Dummy's rights/limitations
Dummy is allowed to prevent an irregularity. So if declarer is about to lead from the wrong hand dummy can prevent him from committing the irregularity. 'About to' is taken to mean that he has started to take a card from hand or has made a move to designate a card from dummy.
What if declarer, after winning a trick in hand or dummy, is thinking but has not yet made a move to lead from either hand. Can dummy tell him 'you are in hand/table'? Would this not be in violation of Law 43 A 1 (c) -' Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer'.
Advice please.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Dummy shouldn't be offering memory aids to declarer.
Many newcomers to the game leave their fist or palm on the table to remind declarer that they are on the table and take it off again when in hand. They shouldn't do this, either.
If called as director by another player for this violation I would remind them that are not allowed to do it. After the tenth warning, or so, I might penalise them. It's fairly innocuous. Of course, if another player is being irritated by the action, I might cut down the number of warnings before being more stern with the action. After all, they are then moving into being in violation of direct instructions from the director.
Thanks. You've confirmed my interpretation of the law. Now the tough job of getting players to change their habit! When I brought this up at my club at a briefing on some common do's and dont's, there were skeptical looks when I mentioned this point.
Interesting - just such a discussion has spread like wildfire around our local clubs.
Initially, the phrasing was that "a change in the laws meant that you cannot leave your hand on the table to remind declarer they are in dummy".
Twenty or so conversations later (with 20 or so students and friends) I have informed 20 or so bridge players that the law was ever thus, it is not a recent change.
On the other hand, we have a number of players who are gently moving into senility, various problems, including dementia, mean that we do have to be generous in non-trophy events to allow a declarer to look at his/her scorecard to remind themselves of the contract. Do we really wish to hound these lovely people who don't have much going for them?
I forget things and I genuinely hope the members of our clubs allow me to carry on playing when I have lost a few more of my marbles.
I'm pretty sure the conclusion we've reached is that dummy can attempt to interrupt declarer's attempt to lead from the wrong hand (e.g. by saying "you're on the table" when declarer detaches a card from hand), but can't tell declarer before the attempt is made, and can't point out the issue after the card is actually lead.
I have 2 major issues with this interpretation.
1) While my partner is thinking what to lead from dummy he constantly pulls cards up and down from his hand so I can never be certain whether or not he is about to lead from the wrong hand or not.
2) If the lead is actually in hand and you wait until partner actually starts to nominate a card from dummy then you are too late. Partner has made an (incomplete) nomination and as dummy you are forbidden from pointing out this infraction.
I don't think so, Dave, regarding point 2. An incomplete designation, if unclear, is no designation at all, which suggests that declarer hasn't yet committed an infraction and, so, dummy may yet prevent it.
It does not matter if the designation is clear or not - once declarer starts to nominate a card. dummy is no longer preventing an infraction, he is (illegally) calling attention to it
Maybe we're imagining different scenarios. If declarer gets as far as saying, "Play the..." and dummy quickly says, "You're in hand", I'd say there has not yet been any infraction.
Well I would like to establish the time interval over which the "right" to prevent partner wrongly leading from dummy actually exists.
@ais523 said:
So we have declarer's intention to say "two of spades please"
The time interval starts when he starts the word two and ends when he finishes the word two. (as a card has now been nominated) As this time interval is shorter than the reaction time of the average bridge player it is being claimed that this "right" does not actually exist.
It may not be possible for dummy to prevent declarer leading from the wrong hand.
However, that does not mean dummy may embark on a running commentary on the play and tell declarer which hand is to play at every trick.
I think that it is this sort of rule (or interpretation of a rule) that puts people off competitive bridge.
To give a crazy alternative - a 'pelican crossing' is there to stop people from crossing the road when they shouldn't. Can you imagine if there was no red man trying to prevent the 'infraction' of crossing when it is not safe, but only flashes up when it looks like someone is about to cross, or puts one foot in the road?
