Dummy tapping on the board

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

 

In today's game the OPS dummy was tapping on

the board. I know the rules have changed over

the years but I recall that at one time this

was illegal. The reason being that dummy could

be drawing attention to a suit that declarer

should lead or not lead or whatever. Does this

rule still exist.

 

Jerryd

[ahydra]

If the intention is to remind declarer that the lead is on the table (for example, if dummy saw that declarer was pulling a card from his hand) then this is legal: L42B2. To indicate a particular suit is most definitely not legal. So dummy should best tap behind all the cards so it's clear no one suit in particular is indicated, or simply say "lead's on the table".

 

Interestingly, Law 42B2 has now been changed to remove the qualifier "by declarer" - so does that mean dummy can warn a defender if he's about to lead out of turn? (Though obviously it's not necessarily in his side's interest to do so.)

 

ahydra

[Vampyr]

I think that dummy’s reaching over the faced cards and to the centre of the table is a highly unusual action. Perhaps his intention was to remind declarer of the vulnerability.

[jerdonald]

Vampyr,

 

Dummy was just tapping behind the cards but in line with one of the suits.

I don't think, in this case, he was trying to indicate anything to the

declarer but if this isn't illegal unscrupulous players could and would use

this to their advantage. Perhaps dummy knows there is a boss card on the

board and doesn't know if declarer remembers it.

 

Jerryd

[gordontd]

I think that dummy’s reaching over the faced cards and to the centre of the table is a highly unusual action. Perhaps his intention was to remind declarer of the vulnerability.

I think you are understanding the word "board" in a different way to that intended in the original post.

[gordontd]

If the intention is to remind declarer that the lead is on the table (for example, if dummy saw that declarer was pulling a card from his hand) then this is legal: L42B2.

I think it needs to be said that it is not generally considered to be legal unless declarer was about to lead from the wrong hand, which I don't see in the original post.

[pescetom]

I would have thought that tapping is overkill if the intention is to illegally suggest a play: simply hovering the hand over the chosen suit is usually considered sufficient, although some add a meaningful glance at declarer to be certain :angry:

[ahydra]

I would have thought that tapping is overkill if the intention is to illegally suggest a play: simply hovering the hand over the chosen suit is usually considered sufficient, although some add a meaningful glance at declarer to be certain :angry:

 

Or pointing at their heart, ring finger (diamond), or miming golfing/digging :).

 

I once had a partner who would suggest plays by putting her hand near the card she guessed I would/should call for. It was surprisingly offputting and thankfully that partnership ended after a short while. She only did this in club games, not in a tournament setting because no doubt the opps might have had something to say.

 

ahydra

[Tramticket]

If the intention is to remind declarer that the lead is on the table (for example, if dummy saw that declarer was pulling a card from his hand) then this is legal: L42B2.

 

Yes, but only up to a point I think. If declarer appears to be about to play from the wrong hand then it is perfectly proper for dummy to prevent this.

 

But if dummy is indicating at every play then it seems excessive, probably rather annoying to the other players and probably not intended by this law.

[barmar]

There's nothing specific in the Laws about tapping on the table. If you think he's indicating a specific card, it would be a violation of 43A1c:

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

 

It could also just be annoying, which violates 74A2:

A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

You could also resort to this law to deal with people who snap their cards when playing them.

[axman]

Yes, but only up to a point I think. If declarer appears to be about to play from the wrong hand then it is perfectly proper for dummy to prevent this.

 

 

I think that there is some hyperbole here. My characterization would be that it is somewhat reasonable to tap the table (once) to attempt get declarer to stop POOT. Somewhat, because it can be construed as participating in the play, and therefore requires some care to avoid such construing; besides, 'it's not declarer's turn' is probably best.

[blackshoe]

But it is declarer's turn - to play from dummy!

 

What's wrong with "You're on the board" or "the lead is in dummy"?

[pran]

But it is declarer's turn - to play from dummy!

 

What's wrong with "You're on the board" or "the lead is in dummy"?

Nothing, provided declarer is about to lead from the wrong hand (Law 42B2)

 

Otherwise is is a violation of

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

[blackshoe]

So there is someone who is more pedantic than I am. Good to know. ;)

[Vampyr]

I think it needs to be said that it is not generally considered to be legal unless declarer was about to lead from the wrong hand, which I don't see in the original post.

 

Yes. Perhaps the table was an actual board balanced on sawhorses.

[pran]

So there is someone who is more pedantic than I am. Good to know. ;)

Well then,

where do you draw the line?

(... between Law 42B2 and Law 43A1{c} )

[weejonnie]

Well then,

where do you draw the line?

(... between Law 42B2 and Law 43A1{c} )

You can't: Law 42 says "Subject to the restrictions in Law 43" and Law 43 says "Except as Law 42 allows". Although EBU doctrine is that dummy must be aware that declarer must be about to commit an irregularity before he can forestall him, this does not appear to be inculcated in the laws - unless it is agreed that stating (before declarer makes any movement) "you are in your hand/ dummy" is participating in the play or communicating anything about the play to declarer AND is not a try to prevent an irregularity. We could get metaphysical here and ask "If dummy is not aware of an intent to commit an irregularity, can he try and prevent it?" (noise in the woods).

