[jillybean]

Here's a new one.
East is declarer, the play is going well and then West (6500 Masterpoints) pipes up, can I see those cards please?

North South say "no, you are dummy"

Dummy says "the Laws say I must keep track of the cards played"

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2026-August-31, 08:59, said:

Here's a new one.
East is declarer, the play is going well and then West (6500 Masterpoints) pipes up, can I see those cards please?

North South say "no, you are dummy"

Dummy says "the Laws say I must keep track of the cards played"

What law?

[Gerardo]

I think dummy MAY keep track, it s/he so decides.

Needed for 42A2 (keep count of tricks won and lost), one of dummy's rights.

Arguably, also for 43B3 (draw attention to any irregularity).

Obviously, if the point is to make a point to declarer, it must be dealt with.

[mycroft]

I think there is a difference (and a fine line) between "Dummy should be allowed to follow the play" and "aiding declarer".

There are players that go too fast to follow, and players who flip their cards before the trick is complete. I think it is fair for dummy to ask that things slow down - in general - enough that they can follow the play. However, wanting to see one trick in particular - especially if declarer has turned their card - is a no-no, but usually innocent.

I can see this being yet another "they're just rude" vs "there are players who will ask for improper reasons, and we have a right to protect ourselves from them" situation, where both sides can't see the other's issue. As always, that's where the director can be a neutral POV to clarify issues.

I also don't have a problem with defenders who show their cards to *dummy* without showing them to declarer :-).

Of course, any defenders who are playing this card who will do *anything* to stop dummy from reviewing the play after the hand - when they are absolutely legally allowed to - should be treated with the same suspicion they are treating dummy.

[blackshoe]

Law 42A2 gives dummy the absolute right to keep count of tricks won and lost.
Law 45A says each player except dummy plays a card to a trick by facing it on the table immediately in front of him.
Law 45G says "No player should turn his card face down until all four players have played to the trick."

In general, while the laws give dummy the right to keep count of tricks, they don't give him the right to ask that a quitted card be faced (Law 66A limits that right to declarer and the defenders).

IMO, if defenders are acting in such a way that dummy can't see which cards are played, dummy is basically SOL. If I were dummy in that situation I would ask defenders to please give me a chance to see what cards they play. If they don't I will call the director after the hand and tell him that defenders' mannerisms are annoying, and would he please tell them to change their ways. When the director takes no action, or the defenders ignore the problem, I'd find another game.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2026-August-31, 14:10, said:

Law 42A2 gives dummy the absolute right to keep count of tricks won and lost.

hmmmm

I suggest slowing down just a bit. What exactly does the law 42A2 say?

42A.
2. He may keep count of tricks won and lost.

Stripping out headings makes for curious work. As in, who is 'he'? Or perhaps, who is not 'he'?

Notice the effect:
42A. Dummy
2. may keep count of tricks won and lost.

[jillybean]

North/South were not intentionally concealing cards from dummy, nor playing, quitting tricks "too fast".
There was no suggestion of dummy trying to aid declarer.

I believe dummy just likes to keep an eye on what is going on in the play, and other aspects at the table,
table card is centered, boards stacked neatly, pencils lined up - you know the type.

But because an opponent felt uncomfortable, the Director was called. If we want genuine adherence to Law 74, players need to feel at ease.
I wish everyone would just save the discussion and be quiet until the round is over.

Bridge is for fun. You should play the game for no other reason. You should not play bridge to make money, to show how smart you are, to show how stupid your partner is, to prove that you are the greatest teacher since Socrates, to show off the latest fad in bidding or to prove any of the several hundred other things that bridge players are so often trying to prove."

Charles Goren

[mycroft]

Ah, just default LooT behaviour when one of their requirements is violated - claim it's a Law and complain. Much less worrisome than the other reason.

"No, in fact, you don't. You're allowed to try to keep track of the play, but no player is required to go beyond what is required for the active players to keep track for you. If you think there was a violation, you can ask to have the cards kept in order to check after the hand is over; we'll deal with it then. Having said that, it's probably better if we all just slow down a fraction and make it easy for everyone to follow? Thanks."

