BBO Discussion Forums: What can dummy do? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

What can dummy do? telling declarer to follow suit

#21 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-May-06, 11:37

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-May-06, 10:25, said:

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.

I will refer to your own conclusion in the recent thread:

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-April-04, 09:32, said:

Denny, you've reached the point of preaching to the choir, I think.[]


The "preaching to the choir" refers to Denny pointing out (with the aid of WBF Chief TD Laurie Kelso) in the post immediately above yours that designating a card and playing a card are two different things:

View PostUdcaDenny, on 2015-April-04, 08:01, said:

[]
Here is what Laurie Kelso, Chief Tournamen Director for WBF kindly answers me in a mail:

Quote

[] The word 'designation' usually refers to the naming of a card or very occasionally a player might point to a card, wishing it to be played.


I emphasized the word "wishing".

If you say that Denny was preaching to the choir then that meant that you thought he was writing this to a BBF forum of people who all agreed with him that designating a card and playing a card are different things. (e.g. A played card cannot be taken back (Denny's case), but an inadvertantly designated card does not need to be played (Law 45C4b).)

I certainly agree with the conclusion that Denny was preaching to the choir since I have rarely seen such unanimity on BBF.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#22 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-May-06, 12:03

I do not think that everyone here agrees that when declarer designates, in turn, a card to be played from dummy, that card is not played until dummy moves it into the played position. I for one do not think Law 45B is at all ambiguous, and it does not say what the choir thinks it does. Did I acquiesce to the choir? Maybe so, but I should not have done so if I did.

Another point: dummy refuses to place in the played position a card that would be a revoke if played. How is this not "participating in the play"?
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#23 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-May-06, 12:29

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-May-06, 12:03, said:

I do not think that everyone here agrees that when declarer designates, in turn, a card to be played from dummy, that card is not played until dummy moves it into the played position. I for one do not think Law 45B is at all ambiguous, and it does not say what the choir thinks it does. Did I acquiesce to the choir? Maybe so, but I should not have done so if I did.

Another point: dummy refuses to place in the played position a card that would be a revoke if played. How is this not "participating in the play"?



Law 44C which says "This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." certainly overrides Law 43A1c about not participating in the play when the sole purpose of such "participation" is to avoid a revoke.


And for the record: A scan for the Word "Dummy" in the laws will reveal (many places) that dummy is indeed one of the four players at the table during the entire play period.

If this were not the case then there would for instance be no legal reason for including the words "except dummy" in the leading clause of Law 45A: "Each player except dummy ..."
0

#24 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2015-May-06, 12:49

View PostTrinidad, on 2015-May-06, 11:02, said:

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

Sorry Rik, but I think this is a lot of gibberish. The declarer plays a card by naming it, the rest of the first sentence of 45B, which is seperated from the first part by a colon, describes what the dummy should do with the named card. In what way the dummy doesn't draw attention to a irregularity when (s)he says "It would be an irregularity to play ..." Is beyond me. When I see a dog and say "I see a dog" the attention of anyone who is with me is drawn to the fact that there is a dog.
According to your reasoning the card isn't played until the dummy holds it in the played position. But that is not what 45B says. And making remarks like the one you give, is a violation of 43A1c.
FWIIW: the dummy is a player, since there are four players at the table (Law 3). So there is a contradiction in the laws with 44C, which comes to light in this case. But for me and others it's obvious that the dummy has to do as told and be silent.

Joost
Joost
1

#25 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-May-06, 14:40

View Postpran, on 2015-May-06, 12:29, said:

Law 44C which says "This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." certainly overrides Law 43A1c about not participating in the play when the sole purpose of such "participation" is to avoid a revoke.

So dummy is allowed to "participate in the play" in this case. Or so you claim. IAC, that's not the question I asked. Legal or not (and we can discuss that question separately) dummy is "participating in the play" when he refuses to follow declarer's instruction.

View Postpran, on 2015-May-06, 12:29, said:

And for the record: A scan for the Word "Dummy" in the laws will reveal (many places) that dummy is indeed one of the four players at the table during the entire play period.

