Dummy's best option?
From my current bridge holiday...
Defender leads S4, then quickly realises it's not his lead so withdraws it.
Declarer hasn't noticed, but Dummy has.
If dummy waits until the end of the hand (Laws 42B3, 43A1a,b), it's quite possible, even probable, that the action will be disputed.
What is Dummy's best option?
Comments
I've looked throught the laws and as far as I can see it's not entirely clear, but it seems to me that it has not yet been determined who is dummy, and the person we are talking about is actually the presumed dummy, so I think any player can draw attention to the infraction.
I'm not sure they'd be any adjustment if dummy were to wait until the end of the hand. If declarer doesn't see the lead and plays they're considered to have accepted the lead. So maybe we don't have to worry about the facts being disputed.
On the opening lead I'd tend to agree with Gordon. Although like him I can't think of a clear cut reason.
Clarification: this is not the opening trick
Law 53B says otherwise.
Sorry: not the 1st trick or opening lead
53B is subject to 53A. Admittedly the situation where declarer follows quickly as the correct player makes a lead might be murky. If play is finished the lead is de facto accepted.
If it's after the first trick dummy really doesn't have any options, the laws don't allow them to draw attention to an irregularity until play is finished. With all the attendant complications.
I think 53A is subject to 53B - the other way round.
That's what the laws seem to say - but it seems wrong.
I'm not sure what to say to that! Other than that the laws about dummy's rights are pretty thorough and it's clearly a deliberate choice.
Possibly because in many of these situations declarer has the option to play on regardless and dummy might be cutting across that perogative if they say anything. Probably mainly on the basis of the historical principle that dummy shouldn't be involved in the play.
That I agree with - it's not being able to call attention to an irregularity during play that doesn't quite gel.
Surely irregularities should be identified and dealt with - no matter how they are identified?
I liken it to the recent comment about a player who asked partner is they really meant their bid - partner didn't (it was a mechanical error), and was allowed to withdraw the bid as the law states "no matter how he may have become aware of his error."
In both cases the outcome seems fairest, albeit "illegal".