Dummy saying you're in your hand, etc

[JT23456]

I heard recently (2nd hand) that there is a recent change to Dummy Rights laws regarding Dummy saying "you're in your hand", "you're in the dummy", etc. I've read in 2017 Laws that Dummy can attempt to prevent a lead out of turn, has this changed? What can Dummy legally do in this area?

[pran]

I heard recently (2nd hand) that there is a recent change to Dummy Rights laws regarding Dummy saying "you're in your hand", "you're in the dummy", etc. I've read in 2017 Laws that Dummy can attempt to prevent a lead out of turn, has this changed? What can Dummy legally do in this area?

No change.

Dummy may (try to) prevent declarer from committing an irregularity, e.g. leading from the wrong hand.

But once declarer has committed his irregularity then Dummy is no longer trying to prevent it, he is drawing attention to it.

 

(So Dummy must not inform Declarer from which hand he is to lead. He may (try to) stop him if he notices that Declarer is about to lead from the wrong hand and this right expires at the moment the LOOT is actually made.)

[blackshoe]

I suspect what you heard was someone's mistaken impression. I agree with Sven.

 

Declarer's in his hand. He looks like he's about to call for a card from dummy. Dummy can say "you're in your hand", an attempt to prevent an irregularity. But if declarer gets "low spade" or whatever out of his mouth, dummy's only permissible action is to place the dummy's lowest spade in the played position. What usually happens at this point is that one of the defenders says "you're in your hand" and declarer says "oh" and leads from his hand. This is not correct procedure. A card has been led from dummy. Correct procedure is to call the director — and dummy can do that, because a defender called attention to the irregularity. So "you're in your hand" can be an attempt to prevent an irregularity, or it can be calling attention to an irregularity. All a matter of context.

[bixby]

I don't understand the basis for saying that dummy can tell the declarer where the lead is only if dummy has some reason to believe that the declarer is about to lead from the wrong hand. Law 42B2 says that the dummy "may try to prevent any irregularity." If between tricks the dummy says "you're on the table" or "you're in your hand," dummy is trying to prevent an irregularity. That is permitted by Law 42B2. Law 42B2 does not limit dummy's right to situations where it seems likely that an irregularity is about to occur.

 

I agree that if declarer does lead from the wrong hand, either by calling a card from dummy or leading a card from his hand, it is too late for dummy to try to prevent the irregularity, and dummy may not call attention to such an irregularity once it occurs. But dummy may try to prevent an irregularity before it occurs, and I see no requirement in the laws that limit dummy's right based on degree of probability of the irregularity.

[pescetom]

I heard recently (2nd hand) that there is a recent change to Dummy Rights laws

 

There is a recent change to Dummy's Rights laws, but it concerns Declarer's attempt to revoke in Dummy's hand, not his possible lead from the wrong hand.

 

Law 42 A.3. used to read:

"He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play)."

but now reads:

"He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed and ensures that dummy follows suit (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play)."

 

I take this change as meaning that Dummy can now refuse to play the card named by Declarer if it would constitute a revoke.

If so, it would be logical that Dummy can also refuse to lead out of turn, but the laws don't seem to say this.

[blackshoe]

How exactly is dummy to "refuse to play" a card? Note that when declarer calls for a card from dummy that card is already played. Dummy moving the card into the played position is merely administrative.

 

Is this an exception to "dummy may not call attention to an irregularity"?

 

Should dummy just sit there like a lump, not saying anything? I guarantee that some defenders will simply play over dummy's "revoke", either trying to gain an advantage from it or more likely because they aren't paying attention. Should dummy, in response to "play X" say "no"? Should dummy say "that would be a revoke"? Should dummy call the director? What is proper procedure here?

[pran]

I don't understand the basis for saying that dummy can tell the declarer where the lead is only if dummy has some reason to believe that the declarer is about to lead from the wrong hand. Law 42B2 says that the dummy "may try to prevent any irregularity." If between tricks the dummy says "you're on the table" or "you're in your hand," dummy is trying to prevent an irregularity. That is permitted by Law 42B2. Law 42B2 does not limit dummy's right to situations where it seems likely that an irregularity is about to occur.

 

I agree that if declarer does lead from the wrong hand, either by calling a card from dummy or leading a card from his hand, it is too late for dummy to try to prevent the irregularity, and dummy may not call attention to such an irregularity once it occurs. But dummy may try to prevent an irregularity before it occurs, and I see no requirement in the laws that limit dummy's right based on degree of probability of the irregularity.

