dburn

It occurs to me that the bridge world may (unintentionally or otherwise) have provided the first working example of what is known to philosophers as Goodman's Paradox (the rest of you can look it up when you get home). Having regard to the well-documented existence of a very fine American player by the name of [Joe] Grue, it may also be that the bridge world has actually decided the paradox by empirical means. Unless, of course, a very fine player by the name of Bleen arises in the near future...

And a very fine suggestion it was. The same effect is of course achieved if we use the revoke Laws rather than Law 47 to rule that declarer cannot play ♦K to this trick because he is committed to playing ♣4 instead. Sven thinks declarer has already played ♣4, so that ♦K must be withdrawn to correct the illegal play of ♦K under Law 47. I don't think declarer has already played ♣4, but since he is committed to playing it, ♦K must be withdrawn because it is a revoke under Law 61. For practical purposes this does not matter, because the ways in which Law 47 and the revoke Laws kick in to allow ♦3 to be withdrawn without further rectification are in effect identical. Gordontd suggests that the Laws be amended so that a card that must be played is "considered to have been played". I think that this is less desirable than the alternative of drawing a distinction between a card that must be played and a card that has been played, because of the complications that might otherwise follow when a defender on lead has a major penalty card. But those complications are no great matter; what is absolutely clear is that the chap who followed to ♦K with ♦3 [a] did not revoke; can withdraw ♦3 without rectification; and [c] may be assumed by his partner but not by declarer to have chosen to play the three of diamonds under the king. That is: if declarer later has to guess diamonds for his contract, he may not "know" that his RHO does not have ♦A.

Oh yes they have. And over the rest of they heads, as well.

If Law 73 did not exist in conjunction with Law 16, that would be true (and might or might not be welcome). But because Law 73 does exist, it is incumbent upon a player to "use" unauthorised information for the purpose of determining how not to take any advantage of it. Here the word "use" has the sense of "take into account when making a determination"; not in the older sense of "turn to one's own profit" - that, certainly, is not allowed.

It occurs to me that Law45C3 may (and probably does) intend that in playing a card from dummy, declarer should still name the card even if he is going to pick it up himself. My answers to blackshoe's questions are the same as pran's. The objective is that everyone still at the table should know when a card has been played and when it has not, so that everyone shall be clear whose turn it is to play the next card. Thus: 1. If declarer names a card in dummy, that card has been played (but if declarer without pause for thought names some other card, and the Director is satisfied that the original utterance was unintentional, Law 45C4b applies). 2. If declarer points at a card in dummy, and it is clear which card has been so indicated, that card must be played, but it has not been played until either dummy or declarer has faced it in the played position. 3. If declarer picks up a card from dummy, and does not stipulate or otherwise indicate that he is doing so for the purpose of arranging the dummy or reaching some other card, that card must be played, but it has not been played until declarer has moved it to the played position. 4. If declarer deliberately touches a card in dummy, and does not stipulate or otherwise indicate that he is doing so for the purpose of arranging the dummy or of dislodging the fly that has settled on the card, that card must be played, but it has not been played until declarer has moved it to the played position. Note that the term "played position" is somewhat vague; when dummy is at the table, the "played position" usually occupies some portion of the table between the rest of dummy's cards and dummy; but when dummy is absent, the "played position" may be between dummy's cards and dummy or between dummy's cards and declarer. Note also that rigorous enforcement of Law 45A is for practical purposes impossible: very often the fourth card played to a trick will not be faced on the table, but will be shown to the assembled company at some height above the table before being turned face down among the player's quitted cards. Moreover, as gordontd says, not everyone "plays" a card by facing it on the table even when it is not the fourth card played to the trick. There is not much I or anyone else can do about this. As with playing cards from hand, the idea is that a card must be played if it has been detached from the rest of the cards in the hand that contains it, without a prior stipulation or other clear indication to the effect that declarer does not intend to play the card. Also, because dummy is a special case, when declarer names a card in the dummy and gives no indication that he does not intend to play the card, it has been played

From August 2011, completion of a transfer and a bid that is in a suit where partner has implied that he might hold length - e.g. 2♦ (Multi) - 2♥ (pass or correct) - will be held to "show the suit" for the purposes of the relevant alerting regulations in the Orange Book. Until then, players and directors are invitied to continue to argue about it.

