[jillybean]

LAW 42
DUMMY'S RIGHTS

B 2. Attempt to Prevent Irregularity
He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer.


Does this law allow dummy to warn declarer when they are about to lead from the wrong hand or ask 'having none?' when they fail to follow suit?

[CSGibson]

 jillybean, on 2012-June-01, 15:57, said:

LAW 42
DUMMY'S RIGHTS

B 2. Attempt to Prevent Irregularity
He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer.


Does this law allow dummy to warn declarer when they are about to lead from the wrong hand or ask 'having none?' when they fail to follow suit?

Yes

[pran]

 jillybean, on 2012-June-01, 15:57, said:

LAW 42
DUMMY'S RIGHTS

B 2. Attempt to Prevent Irregularity
He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer.


Does this law allow dummy to warn declarer when they are about to lead from the wrong hand or ask 'having none?' when they fail to follow suit?

Yes to both questions, but subject to the limitations stated in Law 43.

[RMB1]

 jillybean, on 2012-June-01, 15:57, said:

Does this law allow dummy to ... ask 'having none?' when they fail to follow suit?

Dummy may ask but not under the law in the OP about preventing an irregularity (Law 42B2).

The irregularity (possible revoke) has already happened, so asking is not an attempt to prevent an irregularity.

Instead there is are other laws that allows dummy to ask "having none?".

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2012-June-02, 00:51

[jillybean]

 pran, on 2012-June-01, 16:14, said:

Yes to both questions, but subject to the limitations stated in Law 43.

The limitations don't appear to apply here?


A. Limitations on Dummy
1. General Limitations
(a) Calling the Director
Unless attention has been drawn to an irregularity by another player, dummy should not initiate a call for the Director during play.
(b) Calling Attention to Irregularity
Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.
© Participate in or Comment on Play
Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.
2. Limitations Carrying Specific Penalty
(a) Exchanging Hands
Dummy may not exchange hands with declarer.
(b) Leave Seat to Watch Declarer
Dummy may not leave his seat to watch declarer's play of the hand.
© Look at Defender's Hand
Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in either defender's hand.

[jillybean]

Oh....
43B. If a Violation Occurs
1. Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 and A2 above.
2. If dummy, after his violation of the limitations listed in A2 above, (a) warns declarer not to lead from the wrong hand, either defender may choose the hand from which declarer shall lead. (b) is the first to ask declarer if a play from declarer’s hand constitutes a revoke, declarer must substitute a correct card if his play was illegal, and the provisions of Law 64 then apply as if the revoke had been established.

I'm confused.

As dummy, I can warn declarer not to lead from the wrong hand unless on the hand in play, I have previously violated one of these?

2. Limitations Carrying Specific Penalty
(a) Exchanging Hands
Dummy may not exchange hands with declarer.
(b) Leave Seat to Watch Declarer
Dummy may not leave his seat to watch declarer's play of the hand.
© Look at Defender's Hand
Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in either defender's hand.

[pran]

 RMB1, on 2012-June-01, 16:33, said:

Dummy may ask but not under Law 42.

The irregularity (possible revoke) has already happened, so asking is not an attempt to prevent an irregularity.

Instead there is a specific law that allows dummy to ask "having none?": Law 61B2(a).

Have you overlooked:

Law 42B1 said:

Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led.

[mycroft]

From the "learn something new every day" department:
I've always read L43A2b as "dummy leaving his seat" unqualified as far as "losing rights" goes. That's certainly how I've treated it when I've walked away to do directing things or fill the table's drinks.

Not that I usually do the revoke thing.

There's another law - well, regulation - that talks about when you must stop telling declarer about a trick turned wrong. I'm very happy to rule that one goes away with violation of L43 too.

[Fluffy]

I read this as: dummy loses the few rights he has if he knows the hand or leaves the table.

I wonder why looking at the paper where the full hand is written wasn't listed.

[barmar]

I think 43A2 exists because those practices are frequently done by rubber bridge players. In RB, dummy is less constrained because declarer normally plays dummy's cards himself. Rubber players switching to duplicate need to be warned explicitly that this is inappropriate.

[jillybean]

Part2 of the question. Is the only time the defenders can accept a lead from the wrong hand or request declarer lead from the correct hand after dummy has violated law 43A and then attempts to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand (43B2)?

If dummy is silent (with or without having violated law43) and declarer leads from the wrong hand and realizes herself or the opponents point out the error, can either defender force a lead?

[campboy]

 jillybean, on 2012-June-05, 11:32, said:

Part2 of the question. Is the only time the defenders can accept a lead from the wrong hand or request declarer lead from the correct hand after dummy has violated law 43A and then attempts to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand (43B2)?

If dummy is silent (with or without having violated law43) and declarer leads from the wrong hand and realizes herself or the opponents point out the error, can either defender force a lead?

If the lead from the wrong hand has actually been made then the defenders may accept it (law 55). Law 43 covers the case where the lead didn't get made because of dummy's intervention.

[bluejak]

One of the growing problems in bridge in the UK is that when declarer leads from the wrong hand [including just calling for a card from dummy] dummy points it out, which is illegal, and then declarer says "Sorry" and leads from the other hand. I have even been allowed by my two main clubs to make announcements about this on four occasions at the start of play.

