Lead from Dummy
I note several players who put their hand on the table, vertically with the palm towards them and leave it there to indicate that Dummy is on lead rather than declarer.
I think they are taught to do this but to me it contravenes 43A1c.
Alan
Comments
I should have said it's Dummy doing this.
Alan
I agree.
Alan
I tend to agree but I can also see it as an extension of preventing a lead by declarer from his own hand. If partner is in dummy and I see them about to pull a card from their own hand, I'll typically tap the table or say, "You're in Dummy" or "You're on table", which are all legal.
Is leaving your hand on the table to leave partner a reminder that he's in Dummy so egregiously different that it should be considered an irregularity? I'm on the fence. I don't personally do it, since I'm sure that it would annoy partner way more than it could possibly help them to keep track of what they should already know.
My interpretation of the Laws is that dummy can try to stop a declarer who's in the process of trying to lead from the wrong hand (9A3, 42B2), but can't correct a declarer before (43A1c) or after (42B3, 43A1b) the lead happens. This feels vaguely inconsistent to me, in that there's such a precise timing window.
The wording of 43B2a makes it seem to me like there was some sentiment that dummy should be allowed to remind declarer which hand to lead from as long as dummy hasn't lost their rights (although nothing else seems to directly support that). Allowing dummy to be responsible for keeping track of whose lead it is doesn't seem like it'd be a ridiculous thing to do; at any rate, it'd be nice to have a clarification on the subject.
On a slightly different but highly related subject: as declarer, I sometimes completely forget where the lead is, and thus ask "Whose lead is it?". Who is legally allowed to answer me? Is anyone obligated to answer me? (And if nobody answers, which hand should I lead from?)
It is generally accepted that dummy can only attempt to prevent an irregularity when there is some sign the irregularity is about to happen. Dummy can not remind declarer at each trick which hand is to play.
("But partner never knows which hand he is in - so every trick is potential irregularity." :))
You are allowed to turn over your last card (without revealing it to anyone) - that might help. (I often find at the club that a player turns over their card and then faces it and asks for the others to do so also. I decline and as I don;t think attention has been drawn to the irregularity, don;t do anything).
If no one answers you then you can call the director - at least he has to make a ruling that allows play to continue. Alternatively you can start to lead very slowly from your hand to give dummy (or the opponents) the chance to correct the lead. (If dummy gets it wrong then the worst that can happen is that the LOOT is declined and you have revealed a card).
In my part of the world, in club level tournaments, when declarer asks 'where am I'? three voices speak up ''hand' or 'table'. Nobody is even aware that there may be a violation of a law involved. It would be considered unsporting to not respond to the declarer.
Well anyone may try and stop any irregularity (dummy subject to laws 42 and 43) - Law 9A3.
True, but to stop an irregularity you have to wait for it to start to happen (see Robin's post above). I got the impression from the comments that it is considered improper for dummy to tell declarer from which hand to lead until he actually starts to lead from the wrong hand. If this understanding of mine is incorrect I withdraw my comment.
To respond to ais523's post, where he wants to know if anybody is obligated to answer his question 'whose lead is it?', wouldn't dummy always tell him? Why would dummy, his partner, keep quiet?
If declarer asks, it is harmless to dummy to answer.
(Declarer asking is some indication that they do not know, and may be about to lead from the wrong hand, so there is a potential irregularity to be prevented!)
I think a situation where nobody is sure who's on lead, and they can't ask, does risk descending into farce :)
Agree
Agree entirely
It is slightly odd that the Laws provide for the consequences of leading from the wrong hand, having been misinformed by an opponent where the lead is, but don't actually provide for who should answer a "where am I?" question.
I agree that in practice all three opponents usually answer. Sometimes they even all say the same thing.
Declarer is on lead but mistakenly calls for a card from dummy.
He points towards dummy and starts 'six of.............' but before he can finish dummy interrupts and says 'you are in hand'.
What is the position if:
there is only one 'six' in dummy.
there is more than one 'six' in dummy.
Has dummy been in time to 'prevent' an irregularity in each case? Or is the sole six a played card and dummy has to ask 'which six' if there is more than one? And then law 55 applies?
If he has not finished speaking and not completed the designation, the card has not yet been played and dummy is in time to prevent the irregularity.
Thanks for the clarification