[blackshoe]

This is a discussion, not a poll.

Law 42A3 says dummy "plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed and ensures that dummy follows suit (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play)."
Law 45F says "After dummy’s hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested."
Law 46A says there's only one proper way to designate a card from dummy. "When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card."
Law 46B tells us how to interpret declarer's incorrect (because it doesn't follow Law 46A) call for a card from dummy.

It seems that it is incumbent on players either to be thoroughly familiar with the provisions of Law 46B, or to call the director every time declarer fails to follow Law 46A. I don't think we need to get into a long discussion of the objections to the latter. Or even a short discussion. That leaves us with the former.

When declarer's irregularity clearly meets one or the other of the provisions of Law 46B, I trust no one (except possibly the Secretary Bird) will object if dummy acts on his interpretation. What should happen if dummy doesn't understand what declarer wants? Can he ask for clarification without violating Law 43A1{b} ("Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play")? Can he sit still, saying nothing? If he can't do either of these things, what is he to do? Can he call the director, not to point out an irregularity, but to ask what he should do?

If he can't act, and he can't not act, he's pretty much screwed. Is this a (long overlooked) fatal flaw in the laws?

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2018-January-06, 13:27, said:

What should happen if dummy doesn't understand what declarer wants?

I think dummy should just follow 46b when a rank and suit are not named. And I think 46b should be expanded to deal with expressions often used, such as "ruff", "trump", "overtake", "duck". If this fails, the TD has to be called. If dummy does not hear what declarer says, I don't see any restriction on dummy asking for it to be repeated.

[blackshoe]

If dummy can do whatever 46B suggests, sure he should do so. What if he can't? What if declarer's instruction is ambiguous?

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2018-January-06, 18:54, said:

If dummy can do whatever 46B suggests, sure he should do so. What if he can't? What if declarer's instruction is ambiguous?

Then the TD is called, and I think that should include where dummy, not last to play, is told to "win" the trick.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2018-January-07, 05:33, said:

Then the TD is called.

By whom?

[barmar]

Dummy's own confusion is not an irregularity, so asking for clarification isn't calling attention to an irregularity.

[blackshoe]

SB might argue otherwise, Barry.

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2018-January-07, 13:26, said:

Dummy's own confusion is not an irregularity, so asking for clarification isn't calling attention to an irregularity.

 blackshoe, on 2018-January-07, 17:38, said:

SB might argue otherwise, Barry.

IMO, If declarer designates dummy's card wrongly, dummy must not draw attention to declarer's infraction; but defenders should do so.
This novel approach (players trying to comply with the rules, and directors trying to enforce them) might well cause consternation, initially; but would produce a fairer game; and we should get used to it, eventually .

Arguably, even better would be simpler, clearer rules, but we might wait forever for progress in that direction.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, but you know what'll happen, Nige. Everybody will sit there like a lump, and then the defense will claim that dummy sitting there doing nothing is calling attention to the irregularity.

[BudH]

 blackshoe, on 2018-January-07, 19:22, said:

Yeah, but you know what'll happen, Nige. Everybody will sit there like a lump, and then the defense will claim that dummy sitting there doing nothing is calling attention to the irregularity.

Declarer has failed to make a proper verbal designation of the card to be played from dummy, which does not meet Law 46A but also is not among the myriad of Law 46B possibilities.

Dummy must be allowed to either

1. Do nothing.
2. Ask declarer to explicitly specify suit and rank (or something of similar nature) to ensure the proper card is removed from dummy and placed in the played position.

I think the safest thing dummy can do is to sit there and do nothing. Yes, this means a defender or declarer may be the first one to speak that dummy has not played a card yet. If I am the Director and defenders try to make the assertion dummy has called attention to an irregularity, I'm very unlikely to penalize this - or even consider it is to be considered drawing attention to an irregularity by doing or saying nothing. If dummy can tell me what declarer said and I agree there is ambiguity in the call of dummy's card (not meeting Law 46B), then I definitely will not penalize this.

[blackshoe]

Actually, probably the safest thing for dummy to do is to pretend he didn't hear what declarer said.

[661_Pete]

My comment is about 45F: "dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement)".

It often happens, especially when declarer calls a card in the middle of a suit, that dummy's cards get a bit disarranged on the table, and it's natural, surely?, for dummy to 'tidy them up' after the trick has been played. And it doesn't seem to contravene the above Law.

Except, I was called out for doing just that, once. Was it construed, in some arcane manner, as me 'suggesting a play' to Declarer? One might have thought so - except that the person telling me off was my partner* - i.e. Declarer. I mean - where's this coming from?

At least the Oppos voiced no objection (naturally!) and there was no question of calling the TD.

Another "Secretary Bird" here, perhaps? Or more of a HH?

*a pick-up partner - not my regular.

[blackshoe]

Rule 4,682: Do not "tell off" your partner, pick-up or otherwise, at the table. If you must admonish him, do so after the game.

In a way, you're lucky. Technically, if your partner wanted to tell you off he should have called the director and asked him to do it, preferably via a procedural penalty. But of course the director would have told your partner not to be so silly.

[barmar]

I suppose if your tidying interferes with declarer's ability to see dummy and interrupts his train of thought, he has a good reason to ask you to be less fastidious. Of course, he should ask you nicely not to distract him that way, not tell you off.

[pescetom]

Another aspect of 46B that strikes me as bizarre is 1.(b) "If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick, he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick."
How is dummy supposed to know which card will win the trick? Is he obliged to remember and analyse all play rather than merely act as the agent of declarer? If he does not know, can he say so? Is he committing an infraction if he plays a card that does not win the trick or is unnecessarily high?

[weejonnie]

 pescetom, on 2018-February-10, 09:00, said:

Another aspect of 46B that strikes me as bizarre is 1.(b) "If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick, he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick."
How is dummy supposed to know which card will win the trick? Is he obliged to remember and analyse all play rather than merely act as the agent of declarer? If he does not know, can he say so? Is he committing an infraction if he plays a card that does not win the trick or is unnecessarily high?

We've had a lot of discussion on this subject. Obviously if dummy is last to play then the position is obvious. As you say, otherwise we have several situations:

1) Dummy knows the lowest correct card that will win the trick - and declarer knows the same. --> No problem
2) Dummy knows the lowest correct card that will win the trick - but declarer thinks a higher one is needed. --> How do we reconcile with 'dummy must not participate in the play'?
3) Dummy thinks that a certain card is needed to win the trick - but declarer knows a lower one is needed. --> At least declarer can forestall dummy.
4) Declarer thinks that a card will win the trick but in fact there is a higher one still out. --> Has he actually called for a card

I suppose dummy would have to say "I don't know which is the lowest card that will win the trick"

[pescetom]

 weejonnie, on 2018-February-10, 10:32, said:

I suppose dummy would have to say "I don't know which is the lowest card that will win the trick"

Although in your case (4) even that might be considered as calling attention to declarer's irregularity.
Just as in your case (3) some astute opponent might claim that dummy touched a card not indicated by declarer
Quite a mess.

[pran]

 pescetom, on 2018-February-10, 09:00, said:

Another aspect of 46B that strikes me as bizarre is 1.(b) "If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick, he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick."
How is dummy supposed to know which card will win the trick? Is he obliged to remember and analyse all play rather than merely act as the agent of declarer? If he does not know, can he say so? Is he committing an infraction if he plays a card that does not win the trick or is unnecessarily high?

 weejonnie, on 2018-February-10, 10:32, said:

We've had a lot of discussion on this subject. Obviously if dummy is last to play then the position is obvious. As you say, otherwise we have several situations:

1) Dummy knows the lowest correct card that will win the trick - and declarer knows the same. --> No problem
2) Dummy knows the lowest correct card that will win the trick - but declarer thinks a higher one is needed. --> How do we reconcile with 'dummy must not participate in the play'?
3) Dummy thinks that a certain card is needed to win the trick - but declarer knows a lower one is needed. --> At least declarer can forestall dummy.
4) Declarer thinks that a card will win the trick but in fact there is a higher one still out. --> Has he actually called for a card

I suppose dummy would have to say "I don't know which is the lowest card that will win the trick"

No problem!

If Dummy is not the last to play to the trick he shall play the lowest correct card that according to his knowledge will win the trick.
If he is unsure then that means his highest card (save for continuous ranking cards)

[BudH]

 pescetom, on 2018-February-10, 09:00, said:

Another aspect of 46B that strikes me as bizarre is 1.(b) "If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick, he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick."
How is dummy supposed to know which card will win the trick? Is he obliged to remember and analyse all play rather than merely act as the agent of declarer? If he does not know, can he say so? Is he committing an infraction if he plays a card that does not win the trick or is unnecessarily high?

It would be easier if "cover cheaply" was used here and "win it" only used when dummy is last to play to the trick.

(Yes, it would be even easier if Law 46A was consistently followed, or (more realistically) if only a few of the Law 46B choices were used. "Low spade", "top spade", "ruff low", "ruff high", "trump low", and "trump high" are commonly used and should have no ambiguity. "Win it" certainly has potential for more ambiguity.)

[blackshoe]

Heh. Opening lead is the 2 of some suit. Dummy has a singleton. "Win it," says declarer. The singleton is the three. Don't laugh, I've seen this happen.