it would be the same.

 

I might give a PP to the defender who touched dummy's cards.

[pran]

What would the ruling be if dummy were still at the table and the defender did not touch dummy's cards but dummy did?

I would in that case rule Law 45D.

And in the OP case I would rule that the defender acts as Declarer's agent by his consent in handling dummy's cards. Consequently I would also in this case rule Law 45D.

[barmar]

45D then refers to 16D regarding whether the withdrawn card is AI or UI. It says it's AI to the non-offending side, UI to the offending side. Is there an offending side in this situation, and if so, which side is it?

[blackshoe]

The offender, it seems to me, was the defender who was acting as declarer's agent in placing dummy's cards. So I'd say the defending side is the offending side. Which means the other defender's withdrawn card is UI to the offender and AI to declarer.

 

I would tell Ben's correspondent that if he doesn't like this kind of adverse ruling, he should make sure his partner (not to mention his own self) does not violate Law 7.

 

Did either dummy or declarer ask the defender(s) to "pull dummy's cards"? Or did the defender who did it volunteer on his own?

[pran]

45D then refers to 16D regarding whether the withdrawn card is AI or UI. It says it's AI to the non-offending side, UI to the offending side. Is there an offending side in this situation, and if so, which side is it?

The offending player in law 45D rulings is Dummy.

If another person is acting Dummy as Declarer's agent it is still the (acting) Dummy that is the offender.

It makes no difference whether he was asked or volunteered to act as Dummy (with Declarer's consent).

 

So for the purpose of applying Law 45D the offending side is always the declaring side.

[blackshoe]

Law 45D assumes the defenders are not going to be violating Law 7C.

 

 

So Dummy, the player, who is off in the bathroom, committed an offense? I'm sure he'll be happy to hear that.

[pran]

Law 45D assumes the defenders are not going to be violating Law 7C.

 

 

So Dummy, the player, who is off in the bathroom, committed an offense? I'm sure he'll be happy to hear that.

Do I really have to dot the i's?

The (acting) Dummy is of course not in the bathroom, guess where he is when Law 45D is violated.?

[blackshoe]

So to which side does this "acting dummy" belong? Whichever side you choose, why doesn't he belong to the other side?

[inquiry]

I really enjoyed the discussion. Thanks. BTW, I found out it was at the request of the dummy, who frequently heads to the head (loo, water-closet, facility, gents room, whatever)

[blackshoe]

He should be counseled to not ask his opponents to turn cards for him, and to move the dummy close enough to his partner that his partner can turn the cards.

 

Also, given the request, I'm happy to call the declaring side the offending side in this case. I would not be so happy if the defender had just volunteered on his own.

[pran]

So to which side does this "acting dummy" belong? Whichever side you choose, why doesn't he belong to the other side?

OK, so I do have to dot the i's:

 

When a person acts as Dummy with the express or implied consent of Declarer he "belongs" to the declaring side for the purpose of possible Law 45D violations.

 

It makes no difference whether he is a spectator, one of the defenders, another player (who for whatever reason is at liberty to watch the game at this table) or even the Director himself. (I have occasionally when not occupied elsewhere sat down myself to assist as acting dummy in similar situations.)

 

The real cause for the irregularity in OP was Declarer making some extraneous remark that quite understandably was taken by the acting Dummy as a call for the ♠2.

 

The Director had the choice of ruling that the ♠2 was indeed called or that Law 45D was violated as a result of this remark.

[blackshoe]

OK, so I do have to dot the i's:

 

When a person acts as Dummy with the express or implied consent of Declarer he "belongs" to the declaring side for the purpose of possible Law 45D violations.

Says which law?

 

The real cause for the irregularity in OP was Declarer making some extraneous remark that quite understandably was taken by the acting Dummy as a call for the ♠2.

 

The Director had the choice of ruling that the ♠2 was indeed called or that Law 45D was violated as a result of this remark.

I don't disagree with either of these statements. However, if the extraneous remark was "quite understandably" taken as a call for the two of spades, why should the director rule otherwise?

[pran]

When a person acts as Dummy with the express or implied consent of Declarer he "belongs" to the declaring side for the purpose of possible Law 45D violations.

Says which law?

It is (at least in my opinion) an obvious consequence of

During play each player retains possession of his own cards, not permitting them to be mixed with those of any other player.{...]

[blackshoe]

You left out part of that law. The next sentence says

No player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy’s cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of the Director.

