[Siegmund]

One of my partners is in the habit of doing this periodically. I told her it wasn't allowed, and she had an interesting counter-argument:

"I know I can't just ask for curiosity; I'm trying to follow the play to carry out my duty of watching for irregularities, trying to stop you from revoking and calling attention after the hand if the opponents do. I only ask when an opponent holds his card so only you can see it, then turns it over quickly. Doesn't he have to put his card on the table for us all to see when he plays it?"

She indicated she had previously asked a director at a regional, and the director had agreed that she had a legitimate need to see all the cards once, and allowed her to ask, only if cards were played so she couldn't see them.

Opinions?

(Edited to add: ACBL territory -- not that I think it matters; there aren't any special ACBL-only powers for dummy, like there are about defenders asking each other about revokes.)

[campboy]

I don't think dummy has any right to do this. Law 66 only applies to declarer and defenders. It sounds like the way opponents are playing cards is an irregularity (law 45A says that defenders and declarer play cards by facing them on the table, and this establishes correct procedure), but since dummy isn't entitled to draw attention to an irregualrity during the play that doesn't solve the problem.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2013-July-27, 03:07, said:

I don't think dummy has any right to do this. Law 66 only applies to declarer and defenders. It sounds like the way opponents are playing cards is an irregularity (law 45A says that defenders and declarer play cards by facing them on the table, and this establishes correct procedure), but since dummy isn't entitled to draw attention to an irregualrity during the play that doesn't solve the problem.

Agreed.
However, although dummy may not in any way actively indicate his interest in seeing the cards declarer is fully entitled to have all cards played to a trick made visible so that also dummy can see them.

[blackshoe]

I suppose dummy could wait until the play is over, call the director, and ask to see every trick, since the defenders' irregularities prevented him from doing so. I think the director should honor this request, though I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. And I wouldn't be surprised if the defenders, at least, found the request silly or annoying. I do think it's within dummy's rights to do it, though.

[aguahombre]

 Siegmund, on 2013-July-26, 21:49, said:

One of my partners is in the habit of doing this periodically. I told her it wasn't allowed, and she had an interesting counter-argument:

"...... I only ask when an opponent holds his card so only you can see it, then turns it over quickly."

Blackshoe, Pran, and Campboy have covered the legalities. Coincidentally, as Dummy I encountered this quick flash just yesterday. Knowing I had to zip up my mouth, I did a lot of leaning and craning each time --enough that it was noticed and in hopes the perpetrator would get the message. I really did not want to ask to see everything at the end of play. I agree that would be just as annoying to the defender as her habit was to me.

Point of order, however: we are not talking about the previous trick here, as the title indicates. It is a trick in progress when the irregularity occurs, but I still can't demand to see it.

[blackshoe]

There's a difference in these annoyances, though that probably won't matter to our defender. That difference is that dummy's annoyance will have been caused by one or more defenders' irregularities, and defenders' annoyance will have been caused by dummy's attempt to get rectification for those irregularities. On balance then I'm not much concerned about defenders' annoyance. After all, they brought it on themselves.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-27, 11:10, said:

There's a difference in these annoyances, though that probably won't matter to our defender. That difference is that dummy's annoyance will have been caused by one or more defenders' irregularities, and defenders' annoyance will have been caused by dummy's attempt to get rectification for those irregularities. On balance then I'm not much concerned about defenders' annoyance. After all, they brought it on themselves.

Agreed. But, at the club level I think I should lump it, let Pard protect herself, and address the problem as a general teaching issue before the next game. I do have a teaching role at that club; others who don't should suggest topics such as this to the "designated teacher" (There should be one --defacto or titled.)

[Siegmund]

I did suggest to partner that the proper remedy was for her to protest at the end of the hand that the opponents played their cards in an irregular fashion. (If it's an irregularity at all -- the law doesn't quite say a card has to be played so that all 4 people at the table can see it.) My view is that, whatever her rights about watching for irregularities are, she doesn't have any rights to compel anyone else to help her do so.

I am curious which regional+ director told her it was OK, and on what basis. (Well, I kind of know what basis - he ruled her right to watch for irregularities was sufficiently powerful to compel others to show her their cards.)

Yes, I could have titled the thread better - but it's hard to find the right phrase to describe a trick that the actively participating players have quitted but dummy hasn't, before the next trick is led.

