BRIDGE NOTES

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19516, 15 June 1933, Page 7

BRIDGE NOTES

CORRECTIONS AND NEW RULINGS. (By William Shackle.) Another difficulty that seems to give rise to much confusion at the card table is the position of dummy as regards his rights of speech. In view of last week’s article regarding the revoke, however, it would be well perhaps to mention that one of the easiest forms of revoke in the new laws is when, after attempting to play from the strong hand, declarer leads from the correct one, but inadvertently from a different suit. If partner (dummy) allows this to be done, the opponents are entitled to claim a revoke when the trick has been gathered. This seemingly extreme penalty has considerably helped the game, as it has resulted In the very casual player pulling himself together and keeps the fumbler from fumbTng. It is, indeed, a co'tly mistake, on many occasions, for a player tc lead, or rather to attempt to lead, from the wrong hand. Now as to dummy. It seems to be a very common idea that dummy is a mere cipher, apart from the fact that he should challenge his partner if he fails to follow suit. Actually, howevei this is far from the case under the new laws. A recent decision of the Portland Club is as follow"; "Declarer touches a card in dummy, decides to play anothei card, and the opponents do not Interfere because it suits them better Dummy now demands that the first card touched must be played. Xs dummy allowed to speak?” Portland Club decision on this point: “Dummy having all the rights of a player except those specifically mentioned in law 19. Is entitled to draw attention to the fact that the card has been touched and must be played. Now. at first sight the decision seems to contravene the terms of law 19, which expressly states that dummy may not by act or word suggest any card or play. The decision is based upon the idea that dummy here does not suggest a lead or play, but Is entitled to insist upon the observation of the law. That he must insist is however, doubtful. If he chooses to remain silent there is nothing in the laws to prevent him doing so.” Following this is another decision which is very closely related to the above. During the hand the declarer draws a card from dummy, but before quitting it returns it to the table and substitutes another. His opponents, who prefer the second choice, allow this to pass May they do this, or is it unfair? Portland Club decision; "No, as the first card has been played (by being touched) it cannot be taken back.” Special Note Regarding New Laws. In spite of the utmost care In the publication of the laws, four misprints have occurred, and readers would be well advised to alter and correct their copies: (1) Law 46 (2) (1): For “call a lead or a suit,” read “call a lead of a suit.” (2) Proprieties of the game (2) (6): For “wise" read “otherwise." (3) Index, "Bidding and over-bidding compulsory pass” for “39 (3)” read “39 (2). (4) Auction laws, 27 (2) Delete the worrs "odd trick.”