Permitted communication during bidding and play

[Liversidge]

I can't find anything in the Laws of Bridge that cover what you can and cannot say that may possibly help partner. I think that dummy can't say anything other than " Having none, partner" but what about other situations like these:

 

1. LHO makes an insufficient bid. Can you draw partner's attention to the misbid just in case he misses it?

2. Partner has placed one of his spent cards the wrong way round. Can you say anything?

[ahydra]

1) You should not be drawing partner's attention specifically, but instead drawing the whole table's general attention to the irregularity, and calling the TD (I cannot emphasise that point enough!). Partner will then have the choice to accept the bid.

 

2) Yes, you can point it out up until your side leads or plays to the next trick, as per L65B3

 

A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

 

Certainly this is the case for declarer and defenders; as for dummy, I'm not sure. L65B3 does specifically say "a player" here, not "declarer or either defender" as in other laws; but it could also be argued that pointing out a trick the wrong way is "drawing attention to an irregularity during play" and is therefore prohibited by L43A1b. Personally I've always erred on the side of keeping quiet about this while I'm dummy.

 

edit: Just spotted that L65B3 is referenced from L9A2:

 

Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For an incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.

 

I'd say that wording suggests dummy is explicitly excluded from being able to point out incorrectly-turned cards.

 

ahydra

[pran]

I can't find anything in the Laws of Bridge that cover what you can and cannot say that may possibly help partner. I think that dummy can't say anything other than " Having none, partner" but what about other situations like these:

 

1. LHO makes an insufficient bid. Can you draw partner's attention to the misbid just in case he misses it?

2. Partner has placed one of his spent cards the wrong way round. Can you say anything?

1: Yes - and the Director should be called Laws 9A1 and 9B

2: Yes - Law 65B3

[pran]

[...]

edit: Just spotted that L65B3 is referenced from L9A2:

 

I'd say that wording suggests dummy is explicitly excluded from being able to point out incorrectly-turned cards.

ahydra

L65B3 is a more specific law than L9A2 and as such overrides (takes precedence over) L9A2.

[sfi]

I can't find anything in the Laws of Bridge that cover what you can and cannot say that may possibly help partner. I think that dummy can't say anything other than " Having none, partner" but what about other situations like these:

 

1. LHO makes an insufficient bid. Can you draw partner's attention to the misbid just in case he misses it?

 

No, dummy may not draw attention to this. Law 9A4 explicitly says that dummy may not do so, and it is not listed in Law 42 as one of dummy's rights.

 

As a director, even if dummy is the first one to draw attention to the irregularity I have to deal with it. However, I do have the right to award a procedural penalty for dummy's actions and it is very unlikely anyone who should know better would improve their score by doing so.

[pran]

I can't find anything in the Laws of Bridge that cover what you can and cannot say that may possibly help partner. I think that dummy can't say anything other than " Having none, partner" but what about other situations like these:

 

1. LHO makes an insufficient bid. Can you draw partner's attention to the misbid just in case he misses it?

 

No, dummy may not draw attention to this. Law 9A4 explicitly says that dummy may not do so, and it is not listed in Law 42 as one of dummy's rights.

 

As a director, even if dummy is the first one to draw attention to the irregularity I have to deal with it. However, I do have the right to award a procedural penalty for dummy's actions and it is very unlikely anyone who should know better would improve their score by doing so.

There is no dummy during the auction!

The irregularity is an insufficient bid :P

[sfi]

There is no dummy during the auction!

The irregularity is an insufficient bid :P

Well, that's just obvious, isn't it? Not sure what I was thinking.

[BudH]

1) You should not be drawing partner's attention specifically, but instead drawing the whole table's general attention to the irregularity, and calling the TD (I cannot emphasise that point enough!). Partner will then have the choice to accept the bid.

 

2) Yes, you can point it out up until your side leads or plays to the next trick, as per L65B3

 

Certainly this is the case for declarer and defenders; as for dummy, I'm not sure. L65B3 does specifically say "a player" here, not "declarer or either defender" as in other laws; but it could also be argued that pointing out a trick the wrong way is "drawing attention to an irregularity during play" and is therefore prohibited by L43A1b. Personally I've always erred on the side of keeping quiet about this while I'm dummy.

