[blackshoe]

Law 9 allows dummy (the player) to attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer. However, once declarer commits an irregularity, dummy must remain mute until the play is over (and need not say anything then, in most cases). Consider the case of calling for a card from dummy (the hand). LHO leads a club, say, and there is a club in dummy, but declarer calls for something else. I've been told the WBFLC issued an interpretation (though not via what means) that in this case dummy is allowed to point out that his faced hand contains a club, even though the irregularity has already occurred. I couldn't find anything on that in the last few WBFLC minutes. Can anyone confirm or deny the existence of this interpretation?

[bluejak]

Same thing really: I feel sure they have said so but have no idea where, when, or how to find it.

[PeterE]

WBFLC Minute, on Paris, 28.10.2001, said:

7. It was agreed that when declarer calls for a card from dummy that is a revoke card, dummy may enquire of declarer concerning his possible revoke under Law 42B1.
[Secretary’s note: the above is amended wording as agreed in the meeting of 30th October; it makes it clear that a dummy who has lost his rights is not barred from making such an enquiry in relation to declarer’s play from dummy.]

[bluejak]

Sh... errr, bother.

B..... err, dear me.

Editor of White book fails again.

EBU White book 2004, on edited by David Stevenson: #42.1, said:

Law 42B1 [Dummy’s qualified rights] [WBFLC]
If declarer attempts to revoke when calling for a card from dummy, dummy may warn him, even if he has ‘lost his rights’.
[WBFLC minutes 2001-10-28#7, also 2001-10-30#1]

[bixby]

I would say the correct response is even stronger. Dummy is not only allowed to point out the irregularity, dummy *must* do so and may not permit declarer to revoke from dummy. This is based strictly on the Laws and does not require any Committee interpretation in support.

The reason is that Law 44C provides, "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. *This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.*"

Dummy is a "player" under the Laws. See, e.g., Law 9B, which refers to "Any player, including dummy."

Therefore, dummy is subject to the obligation under Law 44C to follow suit if possible, and this obligation takes precedence over *all other* requirements of the Laws. Dummy's duty to follow suit therefore trumps (ha ha) dummy's obligation to refrain from participating in the play, to avoid pointing out irregularities once they have already occurred, etc.

So while dummy should remain silent after most irregularities (e.g., if declarer calls for a card from dummy when the lead is in declarer's hand, dummy should just play the card without comment), if declarer tells dummy to revoke, dummy must object.

[blackshoe]

I'm afraid that won't work, Bixby. Dummy (the player) does not play his cards, declarer does. So it is not dummy (the player) who is obligated to follow Law 44C, it is declarer.

[bixby]

Yes, it does. Dummy's obligation to follow suit "takes precedence over *all other requirements* of these Laws." Therefore, it takes precedence over the requirement that declarer calls for cards from dummy.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, you said that already. You're still wrong.

[bixby]

Sorry, but "You're still wrong" is not an argument. You haven't addressed the text of the relevant law, which is very clear. If you have an argument as to why the law doesn't mean what it says, I would be interested to hear it, but "you're still wrong" is not an argument.

Suppose the lead is a club, there is a club in dummy, and declarer calls for a heart. Assuming dummy knows that he has a club, do you think dummy is even *permitted* to play the heart?

I say that dummy cannot play the heart. To do so would violate dummy's obligation to follow suit, which takes precedence over all other requirements of the laws.

[Ant590]

I know that the gnome just sits there and smiles when this situation comes up.

I remember sitting opposite and getting quite vocal in my calling for a particular (illegal) card to be played.

[iviehoff]

bixby, on Aug 6 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

Suppose the lead is a club, there is a club in dummy, and declarer calls for a heart. Assuming dummy knows that he has a club, do you think dummy is even *permitted* to play the heart?

Dummy is a "player", but during "the play", dummy does not "play" the cards. Declarer "plays" dummy's cards. The card is "played" as soon as Declarer names it (etc). Dummy merely physically moves the played card into the played position. That is not "playing" it.

Yes, of course dummy is permitted to move into the played position the card that declarer played by naming it, even if it is a revoke. And certainly in the situation that a card is concealed so one would not necessarily observe it is a revoke, that is likely what dummy will do. Dummy commits no offence in doing so. But even if there are no concealed cards, dummy is perfectly entitled to move into the played position the card that declarer played from dummy, even if it is a revoke. Dummy has no obligation to observe that it is a revoke. He is however, permitted to say "having none" whether declarer is playing from hand or from table, but there is no obligation on him to do so.

The obligation to follow suit taking precedence over other requirements does not mean that you can deviate from the prescribed laws and procedures, such as by taking a card from a previously played trick, for example.

[aguahombre]

When the opening lead is made, and before I even see dummy -- I say "trump it".
People laugh, play proceeds. Nobody takes me seriously.

How can it possibly be --specific wording of laws, separate memos, common sense, or spirit of the game --- that there is even a question? When everyone can see that the dummy has a card to follow suit during the play of the hand, it should be at the very least brought to declarer's attention that the card is there. If the person bringing it to declarer's attention is Dummy, so be it.

I don't think I am being naive.

[paulg]

It seems unfortunate that the 2007 Laws rely on a minute from a 2001 meeting.

[bluejak]

Why? The WBFLC made an interpretation for the 1997 Laws, and no doubt considering it a correct interpretaion, made it a matter of Law in 2007. Seems a normal practice to me.