Should dummy tell partner his is in his hand?

[Enzo Bernardi]

What is the rule/etiquette for the dummy when his partner is in his hand and asks for a lead from the dummy?

Should dummy tell partner he is in his hand or simply pull the card and wait for the opponents to do so?

[Wes Powers]

On 6/12/2013 11:30, Enzo Bernardi wrote:
> What is the rule/etiquette for the dummy when his partner is in his hand and asks for a lead from the dummy?
>
> Should dummy tell partner he is in his hand or simply pull the card and wait for the opponents to do so?
>

Laws 42-43.

Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity. Once declarer has
called a card, the irregularity has occurred, and dummy must remain
silent and play the called card.

However, dummy may try to PREVENT an irregularity. If he thinks declarer
is about to call a card, he may say "In your hand", for example.

[Stu Goodgold]

That is correct, but in practice dummy often say "in your hand" a split second too late. This happens more often when declarer leads wrongly from his hand, and dummy tries to correct with "on the board".

Either way, once declarer has led from the wrong hand, either opponent may accept that lead regardless of what dummy has said. But the opps may not discuss the matter between themselves. One or the other defender has to accept the lead, without discussion or even silent assent from his partner - that is, he shouldn't make eye contact with partner and read facial expressions.

Of course, the TD should be called immediately after the irregular lead is made.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[judyo...@gmail.com]

>
> That is correct, but in practice dummy often say "in your hand" a split second too late. This happens more often when declarer leads wrongly from his hand, and dummy tries to correct with "on the board".
>

The way to avoid being late is to use the single word "stop!" (After all, you are preventing an infraction.)

When declarer begins to detach a card from his hand, the lead being in dummy.

Or when declarer opens his mouth, the lead being in his hand.

Carl

[Peter Smulders]

Dummy may try to prevent an irregularity from the part of the leader,
but once the card had been mentioned it is too late. Such a card has
been played and, and dummy should leave it to the opponents how to
handle the situation.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

>
> Dummy may try to prevent an irregularity from the part of the leader,
> but once the card had been mentioned it is too late. Such a card has
> been played and, and dummy should leave it to the opponents how to
> handle the situation.

Say "stop" when declarer opens his mouth.

If declarer properly names cards by rank then suit, you only have to stop him before he gets to the suit.

If he employs the improper but popular quirk of naming the suit only, to designate the lowest card in the suit, that will be a good lesson for him.

Carl

[Bertil]

What you are saying applies strictly at ACBl sanctioned games, but how far
should these rules be applied at a social game?

Stig

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-06-12 1:11 PM, Wes Powers wrote:
> However, dummy may try to PREVENT an irregularity.

Just a minor quibble... the above is normally the case, but preventing
an irregularity by declarer is one of dummy's "qualified rights." Dummy
can no longer do this if he has "lost his rights" by doing something he
shouldn't have (basically looking at cards in anyone else's hand).

In practice, I haven't seen a dummy lose his rights in the last two
decades, maybe longer, but in the bad old days it happened from time to
time. For all I know, it may still happen in some areas.

And before anyone asks, dummy may try to prevent an irregularity by an
opponent. (I had to look this up: Law 9A3.) Whether it's wise to do so
is another matter.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[richlp]

> Stig- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It all depends on how social vs how serious you want the game to be.
When I played with my ex-in-laws anything went.

"Is that a transfer Dear?", "Of course!"
"Oh wait, I've just revoked." "No problem. Pick it up and follow
suit"
"I didn't mean to play that." "No problem. Pick it up and play what
you want"

When I played with my ex-brother and sister in law (part time master
solver's club panelist/silver life master) we were a little more
"pure" in our approach to the game.

[Martin Ambuhl]

It applies to any game in which the participants claim to be playing
bridge. The laws are not ACBL-specific; they define the game. If you
do have a copy of the ACBL version of the laws, you will find those
things which are ACBL-specific at the very end, where those things left
to the disgression of the sponsoring organization are published.

[Martin Ambuhl]

What you call "improper" is expressly allowed by the laws.

[Peter Smulders]

"improper" is the correct word.

Law 46A reads:
A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card
When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly
state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

Other forms are thus "improper" by definition. The fact that some of
them are condoned is another matter.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

It is allowed and improper.

Carl

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den torsdagen den 13:e juni 2013 kl. 22:04:36 UTC+2 skrev judyo...@verizon.net:
> >
>
> > Dummy may try to prevent an irregularity from the part of the leader,
>
> > but once the card had been mentioned it is too late. Such a card has
>
> > been played and, and dummy should leave it to the opponents how to
>
> > handle the situation.
>
>
>
> Say "stop" when declarer opens his mouth.
>
>
>
> If declarer properly names cards by rank then suit, you only have to stop him before he gets to the suit.