 

edit: Just spotted that L65B3 is referenced from L9A2:

 

I'd say that wording suggests dummy is explicitly excluded from being able to point out incorrectly-turned cards.

 

ahydra

This was recently addressed on Bridgewinners. If you look at the pre-2017 law wording (much clearer) and also the official commentary on the 2017 law changes (example 3 in http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017LawsCommentary.pdf ), it is clear that dummy has the same rights as the other players to inform partner of an incorrectly pointed quitted trick card prior to his side playing a card to the next trick.

[Vampyr]

1) You should not be drawing partner's attention specifically, but instead drawing the whole table's general attention to the irregularity, and calling the TD (I cannot emphasise that point enough!). Partner will then have the choice to accept the bid.

 

2) Yes, you can point it out up until your side leads or plays to the next trick, as per L65B3

 

 

 

Certainly this is the case for declarer and defenders; as for dummy, I'm not sure. L65B3 does specifically say "a player" here, not "declarer or either defender" as in other laws; but it could also be argued that pointing out a trick the wrong way is "drawing attention to an irregularity during play" and is therefore prohibited by L43A1b. Personally I've always erred on the side of keeping quiet about this while I'm dummy.

 

edit: Just spotted that L65B3 is referenced from L9A2:

 

 

 

I'd say that wording suggests dummy is explicitly excluded from being able to point out incorrectly-turned cards.

 

ahydra

 

Actually, it suggests just the opposite, doesn’t it.

[pran]

L65B3 is a more specific law than L9A2 and as such overrides (takes precedence over) L9A2.

So when

Actually, it suggests just the opposite, doesn’t it.

he is absolutely correct and it is not a matter of suggestion. "player" below includes dummy

A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

[barmar]

It would be clearer if 65B3 said something like "A player (including dummy) may draw attention to...". I think there's precedent for this in some other laws, to emphasize that it's an exception to the general restrictions on dummy.

[pran]

It would be clearer if 65B3 said something like "A player (including dummy) may draw attention to...". I think there's precedent for this in some other laws, to emphasize that it's an exception to the general restrictions on dummy.

Definitely not:

The laws explicitly exclude dummy wherever a reference to "player" does not include dummy. (I believe some exceptions to this principle can be found, but if so they cause no problem).

Examples:

Law 65 is consistent in referring to "player" as any of the four players at the table.

Law 66 is equally consistent in referring to "declarer or either defender" when dummy is excluded.

[pescetom]

Definitely not:

The laws explicitly exclude dummy wherever a reference to "player" does not include dummy. (I believe some exceptions to this principle can be found, but if so they cause no problem).

Examples:

Law 65 is consistent in referring to "player" as any of the four players at the table.

Law 66 is equally consistent in referring to "declarer or either defender" when dummy is excluded.

 

I think "no problem" and "consistent" are overbids here. If Directors don't agree about what a Law means then there is a problem, whoever is right. As for consistency, in general "player" seems to be any of the four players at the table, but 68D2 says "If it is doubted by any player (dummy included)" which is probably what Barmar was thinking about and 70B3 says "The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table" which seems superfluous for dummy.

[pran]

I think "no problem" and "consistent" are overbids here. If Directors don't agree about what a Law means then there is a problem, whoever is right. As for consistency, in general "player" seems to be any of the four players at the table, but 68D2 says "If it is doubted by any player (dummy included)" which is probably what Barmar was thinking about and 70B3 says "The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table" which seems superfluous for dummy.

After any claim or concession, play is suspended.

1. If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies.

2. If it is doubted by any player (dummy included); either

[...]

so the clause "dummy included" is just a reminder of the fact that play is suspended and dummy has regained his full rights as a regular player. This clause does not legally add anything to the law.

 

Most qualified directors have absolutely no problem with dummy ceasing to be dummy at the very moment play of a board is completed, whether in the normal way or as the consequence of a claim or a concession.

[blackshoe]

As you say, it's a reminder, but it seems to me the clause in 68D is necessary, because at that point, play has not ceased, only been suspended, so that technically dummy is still dummy. The situation with 65D is a bit different.

