[fyrish]

Declarer played a club from hand and asked dummy to play a spade even though there were still clubs to play. Dummy was the only one who noticed and pointed out the situation to declarer. One of the defenders objected that dummy shouldn't draw attention to an irregularity. Is this correct? If so what should happen (should the card be changed?)and how should dummy be penalised?

[blackshoe]

Dummy can attempt to prevent an irregularity, but once the spade is called that time is past. So dummy does what dummy is supposed to do: pick up the spade and put it in the played position.

Law 43A1{b} prohibits ("may not") dummy from calling attention to an irregularity. "May not" is a very strong prohibition. Dummy should get a PP except in very rare circumstances. Won't happen, but it should.

Declarer is required to follow suit (Law 44C), so if there's a club in dummy, declarer must play one. There is no further rectification.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-05, 11:51, said:

Dummy can attempt to prevent an irregularity, but once the spade is called that time is past. So dummy does what dummy is supposed to do: pick up the spade and put it in the played position.

Law 43A1{b} prohibits ("may not") dummy from calling attention to an irregularity. "May not" is a very strong prohibition. Dummy should get a PP except in very rare circumstances. Won't happen, but it should.

Declarer is required to follow suit (Law 44C), so if there's a club in dummy, declarer must play one. There is no further rectification.

Law 44 C said:

In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

One such "other requirement of these Laws" that is overridden by Law 44C is

Law 43A1{b} said:

Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

Consequently, not only "may" Dummy call attention to this particular error, he must refuse to carry out the illegal play!

[barmar]

I'm not so sure about that. Declarer designates which cards to play from dummy, dummy is merely acting as his agent, moving the cards into the played position.

This also relates to the discussion we had a month or two ago, about whether dummy moving the card is part of or subsequent to playing a card. If it's subsequent, as I believed, then it's too late for dummy to refuse to carry out the illegal play -- once declarer has designated the card, it's considered played. The exception is if the named card isn't in dummy -- you can't play a card you don't have.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-May-05, 15:05, said:

Consequently, not only "may" Dummy call attention to this particular error, he must refuse to carry out the illegal play!

Every once in a while, Sven, you come up with something unique. Sometimes what you come up with makes sense to me. This isn't one of those times.

[mycroft]

Note that if this revoke gets established, whether dummy does or does not mention it (or in time), that "failure to play a faced card (including a card from dummy)" is one of those revokes with no fixed penalty (just equity).

Came up for me in a 6♥ contract, where T1, spade led, ruffed; T2 heart to the A, crashing the K and Q; T3, club played, ♠A discovered behind the clubs, "DIRECTOR!".6♥, making 7, with the revoke penalty (of zero tricks) applied. Three rounds later, there were still people asking me to show them where in the Laws that was right.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-05, 16:22, said:

Every once in a while, Sven, you come up with something unique. Sometimes what you come up with makes sense to me. This isn't one of those times.

So you consider that contrary to the clear prescription in Law 44C Law 43 takes precedence over Law 44C even in the special situation handled by Law 44C?

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2015-May-05, 15:11, said:

I'm not so sure about that. Declarer designates which cards to play from dummy, dummy is merely acting as his agent, moving the cards into the played position.

Dummy may be dummy, but that doesn't stop him from being a player. And each player must follow suit. Furthermore, even agents are supposed to follow the law.

Furthermore, as we have discussed extensively recently, declarer's designation of a card is not the same as the play of a card.

So, when declarer leads a club from hand and calls for a spade from dummy, dummy is not supposed to commit an irregularity by actually playing the spade. Of course, dummy is not allowed to participate in the play, but he can point out that it would be an irregularity if he would follow declarer's orders.

Rik

[helene_t]

But if declarer designates a card from dummy while declarer is on lead, dummy does not prevent it. Isn't this similar?
Otoh I can see a reason why dummy is not allowed to prevent a lead from the wrong hand. Dummy not being allowed to prevent a revoke seems pointless.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-06, 01:19, said:

Furthermore, as we have discussed extensively recently, declarer's designation of a card is not the same as the play of a card.

Ummm.... the opposite conclusion was reached actually.

[pran]

helene_t, on 2015-May-06, 01:52, said:

But if declarer designates a card from dummy while declarer is on lead, dummy does not prevent it. Isn't this similar?
Otoh I can see a reason why dummy is not allowed to prevent a lead from the wrong hand. Dummy not being allowed to prevent a revoke seems pointless.

No, it is not similar.
Law 44C concerns the obligation to follow suit when possible and states that this obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws. This must literally and definitely include also limitations on Dummy.