[pran]

You can't: Law 42 says "Subject to the restrictions in Law 43" and Law 43 says "Except as Law 42 allows". Although EBU doctrine is that dummy must be aware that declarer must be about to commit an irregularity before he can forestall him, this does not appear to be inculcated in the laws - unless it is agreed that stating (before declarer makes any movement) "you are in your hand/ dummy" is participating in the play or communicating anything about the play to declarer AND is not a try to prevent an irregularity. We could get metaphysical here and ask "If dummy is not aware of an intent to commit an irregularity, can he try and prevent it?" (noise in the woods).

Exactly the point.

 

Now consider a dummy who at each and every trick, before declarer initiates any action to that trick "prevents declarer from committing an irregularity" by announcing (as the case might be):

"It is not your lead"

"It is your lead from your own hand"

"It is your lead from dummy"

 

and claims that he is only executing his right as Dummy according to Law 42B2.

 

For the record: My opinion is that Dummy has no such right unless he has a (qualified) reason to believe that Declarer is about to commit an irregularity. (And this right expires at the very moment Declarer in fact has committed that irregularity, for instance once Declarer has called a card from Dummy.)

 

In practice "we" are lenient with a Dummy who instead of playing the called card responds with "the lead is from your hand", but this is technically calling attention to the irregularity, not attempting to prevent it.

[blackshoe]

In practice "we" are lenient with a Dummy who instead of playing the called card responds with "the lead is from your hand", but this is technically calling attention to the irregularity, not attempting to prevent it.

We are. Perhaps we shouldn't be.

[weejonnie]

We are. Perhaps we shouldn't be.

We would have to be called by someone at the table - the fact that we should be called is irrelevant: in 99% of the cases the declarer apologises and makes the lead from the right hand and that ends the matter. In 1% of the cases declarer is trying to create an extra entry to dummy (or his hand).

[barmar]

Reminding declarer of which hand he's in as a way to prevent an irregularity is as ridiculous as putting up signs reminding drivers not to text while driving as a way to prevent accidents. We should clearly wait until the driver is apparently about to text and then warn him not to.

[pescetom]

Reminding declarer of which hand he's in as a way to prevent an irregularity is as ridiculous as putting up signs reminding drivers not to text while driving as a way to prevent accidents. We should clearly wait until the driver is apparently about to text and then warn him not to.

 

Maybe just punish him adequately when caught texting at the wheel.

After all, that's the way laws work in the real world and in most other sports too.

But for some strange reason bridge laws bend over backwards to forgive mistakes.

Declarer plays from wrong hand or dummy interferes in play? - infraction, 10% of top score or 2 tricks to opponents or whatever.

Harsh? Maybe. But the players won't repeat the same mistake and TDs won't need to read forums to know how to rule B-)

[blackshoe]

But for some strange reason bridge laws bend over backwards to forgive mistakes.

Declarer plays from wrong hand or dummy interferes in play? - infraction, 10% of top score or 2 tricks to opponents or whatever.

Harsh? Maybe. But the players won't repeat the same mistake and TDs won't need to read forums to know how to rule B-)

It's not the laws that bend over backwards to forgive mistakes, it's the directors.

 

If dummy interferes in the play, he has done something that he "must not" do. Such an offense is, according to the laws, "a serious matter indeed". His side should incur a procedural penalty for a first offense. Directors will rarely if ever do that. If dummy's interference damages the opponents, the score will be adjusted — if the director follows the law.

 

If declarer plays from the wrong hand, it may be accepted by an opp, or not. If not, it's withdrawn and he leads from the correct hand. If he gains in the play from this infraction, the score will be adjusted. If he makes a habit of leading or playing from the wrong hand, as one of my partners does, he should at some point get a procedural penalty. "Oh, that's just not done" you say? Perhaps that's at least part of the problem.

[barmar]

It's not the laws that bend over backwards to forgive mistakes, it's the directors.

 

If dummy interferes in the play, he has done something that he "must not" do. Such an offense is, according to the laws, "a serious matter indeed". His side should incur a procedural penalty for a first offense. Directors will rarely if ever do that. If dummy's interference damages the opponents, the score will be adjusted — if the director follows the law.

To be fair, the line between "preventing an infraction" (allowed) and "participate in the play" (not allowed) is not so clear.

 

Some people have opined that dummy can only try to prevent an infraction when it's clear that declarer is about to commit one. But the Law never actually says this. This is a matter of interpretation, and other interpretations are possible.

[pran]

To be fair, the line between "preventing an infraction" (allowed) and "participate in the play" (not allowed) is not so clear.

 

Some people have opined that dummy can only try to prevent an infraction when it's clear that declarer is about to commit one. But the Law never actually says this. This is a matter of interpretation, and other interpretations are possible.

Then please clarify exactly how you interpret the laws and rule on:

Dummy who at each and every trick, before declarer initiates any action to that trick

"prevents declarer from committing an irregularity" by announcing (as the case might be):

- "It is not your lead"

- "It is your lead from your own hand"

- "It is your lead from dummy"

 

and claims that he is only executing his right as Dummy according to Law 42B2.

 

(ref. my post #16)