So if you want to go that route, the defender should never have acquiesced to dummy's request, and should get a PP for violating this law.

[Vampyr]

You left out part of that law. The next sentence says

So if you want to go that route, the defender should never have acquiesced to dummy's request, and should get a PP for violating this law.

 

Of course the side who made the request were also offenders.

[pran]

Of course the side who made the request were also offenders.

Declarer and Dummy are the only persons (besides the Director) who can make any request related to the handling of Dummy's cards.

 

Other persons can only offer to assist and Declarer is responsible if and when he (explicitly or implicitly) accepts such offers.

[pran]

You left out part of that law. The next sentence says

So if you want to go that route, the defender should never have acquiesced to dummy's request, and should get a PP for violating this law.

Is this how you automatically rule whenever you become aware of a defender assisting Declarer in quitting a card played from Dummy while Dummy is away from the table? That seems a funny way to encourage a friendly atmosphere at the tables.

 

(Don't try to convince me that this never happens.)

[blackshoe]

Declarer and Dummy are the only persons (besides the Director) who can make any request related to the handling of Dummy's cards.

 

Other persons can only offer to assist and Declarer is responsible if and when he (explicitly or implicitly) accepts such offers.

You are inventing laws that aren't in the law book.

 

In response to your other question, I never "automatically" rule anything. As it happens, I've never had to rule on this question at the table.

[Vampyr]

Is this how you automatically rule whenever you become aware of a defender assisting Declarer in quitting a card played from Dummy while Dummy is away from the table? That seems a funny way to encourage a friendly atmosphere at the tables.

 

(Don't try to convince me that this never happens.)

 

I will never understand why so many people think it is "friendly" to allow all kinds of infractions.

[pran]

I will never understand why so many people think it is "friendly" to allow all kinds of infractions.

I do not know what is your experience with Dummy having to temporarily leave the table during play and another person stepping in and assisting with performing the handling of dummy's cards according to Declarer's orders.

 

As Director I have seen this happening many times, and Declarer has always been grateful for such assistance, never been irritated by the so called "infraction" of Law 7B3.

 

I cannot understand the logic behind why Declarer in such situations should be exempted from his responsibility for the play of Dummy's cards, and I cannot understand why the Director should enforce Declarer to refuse such assistance instead of accepting it (of course under his own responsibility).

 

What I do know is that the atmosphere in a club where the Director strictly enforces every law in the book to its limits without any reasonable leniency, will sooner or later drive the players away to other clubs. (I have seen it happen!)

 

I certainly hope that I shall never experience a Declarer refusing an offer of assistance with words like: "No thank you, that is none of your business!

[aguahombre]

Pran, above, is right, IMO, regarding the human aspects. However, when I run a game, I still try to avoid letting the defenders handle Dummy if I can sit in or get someone to do so -- and if not, I tell them I would prefer that Declarer play the Dummy's cards if physically able.

 

It has nothing to do with being a stickler rules pedant. Having to do Dummy's job is distracting to the defense, whether the opponents graciously volunteer or not -- avoiding that makes the game more enjoyable for them.

[blackshoe]

It is not a "so called" infraction of Law 7B3, it is an actual infraction of Law 7B3. Have you, as director, forgotten Law 81C3?

 

Last time I, as declarer, "refused" a defender's offer of assistance I simply said "no thank you". I saw no reason to inject "it's none of your business!" into it.

 

Part of the TD's job is to educate players. If you let them do this without saying anything, they're never going to learn the right way to do things. Also, as director, it is incumbent on you to intervene when you see this. It is not incumbent on you to be a jerk about it.

 

Note that Law 7B3 authorizes the director (not the declarer) to grant permission to a defender to touch dummy's cards. When I'm pretty sure that nothing seriously untoward, other than the literal violation of 7B3, is involved in a case like this, I will often, at least the first time, "give permission" after the fact, but I think the table needs to understand what the rule is and why it is.

[pran]

It is not a "so called" infraction of Law 7B3, it is an actual infraction of Law 7B3. Have you, as director, forgotten Law 81C3?

Certainly not. And rest assured that I do enforce Law 7B3 whenever I notice a player touching another player's card for any other purpose than friendly assisting as agent for an absent Dummy.

 

Last time I, as declarer, "refused" a defender's offer of assistance I simply said "no thank you". I saw no reason to inject "it's none of your business!" into it.

[...]

But how do you expect the defender (or other person) to read your refusal of a friendly intended and innocent offer?