Law 44C does not bother with for instance lead out of turn so the limitations on Dummy are absolutely in force there.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-06, 01:52, said:

Ummm.... the opposite conclusion was reached actually.

If you want three different views, ask two bridge players to reach a conclusion.

[helene_t]

hehe great use of passive voice, Stephanie

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-05, 11:51, said:

Dummy can attempt to prevent an irregularity, but once the spade is called that time is past. So dummy does what dummy is supposed to do: pick up the spade and put it in the played position.

Law 43A1{b} prohibits ("may not") dummy from calling attention to an irregularity. "May not" is a very strong prohibition. Dummy should get a PP except in very rare circumstances. Won't happen, but it should.

Declarer is required to follow suit (Law 44C), so if there's a club in dummy, declarer must play one. There is no further rectification.

Dummy would be attempting to prevent an irregularity -- not the revoke itself (which has occurred), but the establishment of that revoke (for which there is no penalty anyway, merely confusion and possible equity rectification).

Good job, Dummy.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-May-06, 00:31, said:

So you consider that contrary to the clear prescription in Law 44C Law 43 takes precedence over Law 44C even in the special situation handled by Law 44C?

No, I do not. I consider that dummy has various rights and responsibilities. Among them are to act as declarer's agent in placing cards played from the dummy by declarer in the played position, and to attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer. However, once declarer names a card in the dummy, that card is played, and if it's irregular (a revoke) the irregularity has already occurred, and dummy can no longer prevent it and is therefore constrained to place the card named in the played position, and otherwise keep his mouth shut. Unless an opponent draws attention to the irregularity before dummy moves the card, when dummy must not move the card, and instead all four players must ensure that the director is called.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-06, 01:19, said:

Dummy may be dummy, but that doesn't stop him from being a player. And each player must follow suit. Furthermore, even agents are supposed to follow the law.

Furthermore, as we have discussed extensively recently, declarer's designation of a card is not the same as the play of a card.

So, when declarer leads a club from hand and calls for a spade from dummy, dummy is not supposed to commit an irregularity by actually playing the spade. Of course, dummy is not allowed to participate in the play, but he can point out that it would be an irregularity if he would follow declarer's orders.

Rik

I am not aware that we arrived at the consensus that you claim we did wrt when a card from the dummy is played. I (still) vehemently disagree with your position. So your conclusion as to what dummy is supposed to do is not valid. Also, I believe we discussed here some years ago the question whether dummy is a 'player' in the legal sense, and concluded that he is not.

[mycroft]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-06, 09:27, said:

Dummy would be attempting to prevent an irregularity -- not the revoke itself (which has occurred), but the establishment of that revoke (for which there is no penalty anyway, merely confusion and possible equity rectification).

Oh, that's a good question. Dummy can ask "no clubs, partner?" when declarer plays from hand. Can she so ask when declarer plays from dummy?

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2015-May-06, 10:28, said:

Oh, that's a good question. Dummy can ask "no clubs, partner?" when declarer plays from hand. Can she so ask when declarer plays from dummy?

Quote

Law 61B2{a}: Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2{b}).

Quote

Law 43B2{b}: If dummy, after his violation of the limitations listed in A2 above… is the first to ask declarer if a play from declarer’s hand constitutes a revoke, declarer must substitute a correct card if his play was illegal, and the provisions of Law 64 then apply as if the revoke had been established.

43B2{b} does not apply to the situation mycroft brings up. However,

Quote

Law 43A1{b}: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.
Law 43A1{c}: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

These last provisions suggest to me that dummy may not ask "no clubs, partner?" because once the declarer calls for a card from dummy that card is played, and asking the question violates both of these laws.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-06, 09:27, said:

Dummy would be attempting to prevent an irregularity -- not the revoke itself (which has occurred), but the establishment of that revoke (for which there is no penalty anyway, merely confusion and possible equity rectification).

Good job, Dummy.

Dummy will not be able to prevent declarer's irregularity of designating the spade from dummy. That irregularity has already taken place and cannot be prevented anymore.

But dummy is allowed to prevent declarer from playing the card if playing it would be an irregularity. Remember that declarer is only forced to play the designated csrd if it is a legal play (and he intended to play it). And the play of the card is still in the future and can be prevented.

Technically, the way for dummy to handle this would be to say: "It would be an irregularity to play a spade. I am preventing you from playing it." Dummy should not point out that the designation was wrong. That would be drawing attention to an irregularity that had already happened.

Rik

[blackshoe]

It's already played. It was played when declarer named it.