Two dummy items
I realise that Declarer is allowed to tell Dummy to play any card - and open it up for Defenders potentially to choose the card.
However, I dislike this practise in my partners, when Dummy I just want to eat biscuits and do as I am told, my regular partners know this.
My practice if forced would be simply to play the lowest card of the lowest denomination suit left.
But I would much prefer to refuse and tell Declarer to "specify a card".
Is this allowed?If Dummy has been foolish enough to look at a Defender's hand I understand they are now not allowed to ask Declarer about a revoke in Declarer's hand. It seems that tricks might be transferred as if the revoke had been established. Law 43B2b
But what happens if it was the Defender who displayed their hand to Dummy uninvited?
Given this violates Law 43A3 rather than Laws 43A1&2 is the info from Defender's hand now authorised to Dummy and so Law 43B2b (and a) does not prohibit action by Dummy?
Thank you
Comments
2 I think Dummy violation (Law43B) only applies to Law 43 A1 and A2 (Law 43B1). There is no violation after Law 43 A3 so Dummy retains all his rights.
When told to play anything, I play the highest card possible
I suppose that I should offer it over to the defenders to designate a card, but this seems to work in practice
I don't think it's that clear.
Yes defenders MAY designate, but they don't have to.
Law 45 states that "dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer."
But dummy HAS had instruction from the declarer, albeit a bit vague.
I don't see a problem with Dummy selecting a card. If there is any advantage to be gained, defenders can nullify it by designating a different card.
You may be right but I'd appreciate Gordon (or Robins) opinion?
I'm not sure there is much difference in practice, but Jeremy's analysis seems correct to me. The problem with dummy refusing to play a card is when the defenders also don't choose to designate one - we could reach an impasse. I tend to follow Martin's suggestion of playing the highest card and leaving it for the defenders to designate a different one if they wish.
I also tend to play the highest card - but if dummy has a winner then I'll play that.
You shouldn't. Declarers intention is almost certainly play anything small. This is in the WBF laws commentary.
If the letter of the law is followed, "play anything" is pointless and certainly doesn't save time, and just lets declarer transfer their need for thought to the other 3 players. How hard is it for declarer to name one of the suits in dummy, and have the lowest card played.
The practical application of law is for dummy to pause briefly (to see if defenders want to name a card to be played) and then put a card in the played position, the defenders can object to the choice of card and the director can allow one of the defenders to name the card to be played.
The commentary is talking about a specific situation where it is clear that the choice is between two cards and a third card is not an option. In the general case, players who say this don't believe there is any difference between the cards.
Read> @gordonrainsford said:
Read the bit below that.
A more common example of the application of this provision is when declarer says, “play
anything”. Declarer’s true intention is almost certainly to, “play anything small”, hence the TD
should not require him to discard an Ace.
Direct from the WBF (and thanks for pointing it out) - however in that case it is pretty clear declarer knows the Ace is a trick. What happens if declarer may not know that the card is a trick. e.g. the AKQJT987 go on the first two rounds and dummy has the 6?
I have to say I have never known a player do anything like this when it matters in this way and I find the Commentary example rather contrived.