If this were not the case then there would for instance be no legal reason for including the words "except dummy" in the leading clause of Law 45A: "Each player except dummy ..."

Okay, I'll play your game. Such a scan finds the word on 36 pages in the law book. The first three are in the table of contents, and the last four are in the index (ACBL version, btw, though I don't think that matters) so let's ignore them. That leaves 29 pages. Most of them do support your contention that dummy is a player, at least in the general sense. But several of them (footnote to law 20C2, law 20F2, parenthetical expression in law 41B, footnote to that law, last sentence of 41D, law 45A, law 45B, law 45F, law 46, law 52B1{b}, law 55, law 57C, and law 68D) indicate to me at least that while dummy may be a player in the general sense he does not play dummy's cards. Declarer does that.

and yes, there is good reason to indicate when dummy, although a player in the general sense, may not do something another player is permitted to do.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#26 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-May-06, 16:00

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-May-06, 12:03, said:

I do not think that everyone anyone here agrees that when declarer designates, in turn, a card to be played from dummy, that card is not played until dummy moves it into the played position.


FYP
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#27 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-May-06, 16:13

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-May-06, 10:42, said:

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.

Wouldn't this suggest that dummy can't ask "no clubs p?" when declarer plays from his hand? What's the difference?
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#28 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-May-06, 16:50

View Posthelene_t, on 2015-May-06, 16:13, said:

Wouldn't this suggest that dummy can't ask "no clubs p?" when declarer plays from his hand? What's the difference?


Maybe that declarer's revoke can become established and dummy's can't? Or because dummy can't see declarer's cards so truly does not know whether declarer has any clubs? Or something else.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#29 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-May-07, 00:52

View Posthelene_t, on 2015-May-06, 16:13, said:

Wouldn't this suggest that dummy can't ask "no clubs p?" when declarer plays from his hand? What's the difference?

Perhaps it would, but Law 61B{2) specifically allows dummy to ask, subject to the provisions in Law 43B2{b}.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#30 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-May-07, 00:55

So, to summarize what the choir thinks (or sings):

Declarer plays a card from dummy by designating it.* (45B)
A played card cannot be changed, not even when it was played inadvertently.
A card that was played "by designation" can be changed but only if it was designated inadvertently. (45C4b)

Did I summarize that correctly?

Rik

* This means that the designation and play are, in essence "one action", not two different ones. It also means that a designation is a play and not a request for or announcement of a play.
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

#31 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-May-07, 01:27

View PostTrinidad, on 2015-May-07, 00:55, said:

So, to summarize what the choir thinks (or sings):

Declarer plays a card from dummy by designating it.* (45B)
A played card cannot be changed, not even when it was played inadvertently.
A card that was played "by designation" can be changed but only if it was designated inadvertently. (45C4b)

Did I summarize that correctly?

Rik

* This means that the designation and play are, in essence "one action", not two different ones. It also means that a designation is a play and not a request for or announcement of a play.

I think so. I would note that your footnote applies to declarer's designation of a card from dummy. I'm not so sure it applies to other designations — that is, designations of cards which are, at the time of designation, in closed hands.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#32 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2015-May-07, 02:09

View PostTrinidad, on 2015-May-07, 00:55, said:

So, to summarize what the choir thinks (or sings):

Declarer plays a card from dummy by designating it.* (45B)
A played card cannot be changed, not even when it was played inadvertently.
A card that was played "by designation" can be changed but only if it was designated inadvertently. (45C4b)

Did I summarize that correctly?

Rik

* This means that the designation and play are, in essence "one action", not two different ones. It also means that a designation is a play and not a request for or announcement of a play.

Yes. It's also what Ton Kooijman, WBFLC chairman, said last Saturday during a workshop for Dutch TD's.
Joost
0

#33 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2015-May-07, 02:11

View PostTrinidad, on 2015-May-07, 00:55, said:

So, to summarize what the choir thinks (or sings):

Declarer plays a card from dummy by designating it.* (45B)
A played card cannot be changed, not even when it was played inadvertently.
A card that was played "by designation" can be changed but only if it was designated inadvertently. (45C4b)

Did I summarize that correctly?