If Dummy, before Declarer indicates any intention to lead to a trick, reminds Declarer which hand (Dummy or Declarer) has the lead then Dummy is not preventing an irregularity, he is violating

']

Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

[pran]

How exactly is dummy to "refuse to play" a card? Note that when declarer calls for a card from dummy that card is already played. Dummy moving the card into the played position is merely administrative.

 

Is this an exception to "dummy may not call attention to an irregularity"?

 

Should dummy just sit there like a lump, not saying anything? I guarantee that some defenders will simply play over dummy's "revoke", either trying to gain an advantage from it or more likely because they aren't paying attention. Should dummy, in response to "play X" say "no"? Should dummy say "that would be a revoke"? Should dummy call the director? What is proper procedure here?

I would say that Dummy in such cases must (!) actively refuse to play the card and request Declarer to designate another card. He needs not (IMHO) call the Director.

(Law 43 includes the clause: "Except as Law 42 allows" so Law 42A3 clearly takes precedence over Law 43)

[pescetom]

I would say that Dummy in such cases must (!) actively refuse to play the card and request Declarer to designate another card. He needs not (IMHO) call the Director.

(Law 43 includes the clause: "Except as Law 42 allows" so Law 42A3 clearly takes precedence over Law 43)

 

That seems a reasonable interpretation to me too.

But it would surely have been logical and desirable had they modified 42A3 to read something like:

"He may refuse to play the card designated (as Law 46 allows) by declarer only if a) it is not his turn to play; b) no such card exists in his hand; c) the card does not follow suit when this is possible (See Law 45F if dummy suggests a play)".

[pran]

That seems a reasonable interpretation to me too.

But it would surely have been logical and desirable had they modified 42A3 to read something like:

"He may refuse to play the card designated (as Law 46 allows) by declarer only if a) it is not his turn to play; b) no such card exists in his hand; c) the card does not follow suit when this is possible (See Law 45F if dummy suggests a play)".

I disagree.

You probably overlook Law 44C. The change in Law 42A3 simply emphasizes as a fact that Dummy has the same duty as the other players to actively avoid violations of Law 44C in plays from his/their hand.

 

It is apparently not the intention with Law 42A3 to extend Dummy's duties with watching other activities by Declarer.

[pescetom]

I disagree.

You probably overlook Law 44C. The change in Law 42A3 simply emphasizes as a fact that Dummy has the same duty as the other players to actively avoid violations of Law 44C in plays from his/their hand.

 

It is apparently not the intention with Law 42A3 to extend Dummy's duties with watching other activities by Declarer.

 

I'm not an expert on law or even a Director, just a player, so I tread carefully here.

But this "duty to actively avoid" wasn't present in Law42A3 previously and I note that other experts on law do consider it to be a new right of Dummy.

 

The other changes I suggest reflect my own views of how to improve the laws, not an attempt to interpret the will of the lawmakers.

I agree that they don't seem to want to extend Dummy's rights to be able to refuse to play out of turn, etc. - unfortunately IMO.

[blackshoe]

As Sven said, it's not in Law 43, it's in Law 44.

 

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

The emphasis in this law is mine.

[barmar]

I'm not an expert on law or even a Director, just a player, so I tread carefully here.

Why do people often feel the need for this disclaimer? The Laws are written in plain English (and translated to other languages by their respective NBOs), just about anyone can read and understand them. Directors don't have any special command of the language, and "experts" are mostly just people who have participated in online discussions like these. Where there's ambiguity, we're likely to be just as confused as anyone, and rarely able to come to a strong concensus, no matter how expert we think we are.

[weejonnie]

Why do people often feel the need for this disclaimer? The Laws are written in plain English (and translated to other languages by their respective NBOs), just about anyone can read and understand them. Directors don't have any special command of the language, and "experts" are mostly just people who have participated in online discussions like these. Where there's ambiguity, we're likely to be just as confused as anyone, and rarely able to come to a strong concensus, no matter how expert we think we are.

True - but directors are taught how the laws are applied and where in the laws is the appropriate instruction. Just ask any player what his rights are as declarer if RHO (instead of LHO) faces a card when LHO has one face down as opening lead. (Or get any non-director to discuss the implications of UI).

 

Even now, I bet some directors don't know what to do if called when a card is exposed before the first call in an auction. For a player it is a SEP (Someone Else's problem)

[pescetom]

Why do people often feel the need for this disclaimer? The Laws are written in plain English (and translated to other languages by their respective NBOs), just about anyone can read and understand them. Directors don't have any special command of the language, and "experts" are mostly just people who have participated in online discussions like these. Where there's ambiguity, we're likely to be just as confused as anyone, and rarely able to come to a strong concensus, no matter how expert we think we are.