"3. Designates Rank but Not Suit

If declarer designates a rank but not a suit:

(a) In Leading

Declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick, provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.
(b) All Other Cases

In all other cases, declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played, declarer must designate which is intended."

[Wes Powers]

And there's no requirement to name the rank first. It is quite proper to
call for the "club queen", for example.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

>
>
> In all other cases, declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played, declarer must designate which is intended."

Can he legally do so if it is illegal to lead from dummy at all?

I doubt it.

Carl

[judyo...@gmail.com]

>
> And there's no requirement to name the rank first. It is quite proper to
>
> call for the "club queen", for example.

But, as you see, it is unwise to do so.

Carl

[richlp]

On Jun 14, 6:43 am, "judyorc...@verizon.net" <judyorc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

When my brother was attending law school in the mid 70's there was an
article in the college paper (Univ of Arkansas) by somebody attending
a New York City regional. He was astonished to see sombody walking
around with the Queen of Spades pasted on his forehead. My brother
and I both immediately knew who it was. My guess is that any
tournament regular from the New York City area at that time should
also know the reference.

I don't know if he ever actually did it, but I can certainly imagine
him overhearing a declarer call for "The Club Queen" and then getting
up, walking to the table, and saying "You Called?"

Unfortunately Larry Edwards, "a colorful character" (Alan Truscott in
a NY Times column 1985) passed away far too early but he left behind
some great stories.

[Tom]

richlp <rich...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:56614a42-55f5-41e7...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

> When my brother was attending law school in the mid 70's there was an
> article in the college paper (Univ of Arkansas) by somebody attending
> a New York City regional. He was astonished to see sombody walking
> around with the Queen of Spades pasted on his forehead. My brother
> and I both immediately knew who it was. My guess is that any
> tournament regular from the New York City area at that time should
> also know the reference.
>
> I don't know if he ever actually did it, but I can certainly imagine
> him overhearing a declarer call for "The Club Queen" and then getting
> up, walking to the table, and saying "You Called?"
>
> Unfortunately Larry Edwards, "a colorful character" (Alan Truscott in
> a NY Times column 1985) passed away far too early but he left behind
> some great stories.

I knew him back in the 70s. He was a very good bridge player and one of
the funniest people I have ever met. He was black, good looking and
openly gay. He told about winning a regional event and having his
picture in the ACBL Bulletin (back when you got your picture in for
winning a regional) with the Queen of Spades plastered on his forehead
and that became his nickname.

Tom Reid

[richlp]

On Jun 14, 10:53 am, Tom <rab...@thehole.com> wrote:

I think (I'm not sure) that he was also Jewish. He certainly knew a
fair chunk of Yiddish expressions and could mimic the accent
perfectly.

My college roommate (Gary) and Larry had the same birthday. I think
it occurred around the time of the Lancaster regional. If they met at
the regional they would share a birthday kiss. It was an amusing
scene watching Larry going for the mouth and Gary trying to make sure
it was on the cheeks.

[Lone Locust of the Apocalypse]

Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> writes:
>In practice, I haven't seen a dummy lose his rights in the last two
>decades, maybe longer, but in the bad old days it happened from time to
>time. For all I know, it may still happen in some areas.

This isn't exactly what you said, but friends of mine have had a
director call dismissed because dummy was the first to draw attention
to an irregularity.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kpgv3k$eil$1...@news.albasani.net>,

That's a different law, which says that any player (including dummy) may
call the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity, but
dummy may NOT draw attention to the irregularity.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Mark Brader]

Peter Smulders:

> > Dummy may try to prevent an irregularity from the part of the leader,
> > but once the card had been mentioned it is too late. Such a card has
> > been played and, and dummy should leave it to the opponents how to
> > handle the situation.

"Carl":

> Say "stop" when declarer opens his mouth.

Declarer might be a bit annoyed at that if she was just planning to
ask a question.

> If declarer properly names cards by rank then suit, you only have to
> stop him before he gets to the suit.

Law 46A specifies only that the

# Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card

is

# When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly
# state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

It does not say in what order to state them.
--
Mark Brader "C was developed for the programmer
Toronto (two of them, in fact)"
m...@vex.net -- Alasdair Grant

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Mark Brader]

Wes Powers:

> > And there's no requirement to name the rank first. It is quite proper to
> > call for the "club queen", for example.

"Carl":

> But, as you see, it is unwise to do so.