That isn't what I said. But it might assist your comprehension to read Law 45B carefully: Now, dummy's card is already face up on the table, so what does it mean to say that dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table? Why, that dummy picks it up and puts it on the table in some other position than it currently occupies. The same process applies when declarer plays a card in dummy's absence: he picks it up (at which point it must be played), then places it in "the played position" (at which point it has been played). No, it isn't. There is no reason at all why the term "designate" cannot refer to a physical method of handling a card, other than in your imagination - no sense of the word "designate" in the English language is incompatible with this interpretation.

I am not at all sure I agree with you. After all, in playing a card from one's own hand one first detaches the card, but it isn't played until it is "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" (for declarer) or "held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face" (for a defender). By the same token, a card isn't played from dummy until the card has been moved into whatever is considered the "played position" (at duplicate, behind dummy's remaining cards; at rubber bridge, the centre of the table). That is: picking up a card is to my way of thinking "deliberately touching" it and you must play it, but you haven't played it until you've put it in the played position and let go of it. The process of playing a card from dummy when dummy isn't there is a two-stage process (just as is the process of playing a card from hand), and the card isn't played until both stages are complete. In support of this I quote the corresponding Law from rubber bridge: "Each player except dummy should play a card by detaching it from his hand and placing it, face up, on the table where other players can easily reach and see it."

It doesn't have to. He would never open the bidding with fewer than 10 points.

If I were the kind of person who opened 4♥ with the East cards, then I don't see why I shouldn't be the kind of person who bids 5♦ with the East cards having been told that 4NT was minors. Indeed, it might strike me as quite a clever call - maybe for once partner really will have ♠KQxxx and a singleton heart. Maybe he won't, and I'll go for another 1400, but I am probably used to that by now. But any TD (or anyone else) who thinks that 5♦ was "a serious error, wild or gambling action" in the context of what East already did is... well, he has made a serious error, a wild and gambling misjudgement. To adjust on that basis is yet another decision that is not even wrong.

In that case, the Law regarding the original question appears to me to be clear. If ♣4 must be played from dummy, but has not yet been played, then the play of ♦K instead is a revoke, and the matter can be dealt with satisfactorily under Laws 61, 62 and 16. Having read the thread in its entirety now (which I had not done before posting my original "ruling"), I see that several contributors arrived at the same outcome through a tentative application of Law 47. Even bluejak, who thought that ♣4 had been played simply because it must be played, and therefore that ♦3 was a revoke, didn't want to believe it because that would lead to some horrible inequity and sought to avoid this by reference to Law 23. And gordontd, who may or may not have thought that ♦3 was a revoke, was moved to allow the Director to declare that at any rate it wasn't a penalty card. It's all right. Sometimes the Laws really do allow justice to prevail. But I am a bit surprised at Sven, who once posed as a kind of trick question "can a player revoke when playing the first card to a trick?" and didn't see how it applies to this case. Still, even Homer nods...