[pran]

 Siegmund, on 2013-July-27, 13:34, said:

I did suggest to partner that the proper remedy was for her to protest at the end of the hand that the opponents played their cards in an irregular fashion. (If it's an irregularity at all -- the law doesn't quite say a card has to be played so that all 4 people at the table can see it.) My view is that, whatever her rights about watching for irregularities are, she doesn't have any rights to compel anyone else to help her do so.

I am curious which regional+ director told her it was OK, and on what basis. (Well, I kind of know what basis - he ruled her right to watch for irregularities was sufficiently powerful to compel others to show her their cards.)

Yes, I could have titled the thread better - but it's hard to find the right phrase to describe a trick that the actively participating players have quitted but dummy hasn't, before the next trick is led.

No, the Law doesn't literally say exactly that, but it is rather difficult to face it on the table immediately before him (Law 45A) in any way preventing the card from being seen by dummy.

So I think we may safely conclude that playing a card in any way preventing dummy from seeing the face of that card is an irregularity.

My suggestion is to have a little teamwork between declarer and dummy: Whenever a defender fails to expose his played card visible to dummy declarer should ask him to obey Law 45A!

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2013-July-27, 11:26, said:

Agreed. But, at the club level I think I should lump it, let Pard protect herself, and address the problem as a general teaching issue before the next game. I do have a teaching role at that club; others who don't should suggest topics such as this to the "designated teacher" (There should be one --defacto or titled.)

Well, maybe. There's "teaching" at only one club here, where they usually have three or four sections, one or two of them "A" (for some value of "A") and the others what the club owner calls her "babies" - some of whom have been playing for years but refuse to play up. The only ones who ever attend the before-session classes are the "babies". The "A" players figure they know it all already. So frequently your solution regrettably will not work.

[aguahombre]

Ah, but you are thinking of a class situation. Things like how to display a card played on the table take about thirty seconds ---each separate issue preached at the beginning of a different session, one at a time. The one or two main targets should be present, of course. It is along with other routine pre-game announcements ---like welcoming a new player, etc.

[blackshoe]

Interesting idea. Might work, I don't know. Of course, it's impossible to get everybody to sit down and shut up at the beginning of a session, at least around here, so that would seem to suggest it won't work.

Well, okay, there's one way to get them to sit down and shut up: pass out the boards. But if we do that, they won't be listening to our "lesson", they'll be playing their first board. Opportunity lost.

[iviehoff]

 Siegmund, on 2013-July-26, 21:49, said:

"I know I can't just ask for curiosity; I'm trying to follow the play to carry out my duty of watching for irregularities, trying to stop you from revoking and calling attention after the hand if the opponents do. I only ask when an opponent holds his card so only you can see it, then turns it over quickly. Doesn't he have to put his card on the table for us all to see when he plays it?"

The correct answer to this is that dummy does not have a duty to watch out for irregularities, nor does he have a duty to attempt to prevent irregularities. These are permissions, not requirements. Dummy can ask to see the cards at the end of the hand if he is concerned about a possible revoke.

[pran]

 iviehoff, on 2013-July-29, 04:14, said:

The correct answer to this is that dummy does not have a duty to watch out for irregularities, nor does he have a duty to attempt to prevent irregularities. These are permissions, not requirements. Dummy can ask to see the cards at the end of the hand if he is concerned about a possible revoke.

Dummy certanly has no duty to watch out for irregularities, but he does have his privileges.

And in order to enable him executing his privileges he should be able to monitor the progress of the play.

Now the easiest was to accomplish that against hostile opponents is probably that declarer and dummy cooperates with declarer insisting that opponents play their cards as prescribed in Law 45A.

[McBruce]

But what about cases where dummy might or might not have been able to see the card? Is it not easier to simply note this for the next version of the Laws and add to dummy's rights the right to see cards played by the declarer and defenders, and to ask to view the trick again if this is made impossible. Surely this is better than allowing defenders to legally shield cards from dummy's view -- you can detach and face while keeping your hand between dummy and the card, if your hand is large enough. Surely this is better than the suggestion that declarer and dummy should collude before the game and agree to watch for such nefarious practice and call for a shielded card to be exposed for dummy to see.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps so, Bruce, but what are we supposed to do in the meantime?