@pg10003 said:
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.
Since keeps cropping up let me give my take on this
An action (by dummy) is NEITHER participating NOR communicating if the possible consequences of this action are restricted to preventing an infraction that is his right to prevent.
Having started this discussion and read the various comments, I would like to ask those who think that dummy should be allowed to point out to declarer in advance whether he should lead from hand or table: should dummy also be allowed to tell the declarer, when the defenders have won the previous trick, that it is not his turn to lead?
This would lead to a running commentary by dummy after every trick:
Hand
Table
Not your lead
!!!!
@Vlad said:
Having started this discussion and read the various comments, I would like to ask those who think that dummy should be allowed to point out to declarer in advance whether he should lead from hand or table: should dummy also be allowed to tell the declarer, when the defenders have won the previous trick, that it is not his turn to lead?
Ok Dave, I think you have stated your opinion clearly and often enough, despite it being contrary to EBU and worldwide interpretations. All you are doing is confusing those who come here to get reliable answers to practical questions.
Fair enough - it was my intention to offer no further contributions, but since Vlad's question appeared to be directed at me I thought I ought to reply.
Well, if it turns into a running commentary the laws about ettiquette and extraneous remarks might come into play. It's one thing to try to prevent an irregularity, but to operate under the continuous assumption that partner is about to commit an irregularity, although a wise precaution, is stretching the laws.
Comments
Since keeps cropping up let me give my take on this
An action (by dummy) is NEITHER participating NOR communicating if the possible consequences of this action are restricted to preventing an infraction that is his right to prevent.
I must reiterate the EBU position:
Having started this discussion and read the various comments, I would like to ask those who think that dummy should be allowed to point out to declarer in advance whether he should lead from hand or table: should dummy also be allowed to tell the declarer, when the defenders have won the previous trick, that it is not his turn to lead?
This would lead to a running commentary by dummy after every trick:
Hand
Table
Not your lead
!!!!
The law says no.
In my opinion the Law says YES
L42B(2) - He may try to prevent any irregularity by Declarer
Fair enough - it was my intention to offer no further contributions, but since Vlad's question appeared to be directed at me I thought I ought to reply.
Well, if it turns into a running commentary the laws about ettiquette and extraneous remarks might come into play. It's one thing to try to prevent an irregularity, but to operate under the continuous assumption that partner is about to commit an irregularity, although a wise precaution, is stretching the laws.
I think this discussion has now run its course.