Suppose that I were asked to make up a Premier League team with three eminent players from Surrey (far-fetched, you may say, but stranger things have happened). Suppose also that I have read my partner's system file and am assumed to be playing it on the basis that he will forgive me if I cock it up from time to time. And suppose that the bidding proceeds 1♦ - Double - to me. I bid 1♥ - a cock-up, because we play transfers and I have 2-5 in the majors. The next guy looks at my convention card, bids 2♣, and the tray comes back (yes, there are screens) with 3♠ by partner and pass to the right. Now, I know for a fact that we don't play splinters in competition except in the opponents' bid suits (this is on page 363 of the file, which of course I have studied assiduously rather than wasting my time reading page 3 where it says "transfers over takeout doubles"). So I start to wonder what on Earth he can have. If 3♠ isn't a splinter, then it must be natural - but no one would play that way, even in Surrey. Maybe he thinks spades is a "bid suit" by the opponents because the guy doubled 1♦ and I bid hearts. On the other hand, it does say in black and white that we don't play splinters in competition except in their bid suits, and the opponents don't seem to have ten spades because no one's bid them yet. Wait a minute - the guy to my left looked at my card, then passed. Maybe he thinks I have spades, and maybe that's why he didn't bid them. Maybe we play transfers after takeout doubles after all... Still, I have to do something. I'm going to assume he's got hearts. If I bid four clubs and it comes back with four spades, maybe I'll have another think about it, but if it comes back with four hearts, I'm going to pass. Of course, an alternative (and equally valid) version of the previous paragraph might be: Still, I have to do something. I'm going to assume he's got spades (either he's bidding his own suit or he's supporting mine). If I bid 3NT and it comes back with four hearts, maybe I'll have another think about it, but if it comes back with four spades, I'm going to pass. And if it doesn't come back at all - well, I hope I make it. Now, this superposition of states in which I find myself is not uncommon (indeed, it happened several times not all that long ago, when I was making up a Premier League team with three eminent players from Surrey). And whichever way I choose to collapse the wave function is entirely legal, because I don't have any unauthorised information (but see below*). In the actual case, though, everything I have described above is likely to be close to what happened except that there were no screens, and North knew what he was not entitled to know - that 3♠ did not agree hearts, nor did it show some huge two-suiter, but was in fact support for North's "spades". If North acted on the basis of that information, he was acting illegally. In order to be convinced that North was not acting on the basis of that information, I would require concrete evidence from North-South that the "huge two-suiter" possibility was in fact part of their methods. I would not in this case accept any argument to the effect that North is allowed to work out entirely from his hand and the auction that the partnership method is other than he thought it was when he bid 1♥; it is altogether too easy to construct "logical" arguments that something must be true when you already know empirically that it is true, and the arguments thus constructed almost always have gaps in the logic. Nor, in this case, would I be very much concerned about the results of a poll among a bunch of players who knew the hand (though I observe that the results of a poll among players who didn't appeared strongly to support the notion that there were logical alternatives to 3NT within the meaning of Law 16). Whereas the use of polls is a viable solution to many judgement questions, in this case the words of Law 16B1b: "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." would vitiate such a poll entirely. After all, no one is in South's class as a player, and you can hardly expect people to "use the methods of the partnership" when they don't have any. *Playing behind screens, is the fact that my screen-mate consults my convention card AI to me?

Well, perhaps some time before 2017 we can point out the dichotomy to the WBFLC and see if it has anything to say on the matter. Meanwhile, it still appears to me that there is a difference between the status of a card that must be played and the status of a card that has been played (indeed, the ruling that I have given above depends entirely on this distinction). Rather to my surprise, the Laws do not appear to specify any explicit procedure, which gives rise to the following questions: East, a defender on lead, has ♠Q as a major penalty card. Without indicating that he intends to play subsequently to East's compulsory lead of ♠Q, but in fact intending to do so, South (declarer) ruffs it with ♥2. West, thinking that declarer has led a heart, follows suit to the heart "lead" even though he has a spade. Has South led out of turn? Has West revoked? My answers to these questions would be "yes" and "no", but if it is considered that East's ♠Q has been played because it must be played, I would of course give different answers. I base this tenuously on Law 45C5: "A penalty card, major or minor, may have to be played" which, or so it seems to me, does not mean that the card has been played until the fact has been established by reference to the Director or by South's saying "you have to play ♠Q now, and..." By the same token, that ♣4 in the original case has not been played until declarer has moved it to the played position, even though it must be played. But these are deep waters, and it is possible that we may need to go to a higher authority in search of a boat.