I have no problem with a player putting their hand on the table when in dummy, whats the harm? The loss of the chance of a lead from the wrong hand with the ability to accept/reject the lead?
I cannot understand this idea of preventing something only if it looks like it is just about to happen. In every other walk of life I would use preventative measures more actively - stair gates for babies all the time, not just when they look at the stairs... I lock my car all the time, not just when it looks like someone is about to steal it.
From every dictionary and online source I can find, the word prevent means (in this case from the OED):
1 Keep (something) from happening.
1.1 Stop (someone) from doing something.
2archaic (of God) go before (someone) with spiritual guidance and help.
So, in this instance, dummy is keeping a lead from wrong hand from happening and stopping declarer from making such an incorrect lead.
What if dummy tells declarer, "you are on table" and the ops call the director as they didn't see that declarer was about to lead from the wrong hand? How obvious does this apparent incorrect lead need to be, to allow dummy to say something? if not very, who is to judge?
For me, this is a case of 'no harm, no foul' and if new players (I have never seen experienced players do this) find this helpful, then please carry on doing it, you have enough to worry about, please come again next week :)
One of the problems with newer players (experienced ones, too) and this rule is that it's often only after declarer has called for a card that they get around to saying that declarer is/was in hand. By then, of course, the infraction has happened and they didn't stop it. When dummy now speaks up, he's drawing attention to an irregularity and that's beyond his rights.
As I mentioned above, I have little objection to dummy leaving his or her hand on the table as a reminder to declarer. I even used to do it myself until I started to find it irritating whenever partner did it for me. I then stopped doing it and no longer have any partners who would even consider helping me out in this fashion.
I think it's important to stress that dummy should have no part in the play, and I think it's annoying for that others at the table to have dummy constantly telling partner which hand to play from. If it's true that it's only inexperienced players who do it (and I'm not sure that's the case) that will be because they have not yet been told they aren't allowed to. The sooner they are told (nicely), the less likely they are to develop bad habits.
Is this a confirmation that if declarer uses the standard method of nominating a card from dummy
then it is impossible for dummy to use the right that the Laws explicitly grant?
Not at all. It's possible to prevent declarer from naming a card from dummy, particularly since there should be no need to say anything at all when playing from the correct hand.
In any case, no-one will mind if you occasionally misjudge and try to prevent an infraction when one wasn't actually about to occur. What is really being objected to is systematic reminders by dummy, contrary to the laws.
Just to be clear here - you think it is possible to wait until declarer starts saying "two" and interrupt him before he finishes saying it?
Sure. He hasn't made a complete designation yet. Mostly though, I see dummy start to say something before any words have come out.
The real solution is for players to keep track of where they are, or ask, rather than to rely on their partners to do it for them. And if they do get it wrong, they should accept with good grace that this confers a potentially favourable option on their opponents.
Well this may well be our main point of difference.
It is my contention that a designation does not have to be complete to be a designation.
If declarer leads towards AQ in dummy and makes an incomplete designation of Queen that is the card designated and is a played card. So similarly once declarer has uttered "two" he has designated a card from dummy and dummy's interruption is no longer an exercise of his rights and is an illegally drawing attention to an infraction.
I've seen people lead towards an AQ in dummy and say "Qu..ace", which I've allowed because the queen had not finished being specified.
But all this detail is fairly unimportant beside the main point that players should be taught from the start that dummy does not participate in the play or help declarer keep track of what has been going on.
Sorry - going to have to disagree with this as well.
The detail is what this thread is all about.
At what time and in what manner is it proper for dummy to point out which hand should lead to the next trick.
This law exists solely because in the real world everyone at some time has brain fade and attempts to lead from the wrong hand and the Law decrees that dummy should have the right to prevent this.
I absolutely do not accept that a player who exercises this right AT ANY TIME is participating in the play.
To participate in the play dummy would need to influence declarer to make a different LEGAL play than would have been made without his intervention.
