Re: arragement of played cards

I’m having my two bits worth on the premise that the lurkers need to do more if blml is to remain viable.

I can’t bring to mind anything to suggest that dummy ceases to be a player. Law 68D2(b)(i) refers to all four players even if the preamble needs to say "any player (dummy included)”. Perhaps that was simply to stress that the temporarily suspended dummy (so to speak) had a say.

Isn’t dummy a player included in 64A1?

Dummy was permitted to draw attention in the 2007 laws and ISTM that using “player” and giving everyone the same time limit was simply an attempt to simplify things. The authors could easily have excluded dummy here had they wished to.

Speaking up straight away seems little more than one of the courtesies of the game. If declarer really thought he’d won the trick and started to lead then dummy could try to stop it happening so there is very little difference. It’s a very small window of opportunity before Law 16B comes into play. 

Law 65 is a specific situation law, so I’d apply it before 43A1(b). Including this right in 42A would be good.
I do see the point about 43A1(b) being dummy specific but there are 4 players at the table, Law 3 says so.

I do see some conflict between 65 and 42A2. That dummy "may keep count of tricks won and lost" might suggest he could leave them in messy heap if he wanted to. As a player, he obeys Law 65, and arranges them neatly - but he need not count them?

Jan

ps Does the old requirement to use Plain Text still apply?



-----Original Message----- 
From: vitoldbr 
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 3:24 PM 
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List 
Subject: [BLML] arragement of played cards 

Hi all!
L42B2:  Dummy “may try to prevent any irregularity”.
L43A1(b):  “Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play”.
But L65B3: “A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly"

During the play Dummy asked his partner to correct direction of his card
from last trick that has already pointed incorrectly
Several questions:
-       is dummy a player under condition of L65B3 or just a mechanical-man?
-       dummy “may try to prevent” only but such a situation is correction
AFTER irregularity and violates L43A1(b)

It seems to me that wording of L65B3 creates possibility to awaken partner
and to correct his mistake in calculation of tricks – which could affect his
future play… Of course, it concern defenders also…
Where am I wrong?
Best regards,
Vitold

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml