[barmar]

Tonight I was dummy on a hand, and after winning a trick in hand declarer called for a card from dummy, and I said "You're in your hand." The Laws now say that dummy is allowed to prevent declarer from committing an infraction. The common case of this is when declarer starts to pull a card from his hand and dummy points out that he's in dummy (or it's an opponent's lead) before the card is exposed. But in my case, did I make a mistake because by the time declarer has called a card from dummy it's too late to "prevent" anything?

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2010-December-22, 00:16, said:

did I make a mistake because by the time declarer has called a card from dummy it's too late to "prevent" anything?

That's my understanding, yes.

[bluejak]

It is a very common mistake, but yes, it's a mistake. When I play, declarer names a card, and dummy points out to him he is in hand over 90% of the time, and declarer plays from hand. I do not bother to do anything unless I want to accept dummy's card then I point it out.

The moment a card is played it is too late to warn declarer he is leading from the wrong hand and dummy should stay quiet. Of course, when he is leading wrongly from hand, dummy has a fair time before th card is played - held touching or near the table - so dummy is usually in time. It is usually only a card from dummy that dummy tends to warn when it is too late to do so.

The same applies to other infractions, except that when declarer appears to revoke dummy is still permitted to warn him: "Having none, partner?". It was explained to me many years ago the reason for the difference is that dummy is warning declarer against establishing the revoke.

[barmar]

That's what I thought. It's just such an automatic reaction, it's hard to suppress.

In this case it was a "no harm, no foul" situation. Declarer had called for the trump Ace, and then corrected it by leading up to the Ace, so the trick was exactly the same regardless of which hand he led from.

[kenrexford]

The updated Laws provide that Dummy is allowed to make this comment, but only if he follows it up with "you dumbass."

[campboy]

bluejak, on 2010-December-22, 07:39, said:

The same applies to other infractions, except that when declarer appears to revoke dummy is still permitted to warn him: "Having none, partner?". It was explained to me many years ago the reason for the difference is that dummy is warning declarer against establishing the revoke.

Establishing the revoke isn't an infraction, though, provided declarer is not aware of having revoked. Also, dummy is not allowed to ask a defender if he has revoked, but he is allowed to try to prevent an irregularity by any player.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2010-December-22, 07:39, said:

The same applies to other infractions, except that when declarer appears to revoke dummy is still permitted to warn him: "Having none, partner?". It was explained to me many years ago the reason for the difference is that dummy is warning declarer against establishing the revoke.

campboy, on 2010-December-22, 12:06, said:

Establishing the revoke isn't an infraction, though, provided declarer is not aware of having revoked. Also, dummy is not allowed to ask a defender if he has revoked, but he is allowed to try to prevent an irregularity by any player.

Law 61: B. Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke

2. (a) Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2{B}).

There is no question about trying to prevent any irregularity here: Dummy is explicitly allowed {subject to the limitations in Law 43A2 as referred to in Law 43B2b} to ask Declarer if he possibly has revoked

[jallerton]

Law 9A3 says:

Quote

Law9A3. When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

Once your partner had completed his designation "ace of clubs", a card had been played from dummy (an irregularity, as the lead was not in dummy) so you violated the first sentence Law 9A3.

More interestingly, suppose you had been a split second earlier; on hearing partner start to say "a" you warn him that his own hand is on lead. Now, if you have managed to prevent partner from completing "...ce of clubs" then perhaps he has not yet designated a card in the form required by Law 46A and hence you have been successful in your attempt to prevent your partner's irregularity (a practice explicity permitted by Law9A3).

[barmar]

pran, on 2010-December-22, 17:05, said:

Law 61: B. Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke

2. (a) Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2{B}).

There is no question about trying to prevent any irregularity here: Dummy is explicitly allowed {subject to the limitations in Law 43A2 as referred to in Law 43B2b} to ask Declarer if he possibly has revoked

I think bluejack was explaining the rationale for this law, not stating that it was implied by the law that allows preventing an irregularity. Rather, the rationale resulted in both laws.

