When does dummy cease to be dummy

[weejonnie]

Definition: Declarer's partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced.

 

(Although of course after an OLOOT there is presumably a presumptive declarer and presumptive dummy). Note that the auction period for the next hand might have already started e.g. when a player removes their hand for the incorrect board.

 

To help you - law 42B3: Dummy may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded.

[Vampyr]

I am not sure what the difference between your first two options is, but it is important that dummy be allowed to speak up before the cards have been shuffled. For example, if dummy has noticed a revoke, some opponents will find it difficult to reconstruct the play if the cards are not in played order.

[pran]

I am not sure what the difference between your first two options is, but it is important that dummy be allowed to speak up before the cards have been shuffled. For example, if dummy has noticed a revoke, some opponents will find it difficult to reconstruct the play if the cards are not in played order.

The difference is that play ends when a claim or a concession is made (except when a defender immediately objects to his partner's concession), and play ends at that time (Law 68D.

 

Dummy regains his full rights as a player when play ends which can well be before trick 13 has been played as it is never played on such boards.

 

The Laws do not specifically state that Dummy ceases to be dummy at this time, but I think it is fair to say that a dummy who has regained his full rights as player is no longer a Dummy.

[weejonnie]

But law 42B3 implies that Dummy remains dummy "after the play of the hand is concluded". If the intention of the lawmakers was that Dummy would cease being dummy at that point then they should have stated "A player ceases being dummy, and may therefore draw attention to any irregularity, after the play of the hand is concluded."

[gordontd]

But law 42B3 implies that Dummy remains dummy "after the play of the hand is concluded". If the intention of the lawmakers was that Dummy would cease being dummy at that point then they should have stated "A player ceases being dummy, and may therefore draw attention to any irregularity, after the play of the hand is concluded."

What is the significance of the distinction you are trying to make? What else is it that a player can do after they cease to be dummy that they can't do while dummy?

[gnasher]

As long as we know what his rights, responsibilities and restrictions are at any given time, I don't think it matters whether he is "dummy", "the player formerly known as dummy", or "the player who will be dummy in due course".

[barmar]

Someone in the Yahoo group for discussion of the 2017 Laws asked for clarification of this as well, but the only response was that this didn't seem to be necessary.

[weejonnie]

What is the significance of the distinction you are trying to make? What else is it that a player can do after they cease to be dummy that they can't do while dummy?

Well in the 2017 laws for instance you are not allowed to show dummy your hand.

[gordontd]

Well in the 2017 laws for instance you are not allowed to show dummy your hand.

It seems obvious to me that there should be no prohibition on showing your hand to a former dummy after play is over.

[Vampyr]

Well in the 2017 laws for instance you are not allowed to show dummy your hand.

 

I am curious what the reason for this was.

[blackshoe]

Dummy ceases to be dummy when trick 13 is quitted or there is a claim or concession (unless a defender objects to a concession by his partner), whichever comes first.

[gordontd]

I am curious what the reason for this was.

To make both sides responsible for avoiding the situation when a dummy looks at a defender's hand during play. This featured during the "racecars" incident in 2005 and it will no doubt be easier now for dummies to refuse to let a defender see their hand.

[pran]

Dummy ceases to be dummy when trick 13 is quitted or there is a claim or concession (unless a defender objects to a concession by his partner), whichever comes first.

No Law says that, but this (as I said earlier) is when all restrictions on Dummy expires because play ends.

[pran]

To make both sides responsible for avoiding the situation when a dummy looks at a defender's hand during play. This featured during the "racecars" incident in 2005 and it will no doubt be easier now for dummies to refuse to let a defender see their hand.

HUH?

I suppose you mean "refuse to let a defender expose his hand to Dummy"?

[gordontd]

HUH?

I suppose you mean "refuse to let a defender expose his hand to Dummy"?

Yes of course you are correct - too early in the morning :)

[WellSpyder]

HUH?

I suppose you mean "refuse to let a defender expose his hand to Dummy"?

You beat me to it! I was just thinking that defending is tough enough when I am allowed to see dummy, let alone when I'm not....

[Vampyr]

To make both sides responsible for avoiding the situation when a dummy looks at a defender's hand during play. This featured during the "racecars" incident in 2005 and it will no doubt be easier now for dummies to refuse to let a defender see their hand.

 

I have been told by someone close to the incident that it wasn't a case of seeing defender's hand; rather dummy had heard something.

[Trinidad]

My POV:

 

Bridge is played one board at the time and one table at the time. If North is dummy at table 3 on board 1 of the Monday Pairs game on February 20th, 2017 at Bridge Club "TiOH" (Thirteen in One Hand, not some weird hydroxide of Titanium), then North will be the dummy at table 3 on board 1 of the Monday Pairs game on February 20th, 2017 at Bridge Club "TiOH" (Thirteen in One Hand, not some weird hydroxide of Titanium) forever.

 

It is an entirely different question who will be the dummy on board 2.

 

Rik

[gordontd]

I have been told by someone close to the incident that it wasn't a case of seeing defender's hand; rather dummy had heard something.

Are you talking about the same incident? I think dummy looked at the defenders' hand, and having seen the trumps were 3-0 made a signal with three of his fingers.

[Vampyr]

Are you talking about the same incident? I think dummy looked at the defenders' hand, and having seen the trumps were 3-0 made a signal with three of his fingers.

 

Well, I think that dummy had heard something about the board. I cannot tell whose source had the better information.

[gordontd]

I cannot tell whose source had the better information.

New York Times

Daily Telegraph

Wikipedia

[blackshoe]

No Law says that, but this (as I said earlier) is when all restrictions on Dummy expires because play ends.

No law says that dummy ever ceases to be dummy. Thus, if you were dummy on some hand played in 1983, you are still dummy on that hand, as someone else pointed out. Also, no law says that all restrictions on dummy expire when play ends, either. :blink:

[Vampyr]

New York Times

Daily Telegraph

Wikipedia

 

My source was part of the investigation, and said that it turned out that they had heard something. But it doesn't really matter. What is more important is that they were banned from the Italian Bridge Federation for about five minutes.