We do NOT see. You are imagining that if South starts to call "club
queen" and North attempts to stop him speaking, and South gets only
as far as the word "club", then the notion that he only intended to say
"club" can be enforced. And then on top of that you are imagining that
if he intends to say "queen of clubs" and is interrupted after the
word "queen", the notion that he only intended to say "queen" cannot
be enforced.

I see nothing in the Laws to support this position.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "When I wanted to be a sigquote, that wasn't
m...@vex.net | the one I was thinking of." --Clive Feather

[Lone Locust of the Apocalypse]

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>In article <kpgv3k$eil$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> zo...@ninthbit.com (Lone Locust of the Apocalypse) wrote:
>
>> Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> writes:
>> >In practice, I haven't seen a dummy lose his rights in the last two
>> >decades, maybe longer, but in the bad old days it happened from time to
>> >time. For all I know, it may still happen in some areas.
>>
>> This isn't exactly what you said, but friends of mine have had a
>> director call dismissed because dummy was the first to draw attention
>> to an irregularity.
>
>That's a different law,

I know, but it was vaguely in the same mental space :-)

[judyo...@gmail.com]

>
> Declarer might be a bit annoyed at that if she was just planning to
>
> ask a question.
>

That's his problem.

Carl

[judyo...@gmail.com]

"Club" is a valid (but improper) way of designating dummy's lowest club.

If the lead is in dummy, the designation "queen" commits declarer to playing one of dummy's queens.

If the lead is not in dummy, none of dummy's queens is a legal play.

Carl

[Lorne]

On 15/06/2013 17:12, Barry Margolin wrote:
> but dummy may NOT draw attention to the irregularity.
>

Just to clarify, he can draw attention to it after play of the hand is over.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <70d9a040-0f10-4172...@googlegroups.com>,

"judyo...@verizon.net" <judyo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the lead is in dummy, the designation "queen" commits declarer to playing
> one of dummy's queens.

I don't think so. If declarer says something like "Queen, I mean Ten of
Spades", I think he has called for the spade 10.

[Martin Ambuhl]

On 6/14/2013 1:20 AM, Peter Smulders wrote:
> On 14-6-2013 3:37, Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>> On 6/13/2013 4:04 PM, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
>>>> Dummy may try to prevent an irregularity from the part of the leader,
>>>> but once the card had been mentioned it is too late. Such a card has
>>>> been played and, and dummy should leave it to the opponents how to
>>>> handle the situation.
>>
>>> Say "stop" when declarer opens his mouth.
>>> If declarer properly names cards by rank then suit, you only have to
>>> stop him before he gets to the suit.
>>> If he employs the improper but popular quirk of naming the suit only,
>>> to designate the lowest card in the suit, that will be a good lesson
>>> for him.
>>
>> What you call "improper" is expressly allowed by the laws.
>
> "improper" is the correct word.

No, it is isn't. The practice is covered under irregularities, with a
clear statement about its meaning. It is not covered as an impropriety.

>
> Law 46A reads:
> A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card
> When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly
> state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.
>
> Other forms are thus "improper" by definition. The fact that some of
> them are condoned is another matter.

The practice is condoned by the laws.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <kpjp24$tu1$1...@dont-email.me>,

Martin Ambuhl <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 6/14/2013 1:20 AM, Peter Smulders wrote:
> > On 14-6-2013 3:37, Martin Ambuhl wrote:
> >> On 6/13/2013 4:04 PM, judyo...@verizon.net wrote:
> >>>> Dummy may try to prevent an irregularity from the part of the leader,
> >>>> but once the card had been mentioned it is too late. Such a card has
> >>>> been played and, and dummy should leave it to the opponents how to
> >>>> handle the situation.
> >>
> >>> Say "stop" when declarer opens his mouth.
> >>> If declarer properly names cards by rank then suit, you only have to
> >>> stop him before he gets to the suit.
> >>> If he employs the improper but popular quirk of naming the suit only,
> >>> to designate the lowest card in the suit, that will be a good lesson
> >>> for him.
> >>
> >> What you call "improper" is expressly allowed by the laws.
> >
> > "improper" is the correct word.
>
> No, it is isn't. The practice is covered under irregularities, with a
> clear statement about its meaning. It is not covered as an impropriety.
>
> >
> > Law 46A reads:

> > A. Proper Form for Designating Dummyąs Card

> > When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly
> > state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.
> >
> > Other forms are thus "improper" by definition. The fact that some of
> > them are condoned is another matter.
>
> The practice is condoned by the laws.