So your objection is not, as you said earlier, that it's impossible to prevent declarer from calling a card from dummy, but actually that you think it's ok for a dummy to sit there and say "hand" or "table" before every play.
Anyway, I'll now leave you to have the last word.
The answer is fairly clear in that dummy should never point out which hand should lead to the next trick, as discussed above, whether you view it as participating in the play or as providing a memory aid.
Dummy may, however, act to prevent declarer from committing the infraction/irregularity of leading from the wrong hand. I realise that it's a subtle distinction.
Hi Tag, isn't saying 'hand', or leaving ones own hand on the table when declarer is in dummy the method by which dummy prevents the infraction of leading from the wrong hand? (Not that I do this, I use dummy as my time to relax and not pay attention to be honest).
If dummy is allowed to prevent an infraction, does this right not give dummy the right to prevent a lead from the wrong hand in a sensible way?
The current interpretation seems to be a reactive preventative action, rather than a pro-active one. So this interpretation stipulates that dummy must use an ineffective method of stopping declarer from leading from the wrong hand ie wait until the last possible moment to be sure that declarer is about to lead from the wrong hand and try to stop the action part-way through.
A more effective method of stopping an infraction of this sort (leaving your hand on the table or not) seems to not be allowed. I am not sure why and seems to use a different and specialist definition of the word 'prevent'
(makes me think of the preventative method for avoiding pregnancy using the withdrawal method; as opposed to something more sure to work)
I think the situation here is that the desire of the law is to have no involvement of Dummy, but it happens so frequently that they have just accepted the inevitable. There are numerous places in the laws where custom and practice are allowed despite being at odds with the thrust of the laws.
Thinking about it I am not sure that in most clubs, the "problems" mentioned, would cause many problems as the saying "people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones" would be appropriate. The other point must be the dummy can prevent an irregularity up to the point that the card is deemed "played". So if there are two 2s in dummy then dummy can intervene up to "two of ", not "two " as previously stated. So everything really rests on the circumstances as to whether dummy has "overstepped" their "limits".
CMOT_Dibbler
Well that is not the ruling I would make.
To take an even more extreme example - suppose declarer nominates "a", and is stopped by dummy. It is not possible to tell whether he was going to say eight, ace , or a club.
I would rule under L46B4 that declarer has nominated a card that is not in dummy.
I would allow him to nominate any card and then apply L55 to that card.
I agree it is not actually a problem at Clubs because everyone simply ignores the rule.
Declarer illegally faces a card with dummy on lead.
Dummy illegally says the lead is in dummy.
Declarer illegally returns the faced card to his hand,
Declarer illegally nominates a card from dummy.
Defender to Dummy's left illegally follows.
Everyone is happy and play continues.
Law 46B4 applies when declarer has designated a card not in dummy and allows for a replacement call for any legal card. At this point, since declarer is in hand, none of the cards in dummy is a legal card.
Note that by 72B1... A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.
If I had a director trying to tell me that I must now commit an infraction by leading from the wrong hand, I might feel inclined to ask him whether he cares to take over declaring the hand and I'll appeal later.
The infraction has already (accidentally) occurred at the point declarer uttered "a".
There is no question that any deliberate infringement is taking place.
Director is simply clarifying which card the infraction referred to.
A card us legal if it is in dummy at this point and would not constitute a failure to follow suit (not relevant here but is in a general case of incomplete nomination)
For the first part, I fail to see how a single syllable "a" contains information on suit or rank to designate a card. If it doesn't do this, how do you know it isn't in dummy?
For the second part, not quite, Defender to Dummy's left is perfectly entitled to play a card to accept what has happened thus far in this trick. Either Defender can say they want to accept the irregular lead (L53A).
Surely all we need is the second part of L42A2(c):
Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.
I know it is not in dummy because there is no card designated "a"
Agree - but to do this he must know what the irregular card is.
L46B4 tells us how to proceed when the designation includes neither rank nor suit.
Since dummy exercising his right to prevent an infraction is neither participating in the play nor communicating anything about the play this is not relevant