The day before yesterday in Bournemouth partner led a heart, declarer won with the ace [singleton in dummy] and called for a spade [trump] from dummy. Dummy said "You are in your hand" and declarer apologised and led a heart, saying "I got a trick ahead of myself". I called the TD, who told us either defender could accept the lead out of turn, which I did. This took declarer off in a cold 3♠ and she was furious.

Having sulked her way through the remaining five boards she asked a passing TD to review the ruling. Something in the way she said made me wonder whether she would have challenged the ruling if the original TD had not been female. Anyway, the TD told her she could appeal if she did not agree, and she went off muttering "But I led a heart before the TD was called".

Now while I have no sympathy for the opponent whose attitude had already annoyed us, I do believe she had no idea whatever that I could accept the lead, and I believe she really thought the ruling was wrong.

[jillybean]

Would it have been illegal if dummy had interrupted declarer before she made the complete designation from dummy ?

It is simple for dummy to prevent declarer from leading incorrectly from her hand. When we see her fingering or removing a card it is an easy step to say 'you're on the table'. It is not so easy when she is about to lead incorrectly from dummy. If we see her eyeing dummy as if to select a lead we can intervene but once she begins to call for a card from dummy I imagine there could be disagreement as to whether the card was led or not.

[barmar]

If she starts saying something like "Play a ...", you can interrupt her then. Sometimes she'll start gesturing towards dummy, and I think you can also warn her. I'd draw the line at the point where part of a designation passes her lips, although maybe if it's just something like "small ..." I'd still allow dummy to save the day.

[pran]

An interruption from Dummy is an attempt to prevent the irregularity from becoming committed and not a call of attention to an irregularity already committed so long as the interruption is made before declarer has completed the designation of a card to be led from dummy when declarer has the lead.

[dburn]

 bluejak, on 2012-June-07, 09:24, said:

One of the growing problems in bridge in the UK is that when declarer leads from the wrong hand [including just calling for a card from dummy] dummy points it out, which is illegal, and then declarer says "Sorry" and leads from the other hand. I have even been allowed by my two main clubs to make announcements about this on four occasions at the start of play.

The day before yesterday in Bournemouth partner led a heart, declarer won with the ace [singleton in dummy] and called for a spade [trump] from dummy. Dummy said "You are in your hand" and declarer apologised and led a heart, saying "I got a trick ahead of myself". I called the TD, who told us either defender could accept the lead out of turn, which I did. This took declarer off in a cold 3♠ and she was furious.

Having sulked her way through the remaining five boards she asked a passing TD to review the ruling. Something in the way she said made me wonder whether she would have challenged the ruling if the original TD had not been female. Anyway, the TD told her she could appeal if she did not agree, and she went off muttering "But I led a heart before the TD was called".

Now while I have no sympathy for the opponent whose attitude had already annoyed us, I do believe she had no idea whatever that I could accept the lead, and I believe she really thought the ruling was wrong.

I don't understand this at all. If declarer won the heart lead with the singleton ace in dummy, then declarer really was in dummy and the spade from dummy was not a lead out of turn. Perhaps it was not the card declarer meant to play, but...

...maybe the "lead out of turn" was the heart from declarer's hand after having been misinformed by dummy that she was in hand. In that case, of course either defender may accept it, but I have never been sure of the protocol here - indeed, I am not sure whether there is one.

My own practice after declarer leads from the wrong hand and I am on the wrong hand's left is: if I know that it is in the defenders' best interests to accept the lead I play a card; if not, I do nothing until partner has had a chance to ask declarer to lead from the correct hand or to indicate that he accepts the lead from the wrong one. But how should he do this? And is the information that he wants to accept the lead from the wrong hand authorised to [a] my side only [b] both sides [c] neither side? More importantly, the same questions apply to partner's receipt of the information that I do not know whether to accept the lead out of turn is in our side's best interests.

Indeed, my reputation once almost suffered a serious blow when declarer led a spade from dummy despite being in hand. I, who had a singleton spade, sat motionless for a while, then (since I assumed from partner's inactivity that he was prepared to countenance the lead from the wrong hand) followed suit. Declarer finessed in spades, lost to partner's singleton honour, and turned the air blue for several minutes with, among other things, allegations about my parentage that (happily) were unsustainable. The Director being summoned and explanations being given, order was restored and drinks all round were summoned. And yet...

[blackshoe]

Declarer won with the ♥ace, there was a singleton ♥ in dummy. Then declarer called for a ♠ from dummy.

[Vampyr]

 dburn, on 2012-June-07, 14:44, said:

partner's receipt of the information that I do not know whether to accept the lead out of turn is in our side's best interests.

I also pause to see if partner care which hand is led from; and I also wonder about the legitimacy of the above information. But if you or partner accepts the lead, or neither does, information about the defenders' hands is still potentially exchanged. I don't think there is a way around this.

[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2012-June-07, 09:24, said:

Something in the way she said made me wonder whether she would have challenged the ruling if the original TD had not been female.

The original director wondered this as well; she mentioned the incident when we were discussing female directors arriving at the table and being asked to send over a proper director. Apparently the passing director was very junior to her too.