[Knurdler]

My first question on here; so if it is not appropriate I will not be offended if it gets moved or deleted.

What may dummy do if declarer asks for a play that is a revoke?

I have read the 2015 post on this and was intrigued by the variety and depth of views.
I think the conclusion in 2015 was that dummy may make a similar inquiry as they may make if declarer fails to follow suit.
Is the law still the same?

Thanks

[pescetom]

Knurdler, on 2025-July-06, 10:42, said:

My first question on here; so if it is not appropriate I will not be offended if it gets moved or deleted.

What may dummy do if declarer asks for a play that is a revoke?

I have read the 2015 post on this and was intrigued by the variety and depth of views.
I think the conclusion in 2015 was that dummy may make a similar inquiry as they may make if declarer fails to follow suit.
Is the law still the same?

Why on earth should it be moved or deleted?
The only thing you could have done better would have been to provide a link to the 2015 post.
The law hasn't changed about anything important (or at least more important than playing on after a refused claim).

As I recall the law here, dummy ensures that dummy follows suit.
It is written as one of his rights, but surely is intended also as a duty.
So if Declarer instructs me as dummy to revoke, I will reply "I must follow suit".
It has rarely happened and never been challenged by an opponent or TD.

[axman]

Knurdler, on 2025-July-06, 10:42, said:

My first question on here; so if it is not appropriate I will not be offended if it gets moved or deleted.

What may dummy do if declarer asks for a play that is a revoke?

I have read the 2015 post on this and was intrigued by the variety and depth of views.
I think the conclusion in 2015 was that dummy may make a similar inquiry as they may make if declarer fails to follow suit.
Is the law still the same?

Thanks

42A3. He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed and ensures that dummy follows suit (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play).

This means the card that was called has already been played and being declarer's agent he moves the card indicating it has been played. The infraction has been committed so 'there is nothing to attempt to prevent'. Balking, grimace,... would be construed as breaching the proscription against drawing attention to an irregularity. now it gets interesting. For the situation described, The command of 42A3 compels dummy to participate in the play (must draw attention to the revoke and suggest following suit until declarer does follow suit) even though 43A1c © Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. That means that dummy must do what he must never, ever do and thereby be penalized at the hand of declarer: 43B. 1. Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1
and A2.

[smerriman]

axman, on 2025-July-06, 16:13, said:

For the situation described, The command of 42A3 compels dummy to participate in the play (must draw attention to the revoke and suggest following suit until declarer does follow suit) even though 43A1c © Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. That means that dummy must do what he must never, ever do and thereby be penalized at the hand of declarer: 43B. 1. Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1
and A2.

Law 43 is preceded by "Except as Law 42 allows:". Law 42 allows dummy to ensure dummy follows suit, so none of law 43 is applicable here.

[jillybean]

43A1C A very simple law but , another law unknown or ignored by club players.

[Knurdler]

The similar discussion I referred to was started by "Trinidad" on 7 May 2015 and titled "What can dummy do? telling declarer to follow suit".

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2025-July-06, 14:49, said:

The law hasn't changed about anything important (or at least more important than playing on after a refused claim).

2007 law 42A3:

Quote

He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play).

2017 law 42A3:

Quote

He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed and ensures that dummy follows suit (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play).

So, yes, the law changed between the original forum post and now, explicitly giving dummy the absolute right to prevent a revoke in dummy, thus excluding this case from 43A.

[axman]

smerriman, on 2025-July-06, 16:40, said:

Law 43 is preceded by "Except as Law 42 allows:". Law 42 allows dummy to ensure dummy follows suit, so none of law 43 is applicable here.

Law must be read as a whole

43 consequences are unilateral…(except -Except as Law 42 allows).
42A1c consequences are unilateral except for the unilateral consequences of 45F

So, does 42A1c allow suggesting dummy’s play? 42A1c says that 45F speaks to dummy suggesting a play (which means that when dummy suggests a play there are consequences). 45F says there are consequences to dummy suggesting a play. It follows that 42A1c does not allow dummy to suggest a play. Thus, as the only route to dummy ensuring that dummy follows suit (correcting the revoke before establishment) is to suggest a play means that 42A1c does not allow 43’s exception to the prohibition of participation in play. Further, acting as if 42A1c does allow dummy to ensure following suit, there are 45F consequences when dummy does so.