 

That the Director is a normal person and can make mistakes we all learned a long time ago :)

I can and do read the Laws and spot some ambiguities, but as a player I know relatively little about how they are interpreted and applied by Directors, and even less about how they are applied in other countries or were applied many years ago. I'm learning from these discussions and grateful for that.

[blackshoe]

But Barry, by definition "expert" means "I'm right, so shut up." B-)

[barmar]

True - but directors are taught how the laws are applied and where in the laws is the appropriate instruction.

Maybe over there they are. On this side of the pond, anyone can take an open-book test and become a club director. There are classes offered, but they're optional.

[pran]

Maybe over there they are. On this side of the pond, anyone can take an open-book test and become a club director. There are classes offered, but they're optional.

When I passed my exams as district TD back in 1980 and further as national TD in 1984 the difference was said to be:

A district TD is assumed capable to apply the laws while a national director is assumed to also understand the laws.

[lamford]

The Laws are written in plain English

That is arguable.

[barmar]

That is arguable.

Counter-examples?

 

Sometimes it may not be the best wording, but it's still pretty plain.

[barmar]

When I passed my exams as district TD back in 1980 and further as national TD in 1984 the difference was said to be:

A district TD is assumed capable to apply the laws while a national director is assumed to also understand the laws.

Yeah, I suspect there's some actual training for ACBL-employeed TDs. But the vast majority of directors are club directors, for which the bar is very low.

 

I took the class 15-20 years ago, and at that time they spent a decent amount of time on matchpointing by hand. I suspect these days much of the class is devoted to learning how to get around ACBLScore, not the Laws.

[bixby]

If Dummy, before Declarer indicates any intention to lead to a trick, reminds Declarer which hand (Dummy or Declarer) has the lead then Dummy is not preventing an irregularity, he is violating [Law 43A1C].

 

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I don't see where you're getting that. Leading from the wrong hand is an irregularity, and reminding declarer where the lead is therefore constitutes trying to prevent an irregularity. You have not cited any law that requires that an irregularity be likely before dummy may try to prevent it. All you have cited is the law that says that dummy may not participate in the play or communicate anything about the play to declarer, but that law is necessarily limited by dummy's right to try to prevent an irregularity, so I don't see how that law gets us anywhere. We're just back to the question of whether dummy was trying to prevent an irregularity.

 

If, as dummy puts down his cards, dummy says, "remember, play proceeds clockwise," then dummy is trying to prevent an irregularity. Not a very likely one, perhaps, but again, there is no requirement that the irregularity be likely.

 

And here's one more point: If, before declarer provides any indication of which hand he is thinking of leading from, dummy says, "the lead is in dummy," then there are two possibilities:

 

1. Declarer was going to lead from dummy, in which case dummy's remark made no difference, or

2. Declarer was going to lead from his hand, in which case dummy's remark prevented an irregularity.

 

In either case, how is dummy wrongfully participating in the play?

[Vampyr]

That is arguable.

 

Arguable or simply false?

[pran]

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I don't see where you're getting that. Leading from the wrong hand is an irregularity, and reminding declarer where the lead is therefore constitutes trying to prevent an irregularity. You have not cited any law that requires that an irregularity be likely before dummy may try to prevent it. All you have cited is the law that says that dummy may not participate in the play or communicate anything about the play to declarer, but that law is necessarily limited by dummy's right to try to prevent an irregularity, so I don't see how that law gets us anywhere. We're just back to the question of whether dummy was trying to prevent an irregularity.

 

If, as dummy puts down his cards, dummy says, "remember, play proceeds clockwise," then dummy is trying to prevent an irregularity. Not a very likely one, perhaps, but again, there is no requirement that the irregularity be likely.

 

And here's one more point: If, before declarer provides any indication of which hand he is thinking of leading from, dummy says, "the lead is in dummy," then there are two possibilities:

 

1. Declarer was going to lead from dummy, in which case dummy's remark made no difference, or

2. Declarer was going to lead from his hand, in which case dummy's remark prevented an irregularity.

 

In either case, how is dummy wrongfully participating in the play?

With this understanding of Law 9A3 dummy is entitled to prevent irregularities by (for each and every trick) saying to the player who won the last trick:

"Remember that you have the lead to the next trick!"

 

Dummy is wrongfully participating in the play if he, without any indication that an irregularity is about to happen, makes any remark or comment about the play.