2007 law 65B3: Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly is pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

2017 law 65B3: A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply

Note that the significant difference here is that in the older law, declarer's right to require a card to be pointed correctly never expires, while in the newer law, he can only point out the irregularity, and his right to do so expires at the same time as for the other three players.

[pran]

As you say, it's a reminder, but it seems to me the clause in 68D is necessary, because at that point, play has not ceased, only been suspended, so that technically dummy is still dummy.

I agree, and think the change from "play ceases" (in earlier laws) to "play is suspended" must have been the new

upon the request of the non-claiming or non-conceding side, play may continue subject to the following:

(i) all four players must concur; otherwise the Director is summoned, who then proceeds as in (a) above.

(ii) the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16 and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand.

which on very specific and limiting conditions allow play to continue as if there were no claim or concession.

[blackshoe]

Yes, of course.

[pescetom]

2007 law 65B3: Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly is pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

 

2017 law 65B3: A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply

 

Note that the significant difference here is that in the older law, declarer's right to require a card to be pointed correctly never expires, while in the newer law, he can only point out the irregularity, and his right to do so expires at the same time as for the other three players.

A less significant difference but worthy of note is that another player can now point out an irregularity when the opponents have made a lead to the next trick but his side has not yet played to it.

[pran]

2007 law 65B3: Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly is pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

 

2017 law 65B3: A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply

 

Note that the significant difference here is that in the older law, declarer's right to require a card to be pointed correctly never expires, while in the newer law, he can only point out the irregularity, and his right to do so expires at the same time as for the other three players.

 

A less significant difference but worthy of note is that another player can now point out an irregularity when the opponents have made a lead to the next trick but his side has not yet played to it.

Please avoid mixing the specific Law 65 with the more general Law 9! You are seriously confusing the issues here.

[blackshoe]

Pran: The statement is true. I don't understand your objection to it.

[pran]

Pran: The statement is true. I don't understand your objection to it.

1. Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

2. Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For an incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.

Nothing in this (general) law says anything about "leading or playing to the following trick".

This limitation applies only to incorrectly pointed cards as explicitly specified in Law 65B3.

And observe that the clause "Unless prohibited by Law" excludes for instance Dummy in many situations from the rights otherwise given in Law 9.

 

So sorry - the statement I marked is very unfortunate and in many situations directly wrong.

[blackshoe]

Nothing in this (general) law says anything about "leading or playing to the following trick".

This limitation applies only to incorrectly pointed cards as explicitly specified in Law 65B3.

And observe that the clause "Unless prohibited by Law" excludes for instance Dummy in many situations from the rights otherwise given in Law 9.

 

So sorry - the statement I marked is very unfortunate and in many situations directly wrong.

As I read it, he was talking about the specific irregularity of pointing a card wrong. Granted he didn't say so, but context is important. In the context of someone having pointed a card wrong the statement is, as I said earlier, correct.

[pran]

As I read it, he was talking about the specific irregularity of pointing a card wrong. Granted he didn't say so, but context is important. In the context of someone having pointed a card wrong the statement is, as I said earlier, correct.

And the next player to read that statement absorbs it subconsciously disregarding the context.

 

I don't know how many times during my 40 years as director I have had players "knowing the rules" because they were told so by a director in another situation, only that it turned out the original situation had been different.

 

In this case all he remembers is that "a player can now point out an irregularity when the opponents have made a lead to the next trick but his side has not yet played to it".

No limitation to the kind of irregularity or which player.

[pescetom]

Pran, I was talking specifically about pointing, as the quotes of the two versions of law 65 makes clear.

 

It's a small change, and arguably not a good one, but it seems fairly evident. IIRC the 2017 Laws Commentary implies that the intention was was to align to establishment of a revoke.

[Vampyr]

I don’t understand the difficulty here. Law 9A2 specificities declarer and defenders. Then it directs one to 65B3 for tricks turned the wrong way, and here we find the phrase “a player”. I do not think the difference is random, nor do I even think that cards turned the wrong way is an irregularity.