Preventing declarer playing from the wrong side

Nice and happy to be a part of this forum, greetings from Greece.

I would like to ask this, after a huge discussion was made at a seminar in Athens about a very common situation:
Is dummy entitled to prevent declarer to play from the wrong hand according to 42b2, or not. And may he prevent him if he notices that declarer has detached a card from his hand, although he is playing from dummy? May he inform him, that he plays from dummy, when is thinking?

Similar to this one, there is another matter. Is dummy entitled to ask declarer if has failed to follow a suit, after the trick has been quilted, defender has played to the next trick, but the declarer has not? Which means that dummy would prevent a possible established revoke?

Thank you

Comments

  • edited November 2017

    Dummy may try and PREVENT any irregularity (Law 42B2 - provided law 43 does not apply, see bottom)

    So he can prevent declarer from playing from the wrong hand - which means that he can stop him before the action reaches Law 45C2

    1. Declarer is deemed to have played a card from his hand if it is:
      (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or
      (b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played.
      .

    I do not think that he can communicate to Declarer that he is in dummy when declarer is thinking. This is because there is no evidence that declarer is about to commit an irregularity AND is probably in breach of Law 43A1c

    (c) Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the
    play to declarer.
    .
    Dummy is allowed to ask declarer if he has followed suit - usually by saying "Having none" - Law 42B1

    1. Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow suit to a trick
      whether he has a card of the suit led.
      .

    NB: if dummy has lost this right then the revoke is automatically established. Law 43B2
    .

    2 . If dummy, after his violation of the limitations listed in A2:
    (a) warns declarer not to lead from the wrong hand, either defender may choose the hand
    from which declarer shall lead.
    (b) 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.

  • Thank you very much for your answer. Law 43A1c is clear.

    About my second question. Is dummy eventually allowed to ask declarer during the current trick, if declarer has revoked in the exact previous trick, that has just closed?
    Assume a defender has played in the current trick, but declarer or dummy has not played yet.

  • edited November 2017

    Once the revoke is established then of course nothing can be done. There seems to be no time limit on law 42B1 so dummy can ask any time - although once declarer has played to the next trick then the revoke is established and once declarer admits it the TD must be called.

  • Yes exactly, there is no time limit on law 42B1, and also law 62A refers clearly that a player must correct his revoke: if attention is drawn to the irregularity before it becomes established. In others words, I think we could say, that dummy tries to PREVENT an irregularity, which this time is the establishment of a revoke.

  • There is a player in one of the clubs where I play, who, when he is dummy, always says ‘hand’ or ‘table’ when his side is to lead. I have told him repeatedly that he should not do this but should only do so when he sees his partner about to lead from the wrong hand. This person thnks I am just being finicky. Is this sufficiently against a law to invite a procedural penalty?
  • @SDN said:
    There is a player in one of the clubs where I play, who, when he is dummy, always says ‘hand’ or ‘table’ when his side is to lead. I have told him repeatedly that he should not do this but should only do so when he sees his partner about to lead from the wrong hand. This person thnks I am just being finicky. Is this sufficiently against a law to invite a procedural penalty?

    If you are the director and are telling him, then yes I think he should get a PP for disregarding your instructions. If you are just another player, then it is not for you to tell him.

  • I've never heard of finicky as a word but I'm with dummy on this
  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @SDN said:
    There is a player in one of the clubs where I play, who, when he is dummy, always says ‘hand’ or ‘table’ when his side is to lead. I have told him repeatedly that he should not do this but should only do so when he sees his partner about to lead from the wrong hand. This person thnks I am just being finicky. Is this sufficiently against a law to invite a procedural penalty?

    If you are the director and are telling him, then yes I think he should get a PP for disregarding your instructions. If you are just another player, then it is not for you to tell him.

    Thanks for your advice Gordon.
    I read it in two parts:
    1) what this person is doing is wrong and deserves a PP. That supports my view of his actions.
    2) if I am just another player and not the official TD at that game then it is not my place to tell him that what he is doing is wrong. Agreed.
    Have I got it right?

Sign In or Register to comment.