Can dummy ever initiate a call for the director "off his own back"?
Law 43A1a: Dummy may not initiate a call for the Director during play unless another player has drawn attention to an irregularity.
Situation: The opening lead has just been faced. Dummy's partner failed to alert a call during the auction. Dummy knows he should say something, but doesn't know when he should say it.
Can he call the director to ask what he should do?
Comments
Dummy must call the director before the end of the auction period (when he isn't dummy). Law 20F5
(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his
partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity,
which is:
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.
So he has actually missed the correct time to do so - but definitely should do so now. Obviously it is too late to allow the TD to re-open the auction (which is the reason why you call him before the opening lead is faced) but at least the opponents have a better chance of not being misled and thus playing the hand correctly. The TD will probably find out from each opponent in turn whether they would have done someting different in the auction or led a different card had they known the facts.
Although dummy may not initiate a calll, that is a general condition. The circumstances in 20F5 are more specific and therefore IMHO over-ride it. You may note that 'dummy' is specifically mentioned in this law (although whether it should be 'presumed declarer or presumed dummy' is discussable).
What's your legal basis for claiming this?
The general point was more that there can be occasions when dummy is unsure what the law says, and whether s/he should take action Surely it must be right to call the director for clarification on the law at such a point?
If so, where does the law allow for this? Laws generally don't have a "that's plainly silly so we can ignore it" aspect.
I don't agree with this. 20F5b says explicitly when the Director must be called and dummy has missed the boat. Having failed to do what was required, I don't see why the declaring side should be allowed the benefit of mitigating the damage they may have caused through misinformation. They just need to wait and accept the potential adjustment, with doubtful points in the defence's favour, that will follow.
The whole point of a fair proportion of the laws is to do precisely that - allowing offenders to mitigate the damage they may have caused (e.g. correcting a revoke that has not been established).
I'm not disagreeing with your comment on what the laws say (heaven forfend!) but with whether it would be better if in such situations damage could be mitigated.
Suppose Dummy does call the director (who will presumably respond even though Dummy is not allowed to). What are the consequences? Misinformation (and hence potential for damage) is reduced, and Dummy gets reminded that s/he may not call the director in such circumstances.
Better perhaps to call the director anyway? (But then Law 72B1: A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even
if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.)
Yes, they are, but my point was that it's the offenders who potentially gain from this, so there is no reason why we should try to bend the rules to allow them to do this when they have failed to follow what is required of them, even if through ignorance.
All I'm saying is, follow the words of the law and don't feel sorry for the offenders!
It is interesting, though that the word 'dummy' is used in the law I quoted.
Dummy: 1. Declarer’s partner. He becomes dummy when the opening
lead is faced and ceases to be dummy when play ends.
So, as I said, this seems specifically to allow dummy to call the TD. Before the card is faced (which is the correct time to do so) he is not dummy.
I think you are reading too much into this! I think there are other cases when dummy is read as "presumed dummy".
I think dummy can call the director in order to clarify the player's responsibilities - this clarification should probably happen away from the table to avoid directly drawing attention to any irregularity.
I also think dummy can (should be able to) call the director when there is bad behaviour and the situation has got sufficiently serious that intervention by the director is needed now (cannot wait until the end of the hand).
Yes, if a player who had been behaving badly turned round and asked me to penalise dummy for calling the director, I would hardly be impressed.
Putting it on a legal footing, I think we could argue that seeking clarification as to the law is not calling (summoning) the director to a situation at the table, thus not transgressing Law 43A1a.