It's a technicality, but the above clearly states that the complete
designation is the proper way. The other forms are improper, but we're
told how to interpret them as if the proper form had been given.

The rest of Law 46 is invoked so frequently that players treat them as
if they're proper.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

> >
>
> > Law 46A reads:
> > A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card
> > When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly
> > state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.
>
> >
>
> > Other forms are thus "improper" by definition. The fact that some of
> > them are condoned is another matter.
>
>
>
> The practice is condoned by the laws.

As we have been reminded recently in this group, the laws defined their use of the word "should" rigorously. It is not a recommendation. It is a statement that to do otherwise is an infraction that is rarely or never penalized.

That is not condoning.

Carl

[Mark Brader]

Wes Powers:
>>>> And there's no requirement to name the rank first. It is quite
>>>> proper to call for the "club queen", for example.

"Carl":
>>> But, as you see, it is unwise to do so.

Mark Brader:

>> We do NOT see. You are imagining that if South starts to call "club
>> queen" and North attempts to stop him speaking, and South gets only
>> as far as the word "club", then the notion that he only intended to say
>> "club" can be enforced. And then on top of that you are imagining that
>> if he intends to say "queen of clubs" and is interrupted after the
>> word "queen", the notion that he only intended to say "queen" cannot
>> be enforced.
>>
>> I see nothing in the Laws to support this position.

"Carl":

> "Club" is a valid (but improper) way of designating dummy's lowest club.

No. Elsewhere in the thread Martin Ambuhl wrote:

|| The practice is condoned by the laws.

And Carl replied:

| As we have been reminded recently in this group, the laws defined
| their use of the word "should" rigorously. It is not a recommendation.
| It is a statement that to do otherwise is an infraction that is rarely
| or never penalized.
|
| That is not condoning.

*This* is correct; it's not condoned and therefore it is *not* a
"valid" designation. Law 46B2 specifies how to interpret this
improper designation if someone makes it, but that does not make
it "valid".

(Of course I'm talking about the game as specified by the Laws, not
as played in practice.)

> If the lead is in dummy, the designation "queen" commits declarer to
> playing one of dummy's queens.

And this, too, is an application of Law 46B to determine how to
interpret an improper designation. In this case it's 46B3, with
different subcases depending on which queen or queens dummy has.

> If the lead is not in dummy, none of dummy's queens is a legal play.

True, and neither is dummy's lowest club.

More important, all of these statements by Carl are irrelevant to his
two assertions that (1) an interrupted designation can be treated as
if declarer had not intended to complete it, and (2) an interrupted
designation of "club--" should be treated as complete whereas one of
"queen--" should not. I say again, both of these are unsupported by
the Laws.

And I'm done with this argument.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The problem is that tax lawyers are
m...@vex.net | amazingly creative." -- David Sherman

[spenser]

In this entire thread, I don't know if anyone else has noticed that the
issue in question is moot for online games/competitions -- if they
have, they certainly haven't mentioned it.

One of the beauties of online play, at least in my opinion, is that it
renders so many of the Laws' provisions moot. You can't make an
insufficient bid, you can't play or bid out of turn, you can't revoke,
you don't have exposed card issues, and you don't have to deal with
improper designations. You can, of course, misclick (or mistype), but
that it equivalent to pulling the wrong card from hand or the bidding
box and that is an issue of inattentiveness, not an issue for the Laws
to deal with.

Of course, in online play, I can just ignore the "Chat" pane which also
eliminates interaction with people I might find objectionalble. I don't
think there are more objectionable or rude players today than there
were 30-40 years ago, but with the reduced bridge-playing population, I
think the percentage of such has gotten higher.

Now that some ACBL Districts are holding their GNT Finals online, maybe
the time is right for some online Sectional or Regional competition to
be attempted. Since STaCs are often held at multiple sites (and even
multiple times of day), would a simultaneous online STaC be a good
place to start? It could definitely make the scoring/results available
more expeditiously -- although that might not be an issue for folks in
some of the Easern US, the big STaCs out here comprise almost
everything west of the MIssissippi and it can take a couple of days for
the non-site-specific results to be known.

--
Dennis Cohen

[derek]

And besides that, RAs may actually define what is meant by such an irregularity. In the ACBL, if you ask for "a spade", it's "the lowest spade".

[derek]

No, I don't see that. If declarer calls for "the club queen", no matter what anybody else hears, he's made a completely proper designation, and the club queen is played.

[derek]

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 7:12:39 PM UTC-3, spenser wrote:
> In this entire thread, I don't know if anyone else has noticed that the
> issue in question is moot for online games/competitions -- if they
> have, they certainly haven't mentioned it.