Rik

* This means that the designation and play are, in essence "one action", not two different ones. It also means that a designation is a play and not a request for or announcement of a play.

No. A designation is a play only in the specific case of declarer designating a card from dummy. If any other player designates a card, or declarer designates a card from his own hand, that card is not yet played. A played card can be changed for any of the several reasons given in Law 47 (but for no other reason: 47F2). In particular this includes withdrawing a played card "to change an inadvertent designation" (47C).
0

#34 User is offline   RSliwinski 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: 2011-December-30

Posted 2015-May-07, 02:34

What is the problem?
44.C. In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.
41.D […]Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy.
41.D states that it is declarer and not dummy who plays dummy’s cards. 44C states an absolute obligation for the players who are playing to a trick. Dummy is not playing to any trick. So 44C does not obligate dummy to anything.
0

#35 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-May-07, 02:53

But to be practical, is there any reason to not allow dummy to refuse to revoke?

That dummy is not allowed to refuse to lead from the wrong hand makes sense because otherwise there is a risk that dummy would do it selectively.

I don't think dummy refusing to revoke selectively would be a problem since it can never be an advantage to revoke.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#36 User is offline   Lanor Fow 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 2007-May-19

Posted 2015-May-07, 03:17

It can be an advantage if no-one notices. Unlikely perhaps, but it will happen, and more unlikely things also happen at the table.
0

#37 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2015-May-07, 03:43

View Postsanst, on 2015-May-07, 02:09, said:

Yes. It's also what Ton Kooijman, WBFLC chairman, said last Saturday during a workshop for Dutch TD's.

It was about a card played from the dummy and not unintended.
Joost
0

#38 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-May-07, 09:28

View Postsanst, on 2015-May-07, 02:09, said:

Yes. It's also what Ton Kooijman, WBFLC chairman, said last Saturday during a workshop for Dutch TD's.


View Postsanst, on 2015-May-07, 03:43, said:

It was about a card played from the dummy and not unintended.


Revoking?
0

#39 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2015-May-07, 11:45

Yes. A card named is a card played. If it's a revoke, the laws take care of that. Besides, you seem to forget that no player is obliged to draw attention to a irregularity, the dummy isn't even allowed to do that.
The second sentence of 44C doesn't add anything to the first. You must follow suit if possible. I've no idea where the second sentence comes from, but it looks to me some remnant of a long forgotten past, because there is no reason why this obligation should have precedence over other laws. Why is it more important to follow suit than say, play with more or less than 52 cards, than not to have hidden agreements with your partner or to remain courteous?
There is also 45F. When the dummy interferes in the way you suggest, I would say he indicates a card, which is forbidden. And do you allow the dummy to interfere if the declarer touches a card in the dummy?
It's conceivable that it is in the interrest of the opponents to let the revoke from the dummy's hand stand. Do you compensate for that after the dummy has drawn attention to it?
If your reasoning is right, even spectators might try to prevent a revoke, from any hand for that matter. I simply don't believe we would allow that, but maybe you disagree.

Joost
Joost
0

#40 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,058
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2015-May-07, 12:03

Quote

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

Quote

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


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.

I'm not sure I agree with you - if we're playing the pedantic game (and of course we are). Law 61B, in full:

Quote

Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke

  • Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led.
    • Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2(b)).
    • Dummy may not ask a defender and Law 16B may apply.

  • Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information).


The relevant text is "who has failed to follow suit". Nowhere in the Law does it say "from their hand" - explicitly not in L61B2a.
Law 45B, as has been discussed (my emphasis):

Quote

Declarer plays a card by...


When declarer plays a card, dummy may ask declarer if he has failed to follow suit.

Therefore, it is allowed to do so when declarer plays a card from dummy if he has possibly failed to follow suit.

I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying I'm not wrong - and the logic above allows both interpretations.

And man, but that was an ugly ugly formatting task.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
1

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users