[shyams]

I believe axman is a member of the EBU. If I am right, axman should be aware that the EBU White Book clearly states:

(Quote) Law 42A: Dummy’s absolute rights
When declarer calls for a card from dummy that is a revoke card, dummy may ensure that dummy follows suit and the revoke is corrected
(End quote)

[pescetom]

 smerriman, on 2025-July-07, 03:40, said:

2007 law 42A3:

2017 law 42A3:

So, yes, the law changed between the original forum post and now, explicitly giving dummy the absolute right to prevent a revoke in dummy, thus excluding this case from 43A.

Thanks, I wasn't aware it was a 2017 change, it seems so obvious I assumed it was long standing law.

It's in the Commentary too, I checked. Interestingly, it is described as a duty there, without commenting why it is listed as a right in the law (another sloppy piece of writing in 2017, although at least clearly an improvement).

[Knurdler]

Thanks. I think I am now clear that dummy may (but does not have to) prevent declarer from revoking from dummy.

While on this subject please could someone explain 2017 law 43.B.2.b
I think 42.B.1 permits dummy to ask declarer if they have failed to follow suit ie before a revoke is established.
Then I read 43.B.2.b which appears to say that if dummy asks declarer if he has revoked, a revoke is established.
I must be misunderstanding because 43 appears to render 42 pointless.

And finally, I hope, could someone give examples of "necessary" in 2017 law 45.b which allows declare to pick up and play a card from dummy when "necessary".
Could that be if dummy is deaf, or arthritic?

[pescetom]

Knurdler, on 2025-July-07, 08:43, said:

Thanks. I think I am now clear that dummy may (but does not have to) prevent declarer from revoking from dummy.

I am not sure you are right that dummy does not have to: see the WBF Laws Commentary 2017 which defines it as a duty, notwithstanding the law defines it as a right. At least one of the two is sloppy writing, almost certainly the Law, in which case the Commentary has precedence. It could be that the lawmakers in 2017 were wary of imposing a duty because they felt dummy had a right to decide (I hope not) or because they felt dummy had a right not to notice without committing an infraction (fair enough), or because they just made the easiest possible single modification (by inserting a new right, rather than creating an exception in dummy's duties).

I for one would take a dim view if you knowingly decided to follow Declarer's designation and thus revoke.

[axman]

Knurdler, on 2025-July-07, 08:43, said:

Thanks. I think I am now clear that dummy may (but does not have to) prevent declarer from revoking from dummy.

While on this subject please could someone explain 2017 law 43.B.2.b
I think 42.B.1 permits dummy to ask declarer if they have failed to follow suit ie before a revoke is established.
Then I read 43.B.2.b which appears to say that if dummy asks declarer if he has revoked, a revoke is established.
I must be misunderstanding because 43 appears to render 42 pointless.

And finally, I hope, could someone give examples of "necessary" in 2017 law 45.b which allows declare to pick up and play a card from dummy when "necessary".
Could that be if dummy is deaf, or arthritic?

K>> I think I am now clear that dummy may (but does not have to) prevent declarer from revoking from dummy.

THere is a distinction between preventing <a revoke> and ensuring (eventually) that dummy follows suit

K>> 43.B.2.b which appears to say that if dummy asks declarer if he has revoked, a revoke is established.

The condition of dummy forfeiting rights controls. After dummy/declarer does something that forfeits rights, it is then that the effect of asking causes a revoke to be established AND corrected AND penalized.

[smerriman]

 Knurdler, on 2025-July-07, 08:43, said:

While on this subject please could someone explain 2017 law 43.B.2.b
I think 42.B.1 permits dummy to ask declarer if they have failed to follow suit ie before a revoke is established.
Then I read 43.B.2.b which appears to say that if dummy asks declarer if he has revoked, a revoke is established.
I must be misunderstanding because 43 appears to render 42 pointless.

43B2 says it applies if dummy has violated 43A2 - exchanged hands with declarer, left their seat to watch declarer, or looked at defenders' cards. It doesn't apply otherwise.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2025-July-07, 13:37, said:

43B2 says it applies if dummy has violated 43A2 - exchanged hands with declarer, left their seat to watch declarer, or looked at defenders' cards. It doesn't apply otherwise.

Whoever wrote that stuff had clearly been kibitzing in the non-sanctioned club where I first "learned" bridge
They could also have added "dealing" an unlikely slam and then bidding it some rounds later, and a few more.
Fortunately I never saw such antics since, as I trusted when I moved to the sanctioned club.
Not that the "usual" problems as described often and well by jillybean are more acceptable, just less gross.