Home EBU TDs

Dummy's rights

Law 9 A 3 states:
'Any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

Law 42 B 2 states:
'He (dummy) may try to prevent ANY irregularity'.

The only limitation on dummy for preventing an irregularity is listed in 42 B 1, where dummy is prohibited from asking a defender when he has failed to follow suit, whether he has a card of the suit led.

Reading the three together the inference is that if a defender is about to commit an irregularity other than revoking, e.g. a defender is about to lead when it is not his turn to lead, dummy can caution him not to lead.

Is that correct?

And if so, does it conflict with Law 43 A 1 c, which states 'dummy must not participate in the play...' or is this limitation only applicable to dummy's participation vis-s-vis the declarer?

Comments

  • I exercised one of my rights as dummy last night when partner claimed. One of the opponents seemed upset at the claim and wanted to play on. I declined to permit it, since partner's claim was sound. I don't know whether that could be considered to be participating in the play (by ensuring that it didn't happen).

  • Well, the claim law does quite specifically state that the agreement of all four players is needed to play it out. To debar dummy from expressing that agreement seems inconsistent, at the least.

    It's quite common, at least where I play, for dummy to remind declarer which hand they're in if they're about to play from the wrong one. I think that's permitted in the rules as trying to prevent an irregularity. I've never known it to happen, but I suppose the same could be applied to the defence, I think it would be normal for dummy to leave his partner to decide whether they want to accept the lead though, they're playing the hand :).

    What dummy does get wrong quite a bit, and which really shouldn't happen, is that they point out declarer's played from the wrong hand after a card has been played. I've known that be very helpful to declarer.

  • In relation to the comments made by James in the final paragraph above, one would have to look at Law 55 (A) and then 55(B). This situation happens a lot at club level.

  • @rkcb1430 said:
    In relation to the comments made by James in the final paragraph above, one would have to look at Law 55 (A) and then 55(B). This situation happens a lot at club level.

    Yes, it does happen a lot at club level but the law is quite clear, that dummy can only prevent an irregularity; in fact, I think dummy would be in violation of law 9 A 4 by drawing attention to an irregularity committed by his partner the declarer, AFTER the irregularity has been committed. The restriction on dummy prohibiting him from drawing attention to an irregularity during play is only specifically lifted for revokes by declarer.

    My question in my OP only arose as a matter of curiosity when wondering whether the language of the relevant laws actually reflects the intent of the lawmakers. As James says, it is unlikely to happen in practice, but interesting to know that the laws as written apparently permit it!

  • The difference in wording in the different laws is partly due to history. Previously, only dummy could attempt to prevent an irregularity (as explicitly allowed in law); but we ruled that other players could also attempt to prevent an irregularity since they had the right to draw attention to an irregularity.

Sign In or Register to comment.