bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings

47 posts
bridgetalk member

dummy ( 06:33:18 MonMar 31 2003 )

Country: new zealand

There is a widely held belief that all players are responsible for dummy being properly displayed, but there does not seem to be a law saying as much. Moreover if there is an error in dummy display there is, as far as I can see no penalty prescribed for any such irregularity. Could you kindly comment on this please. J.S.

RMB

19 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: dummy ( 17:03:27 MonMar 31 2003 )

Country: England

Dummy is responsible for dummy being displayed (Law41D).
It is usual that when opponents are damaged by dummy not being properly displayed (cards not visible, cards in wrong suit) they will get redress (usually involves Law12A1).

Robin

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: dummy ( 17:03:41 MonMar 31 2003 )

The defenders are not responsible for dummy in any way.

The player holding dummy's cards is responsible for putting dummy down face up, sorted into suits, in columns towards declarer, and with each suit sorted by rank. This is a requiremnet [Law 41D]. Failure to do so is thus subject to penalty, and a TD could give a Procedural Penalty.

In practice, the only time a TD would do so is if the player makes a habit of this despite warnings: then a TD will have to resort to Procedural Penalties to make sure the Law is followed.

Occasionally, failure to put dummy's hand down properly will cause the defenders to go wrong. Since there is a requirement to put it down right, an adjustment would be given by the TD, using Law 12A1 since there is no other relevant Law.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

mycroft

67 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: dummy ( 17:14:52 WedApr 2 2003 )

I think what "widely held belief" has itself thinking is Law 50B3:

Quote:

The penalty for an established revoke does not apply:...if the revoke was made in failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand.

Which is certainly true, and saved me from 3

-2 when +150 was obvious (the hidden card was a trump...pulling the "outstanding trump" cost me the overtricks). However, that does not make anything any of the other posters said invalid! L50C goes on to say (my emphasis):

Quote:

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

So, if dummy doesn't put the hand correctly, and this causes a problem to the opponents, the score will be adjusted. It's only when dummy revokes because of misalignment, and either nobody was hurt or the only side hurt is dummy's, is there no additional penalty.

Michael (who had to give an established revoke penalty last night...for 2NT-6).
Calgary AB Canada

8 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 7 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union