I have a sideline job educating LooTs when they go too far. They're usually surprised. They're also surprised when I give them an E-W occasionally...

One exception, as always: ONE - and only one - person flips the boards, and that should be one of North and South. Frankly, if there's *any* time issue with this pair, I recommend it be South. North has enough to do. Watching the LooTs squirm when I make that suggestion, though...

[barmar]

axman, on 2026-September-01, 07:01, said:

Stripping out headings makes for curious work. As in, who is 'he'? Or perhaps, who is not 'he'?

There are many confusing things in the Laws, but I've never found that to be one of them. All of Law 42 is dummy's rights, so in the statement of each right "he" presumably means "dummy". Also, in each lettered subsection, #1 starts with "Dummy", and the rest abbreviate this to "he" -- they're obviously referring to the same player.

Who else could "he" refer to in this context?

Getting back to the subject of the thread, blackshoe hit the nail on the head. Only declarer and defenders may request that the last trick be faced. I think 42A2 at most allows dummy to confirm who won the previous trick so he can point his quitted trick properly.

However, 42B2 might be an out here. If he thinks someone (including himself) is about to point their quitted trick the wrong way, he can try to prevent this irregularity by asking to see the trick being quitted.

[mycroft]

I disagree with the last half of that statement. "Didn't they win it?" "No."

I mean, he can *try* anything he wants, but he's only allowed to attempt to prevent an irregularity. Plus, once the potential irregularity has been completed, 43A1b applies (okay, 65B3 overrides, at least until the "infractor" or their partner plays to the next trick). That doesn't give him any more rights.

And, while I do realize it's "only a translation", sometimes it's just better (as well as better) to use the Gender-Neutral version:

Law 42, stripped of headers, said:

• Dummy is entitled to give information, in the Director’s presence, as to fact or law.
  
• Dummy may keep count of tricks won and lost.
  
• 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).

Dummy may exercise other rights subject to the limitations stated in Law 43.

• Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when they have failed to follow suit to a trick whether the hand has a card of the suit led.
  
• Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity.
  
• Dummy may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded.

[blackshoe]

In today's club game, I counted at least a dozen infractions or irregularities over 24 boards. At least three of them were committed by my partner. Once as declarer she won a trick in dummy and promptly led from her hand. RHO, one of the best players in the club, just followed suit. Another time she put an opening lead face down, paused, looking at her hand, said "oh, wait", picked up her lead and led something else, face up. I might have said something, but there's no point.

[pescetom]

I will count tonight: I suspect it will easily exceed a dozen, even discounting violations of Alert policy.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2026-September-01, 14:49, said:

I might have said something, but there's no point.

Sometimes there's really no point.

A night or two ago declarer won the opening lead in dummy then led the trump ace from her hand. I thought about saying something, but why bother? She'll obviously just lead dummy's little trump to her ace, essentially the same trick. No harm, no foul, so I just followed suit silently, implicitly accepting the LOOT.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2026-September-03, 09:26, said:

A night or two ago declarer won the opening lead in dummy then led the trump ace from her hand. I thought about saying something, but why bother? She'll obviously just lead dummy's little trump to her ace, essentially the same trick. No harm, no foul, so I just followed suit silently, implicitly accepting the LOOT.

It's the opposite case of explicitly accepting that constitutes a foul in club bridge.
In the first round yesterday, at one point Declarer won in dummy and then led from hand. Dummy (!) quickly told him "you're over here". I merely added that to my count of infractions, without calling Director, but when I said "I accept the lead", all hell broke loose and I had to call anyway.

I reached a dozen and stopped counting before the end of second round. Blackshoe must have a very orderly club.

[jillybean]

Was there ever a time, somewhere on the planet, where player attempted to follow—and directors enforced—the laws?"

[blackshoe]

Possibly. Probably not. Not if you're talking about every player and every director.

When my RHO just followed suit to partner's LOOT of the Ace of trumps, he dropped the Queen under it. I suppose he was giving her the benefit of the doubt. Or maybe he just didn't care. <shrug>