I agree with you - it would be difficult, but not impossible. Suppose a declarer in the habit of verbalizing his thoughts internally thinks "king of diamonds, four of clubs to the ace, low spade to the jack..." and instead of calling for the king of diamonds calls for the four of clubs. I've done this kind of thing more than once, so I know only too well that it can happen; in the vernacular it is referred to as "getting a trick ahead of yourself". A declarer in such a confused state of mind might equally well pick up the four of clubs rather than the king of diamonds - I've done that also, since my partners have rightly developed a habit (by now almost an instinct) of leaving the table rather than watching me play the dummy. I don't mind, as long as they come back with the drinks. My position is that I do not think the cases should be regarded differently under the Law; but if the interpretation is that physically picking up a card is not a "designation" but something else, then they will be so regarded. Cases of the kind are admittedly rare at duplicate, but where I play rubber bridge a declarer who picks up a card, then says "no, sorry" and puts it down again, is permitted to play some other card if it is considered that his first action was a "mechanical error".

Certainly if declarer's original intention was to play ♣4, then he may not change that card under Law 45C4b or any other Law. And if the words "changed his mind" in the original post reflect the established fact that ♣4 was declarer's originally-intended card, then Law 45C4b does indeed not apply. My concern is to establish whether there is in fact a difference in Law between a declarer who picks up or touches a card he did not intend, then substitutes his intended card, and a declarer who calls for a card he did not intend, then calls for his intended card. In the actual case, it seems to me that if declarer intentionally picked up ♣4, then he must play it even though he has not yet done so (he has put it back in dummy rather than placing it in the played position). Next, he has picked up ♦K and placed it in the played position, whereupon an opponent has followed with ♦3. Now, there appears some suggestion that the play of ♦3 should be considered a revoke, because the suit that has been led to the trick is clubs. It isn't. Declarer has not yet made any legal play to this trick: ♦K is not a legally played card because declarer must play ♣4; and ♣4 is not a legally played card because declarer hasn't played it yet. In fact, declarer's attempt to play ♦K is a revoke per Law 61A; he is legally required to lead ♣4 from dummy, and he has led some other card instead. That revoke must be corrected [Law 62A]; ♣4 must be led from dummy [Law 62B]; and the opponent may withdraw ♦3 without further rectification and with the knowledge that he has ♦3 (and chose to play it under the king) authorised to his partner but not to declarer [Laws 62C1 and 16D].

So if declarer says "four of clubs - no, sorry, king of diamonds", he has played the king of diamonds and not the four of clubs; but if he picks up the four of clubs and says "no, sorry", puts back the four of clubs and picks up the king of diamonds, he has played the four of clubs and not the king of diamonds? I find it difficult to believe that this is the Law (though not impossible - I have long since abandoned hope that the Laws will be consistent).

Is it considered that Law 45C4b does not apply to this case? As far as I can see, under that Law declarer may in fact change ♣4 to ♦K if he did not intend to designate (by picking it up) ♣4, and changes the designation without pause for thought. Otherwise, what does Law 45C4b actually mean?

Oh, nothing is certain except death and taxes (and if you are Vodafone, even the latter is far from being a certainty). I observe merely that I do not believe I or anyone has ever heard the following auction at the bridge table: 1♦ - Double - 1♥ (natural) - 2♣ - 3♠ (natural) - all pass. If I had heard it, I would hitherto have regarded it much as I would regard the sudden appearance of a Yeti or a basilisk, things that I am "certain" do not exist. But I recently had the pleasure of playing on a team with Jeffrey, and it seems that had the relevant cards been dealt, this auction might have been conducted at the other table in one of our matches. Perhaps fortunately for the equilibrium of all concerned, the relevant cards have not yet been dealt. The fact remains, though, that if North had heard South explain 1♥ as "hearts" (or, what is the same thing, not heard South alert 1♥ as "spades"), I doubt very much whether the "natural" explanation of 3♠ would have occurred to him any more than it would occur to me. Bluejak asks me to clarify what I believe to be the discrepancy between Law 16 and Law 73. For the purposes of Law 16 and in the absence of Law 73, it would be open to North to reason that 3♠ "must be" natural and based either on the misunderstanding that actually existed, or on the possible existence of Yetis and basilisks as described above. That is: if 3♠ cannot "logically" agree hearts, then North may bid 3NT without breaking Law 16. But Law 73 does exist, and places a greater onus on North; he must not take any advantage of the presumption (which he knows to be true) that South has four spades in a limit raise - he may not "deduce" it unless his deductions are logically true in all possible worlds. They aren't, so he can't bid 3NT.

