Re: ***SPAM*** Re: arragement of played cards

Dummy is indeed a player, subject to special treatments depending on the
actual situation.

Definiitions:

Dummy 

1. Declarer’s partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced and
ceases to be dummy when play ends. 

2. Declarer’s partner’s cards, once they are spread on the table after the
opening lead.

Law 64A1:

and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player
…..

observe the footnote!

19 A trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law.

 

Aldo notice Laws 9A3 and 4:

3: Any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent an irregularity (but
for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

4:Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity until play of the hand is
concluded . . . . . 

 

Regards

 

Fra: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] På vegne av Jan
Peach
Sendt: torsdag 21. desember 2017 21.06
Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]>
Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] 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

 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

 <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml>
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

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