[barmar]

jallerton, on 2010-December-22, 17:11, said:

More interestingly, suppose you had been a split second earlier; on hearing partner start to say "a" you warn him that his own hand is on lead. Now, if you have managed to prevent partner from completing "...ce of clubs" then perhaps he has not yet designated a card in the form required by Law 46A and hence you have been successful in your attempt to prevent your partner's irregularity (a practice explicity permitted by Law9A3).

Catching him in mid-word seems pretty tricky. However, my partner often points to the suit in dummy as he's naming a card, and his hand starts moving before his mouth. In that case, I can catch him before anything comes out. Or he might start with "umm...", and it's obvious he's about to name a card, and I can stop him then.

[pran]

pran, on 2010-December-22, 17:05, said:

Law 61: B. Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke

2. (a) Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2{B}).

There is no question about trying to prevent any irregularity here: Dummy is explicitly allowed {subject to the limitations in Law 43A2 as referred to in Law 43B2b} to ask Declarer if he possibly has revoked

barmar, on 2010-December-24, 15:30, said:

I think bluejack was explaining the rationale for this law, not stating that it was implied by the law that allows preventing an irregularity. Rather, the rationale resulted in both laws.

If that is his intention then I believe it is based on failure to know the history of the laws.

Quoting from the Laws of duplicate bridge as of 1935 (apply to both Auction and Contract):
11: Dummy may not by act or word suggest any lead or play; or call attention to an opponent's revoke, lead out of turn, or card exposure; or warn the Declarer that he is about to lead from the wrong hand, or tell him, except in reply to a question, which hand has the lead. Otherwise he has all the rights of a player, subject to the provisions of Law 33.
31: .....Either adversary, but not Dummy, may call his partner's attention to the fact that he is about to lead from the wrong hand.
33: Dummy shall not intentionally look at any cards held by Declarer or either adversary. If he has looked at any card illegally, he may not call Declarer's attention to:
{a} Any legal right. Penalty: Forfeiture of such right.
{b} The fact that he has refused a suit. Penalty: Declarer may not change his play and the revoke (if any) is thereby established.
39: {a} Any player may question any other player as to whether his lead or play constitutes a revoke (except that Dummy may question only Declarer) .....

I have been unable to find any provision in these laws that allows a player to try preventing another player from committing an irregularity except for the laws quoted above. Such provision has been introduced much later, and it is worth noting that the provisions in the present law 61B has always been maintained completely separated from: any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (Law 9A3) I don't know if such provision was entered already in the 1943 laws, but it is present in the 1949 laws.

[blackshoe]

I suspect David knows what his intention was.

There have been sufficient changes in the laws, and in the approach to regulating the game, since 1935 that I would think going back that far cannot be productive.

[dburn]

bluejak, on 2010-December-22, 07:39, said:

It is a very common mistake, but yes, it's a mistake. When I play, declarer names a card, and dummy points out to him he is in hand over 90% of the time, and declarer plays from hand. I do not bother to do anything unless I want to accept dummy's card then I point it out.

I have never been quite sure of the rights and obligations of a defender in this kind of position.

Suppose for example that I (East) know the layout but my partner does not (comments from my partners such as "fat chance of that" will be ignored).

South leads from dummy when he should have led from his hand.

I perceive that this is a mistake, because South could have made the contract by leading from his hand but not by leading from dummy.

Is West allowed per Law 16 to draw any inference from the fact that I actively accept the lead from dummy (as by saying "you're actually in hand, but I'm going to play second to this trick"), rather than from my simply playing second to the trick? If I do simply play second to the trick, is West allowed per Law 16 to draw the inference that I don't care, else I would have actively accepted the lead from dummy?

Once, I had a queen in front of dummy's king-jack. Declarer led towards the king-jack, and I played low slowly to give my partner time to object to declarer's lead from the wrong hand. He didn't object, so declarer went up with the king and screamed blue murder when partner won the ace. Did I do wrong?

[bluejak]

I do not understand Sven's objections to my post. It is my understanding that the reason for the Law is that dummy is preventing declarer from establishing the revoke. Quoting Laws seems a pointless answer to this. Quoting what happened 60 years ago does as well. I stick by the contents of my post which I believe to be the case.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2010-December-25, 07:50, said:

I do not understand Sven's objections to my post. It is my understanding that the reason for the Law is that dummy is preventing declarer from establishing the revoke. Quoting Laws seems a pointless answer to this. Quoting what happened 60 years ago does as well. I stick by the contents of my post which I believe to be the case.

I just tried to point out that preventing declarer from establishing a revoke by asking if he really is void is a specific right that has existed since long before players were given a more general right to try preventing irregularities. The latter cannot have been introduced in the laws before 1943 and the two "rights" have been kept strictly separated in the laws ever since.

This seems very sensible as the irregularity is the revoke itself and not that it becomes established. Thus asking about a possible revoke cannot be seen as an attempt to prevent an irregularity. I consider it rather as an attempt to minimize the consequences of the irregularity (revoke).

[bluejak]

I don't. Establishing a revoke is clearly an irregularity since the Laws require revokes to be corrected, and ancient history does not affect my statement being correct.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2010-December-25, 19:37, said:

I don't. Establishing a revoke is clearly an irregularity since the Laws require revokes to be corrected, and ancient history does not affect my statement being correct.

Sorry?
Definitions: Irregularity — a deviation from correct procedure
Law 62A: A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established
Law 63A: A revoke becomes established:
1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke).
2. when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick.
3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.

Are you asserting that the actions described in Law 63A are deviations from correct procedure?

May I suggest that we end this discussion right here?

[bluejak]

You end it when you like. I have given an opinion. You have made various comments that have nothing to do with that opinion. My opinion stands.

[alphatango]

dburn, on 2010-December-24, 23:11, said:

Is West allowed per Law 16 to draw any inference from the fact that I actively accept the lead from dummy (as by saying "you're actually in hand, but I'm going to play second to this trick"), rather than from my simply playing second to the trick? If I do simply play second to the trick, is West allowed per Law 16 to draw the inference that I don't care, else I would have actively accepted the lead from dummy?

Once, I had a queen in front of dummy's king-jack. Declarer led towards the king-jack, and I played low slowly to give my partner time to object to declarer's lead from the wrong hand. He didn't object, so declarer went up with the king and screamed blue murder when partner won the ace. Did I do wrong?

Just a short note to say that I've often wondered about these situations as well, and would be very interested in hearing opinions from other people.

===

Easy one first: In the latter scenario (Qxx in second hand in front of dummy's KJx), I would argue that the lead out of turn is irregular and (relatively) unusual, hence you always have a legitimate reason for at least a short pause (thinking about whether or not to accept the lead). If declarer doesn't realise they've led out of turn and draws an erroneous inference, that's their problem.

===

First scenario: I think both "active" and "passive" acceptances of the LOOT are legal procedures, hence AI. (L55A says "may accept the lead as provided in Law 53", so simply playing is not irregular.) But that does not mean that you can use it to convey information; to do otherwise would mean that "I accept" and "I accept the lead" could both be so used. I can't find a way to let you have "active" and "passive" acceptance without losing to a slippery slope argument.

So we argue that it's a "manner in which...[a play is] made", L73B1, hence you may not use it to transmit information; that is, variations in the way in which you accept the lead is UI. Alternatively, even if we argue that it doesn't count under L73B1, it'll be an implicit (or explicit) partnership understanding under L40, and we'll hand the problem over to RAs.

Perhaps a question tangentially related to the first scenario is this: When declarer leads out of turn, L55A allows either defender to choose whether to accept or reject the lead. Is the information that partner expressed a certain opinion authorised? I argue that it's information "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations", L16A1c, so it's AI. Analogously, though, (variations in) the manner in which partner expressed their opinion is UI.

(FWIW, I started this post wanting to argue my way to active/passive being AI. Oh, well.)

[campboy]

bluejak, on 2010-December-25, 19:37, said:

I don't. Establishing a revoke is clearly an irregularity since the Laws require revokes to be corrected, and ancient history does not affect my statement being correct.

If you are not aware that you have revoked then it is not a breach of law 62A to establish the revoke, and as far as I can see it is not a breach of any other law either.

If, as you suggest, establishing a revoke is an infraction why is dummy not permitted to try to prevent a defender committing this infraction, by asking him if he has revoked?

Also, do you really consider that I have committed an irregularity by playing in turn to the current trick if, unbeknownst to me, my partner has revoked on the previous trick?