Well, I for one notice, but it's moot for this discussion.

>
> One of the beauties of online play, at least in my opinion, is that it
> renders so many of the Laws' provisions moot. You can't make an
> insufficient bid, you can't play or bid out of turn, you can't revoke,
> you don't have exposed card issues, and you don't have to deal with
> improper designations.

That's about the only "beauty". Even though I play online most nights...

> You can, of course, misclick (or mistype), but
> that it equivalent to pulling the wrong card from hand or the bidding
> box and that is an issue of inattentiveness, not an issue for the Laws
> to deal with.

NOT AT ALL! It's not only an issue for the Laws to deal with, but they do. It is, in fact, far easier to misclick (though I'm certain that the vast majority of claimed "misclicks" are no such thing) and make an unintentional bid than it is to make a mechanical error with a bidding box, but the Laws understand that such a thing can happen, and try to provide means to deal with it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of BBO players couldn't care less about what the Laws say.

> Of course, in online play, I can just ignore the "Chat" pane which also
> eliminates interaction with people I might find objectionalble.

No, those guys you put on your "Enemy" list, and then they can't chat to you at all.

> I don't
> think there are more objectionable or rude players today than there
> were 30-40 years ago,

There are far fewer.

> but with the reduced bridge-playing population, I
> think the percentage of such has gotten higher.

What reduced population? It's always hard to get the numbers out of the ACBL, but their membership hasn't dropped afaict, in those 30-40 years (admittedly, it hasn't grown as fast as the population). Add to that the number of online-playing bridge players, who have no intention of ever joining any club, and you have both a real and per-capita increase.

[Mark Brader]

"Derek":

> And besides that, RAs may actually define what is meant by such an
> irregularity.

No, they may not. You're probably thinking of Law 70E2, which is
about claims where the claimer omits the sequence of play in a suit.

> In the ACBL, if you ask for "a spade", it's "the lowest spade".

And anywhere else. Law 46B2.
--
Mark Brader | scanf() is even more complicated and usually does
Toronto | something almost but not completely unlike what
m...@vex.net | you want. -- Chris Torek (after Douglas Adams)

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den fredagen den 14:e juni 2013 kl. 15:42:29 UTC+2 skrev judyo...@verizon.net:
> >
>
> >
>
> > In all other cases, declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played, declarer must designate which is intended."
>
>
>
> Can he legally do so if it is illegal to lead from dummy at all?

Actually, I think the "legally" part is used when declarer calls for "nine" and there is no nine of clubs on dummy, and clubs are lead.

[Ed Reppert]

In article <kpgv3k$eil$1...@news.albasani.net>,
zo...@ninthbit.com (Lone Locust of the Apocalypse) wrote:

> This isn't exactly what you said, but friends of mine have had a
> director call dismissed because dummy was the first to draw attention
> to an irregularity.

I would suggest to any director who does this that he should carefully
read Law 81C3.

I have been told by someone, I don't now remember who, at ACBL HQ, that
in the case of a ZT violation, dummy is permitted to call attention to
it.

[Ed Reppert]

In article <kpdro9$879$1...@dont-email.me>,
Martin Ambuhl <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> It applies to any game in which the participants claim to be playing
> bridge. The laws are not ACBL-specific; they define the game. If you
> do have a copy of the ACBL version of the laws, you will find those
> things which are ACBL-specific at the very end, where those things left
> to the disgression of the sponsoring organization are published.

This is not entirely true. The footnote to Law 12C2{c} is unique to the
ACBL version of the laws - and its only legal basis is the ACBL's
assertion that it can write whatever laws it likes, regardless what the
WBF says. IOW, unlike the "elections" in the back of the ACBL law book,
Law 12C2{c}, as written, does not give the ACBL the option to do what it
did. There may be other places where the ACBL has changed the WBF's
version of the laws - I seem to remember there's at least one, though I
can't think where in the laws it is at the moment.

[Lone Locust of the Apocalypse]

Ed Reppert <blac...@mac.com> writes:
>In article <kpgv3k$eil$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> zo...@ninthbit.com (Lone Locust of the Apocalypse) wrote:
>> This isn't exactly what you said, but friends of mine have had a
>> director call dismissed because dummy was the first to draw attention
>> to an irregularity.
>
>I would suggest to any director who does this that he should carefully
>read Law 81C3.

Hm, good point. So per 81C3 the director should still take the call,
and possibly apply 90 per 43B1.

Unless 43B3 applies, in which case "there is no rectification. Play
occurs as though no irregularity had occurred. At the end of play, see
Law 12B1."