I should imagine so. After all, RHO will presumably tell you that this is what it shows. But while you're allowed to know it, you're not allowed to act as though you know it; just as while you're allowed to know as soon as you bid 1♥ (after 1♦-Double) to show spades that this was a mistake, once partner alerts you're not allowed to bid as though it was anything other than your actual agreement until the evidence that it wasn't becomes completely incontrovertible. To answer a question posed by bluejak, this is the discrepancy between Law 16 and Law 73. If Law 73 did not exist, North in the original problem could argue that 3♠ "must be" support for North's non-existent spade suit because there is no logical alternative to that presumption (the opponents "can't have" ten spades on the bidding). So North could bid 3NT, in the knowledge that his partner has a spade stop, without being held in breach of Law 16. But because Law 73 does exist, North can't do that. He must carefully avoid taking any advantage of UI. Well, the UI tells him that his partner has spades and not hearts. Moreover, the UI will cause him to think fantastical thoughts about his partner's bid of 3♠ - "maybe I can justify 3NT by making up a load of nonsense about not playing splinters in competition and about 2♠ being non-forcing, so partner must have a huge hand with 5-6 in spades and diamonds". The unvarnished truth is, though, that North would not have bid 3NT if partner had explained 1♥ as "hearts". That being so, he's not allowed to do it now. Law 16 does not preclude it, but Law 73 does.

Yes and no, up to but not necessarily beyond a point that might or might not be established or even apparent. The truth is that, just as it was shortly after the epic voyage of Harold Vanderbilt on the SS Finland, whether or not you're as bent as a nine-bob note is still largely a matter of perception. Consider what a pair of out-and-out benders would do on this deal. After 1♦-Dble, North bids 1♥ thinking (however temporarily) that this shows hearts. South informs the assembled company that 1♥ in fact shows spades. East bids 2♣, South bids 3♠, West passes and North... well, what's his problem? Partner has a spade stop, so North bids 3NT. Acts of nitwittery subsequently occur when somebody doubles and nobody defends, but these are not particularly relevant. Now, when something happens that is exactly what would have happened had North-South been Bonnie and Clyde or Henry Gondorff and Johnny Hooker, East-West are entitled to call in the constabulary. Should North, they enquire, be allowed to bid 3NT? Should South be allowed to pass it? Various learned arguments are advanced to the effect that once East bid clubs, South bid 3♠ and West did not double, North had sufficient AI to know that he had cocked up the auction, and that South might therefore not have what he would have if he had (say) explained 1♥ on request as showing hearts. The merits of those arguments rely on East-West's tendency to bid as you or I would bid if we had spades - but they are under no obligation to do that. Various other learned arguments are advanced to the effect that from North's point of view, South might well have explained 1♥ as showing hearts, but have bid 3♠ anyway because he had lots of spades and lots of diamonds and lots of points (too many of either or both to bid a mere 2♠.) The merits of those arguments rely on the extent to which South, East and West are prepared to go into the witness box and certify themselves as lunatics (how can West have a double, East a free bid, South a jump reverse, and North what he has?) But no one is under any obligation to be sane either, so these arguments have about the same force as those above. Still, if you are inclined to credit any of the above arguments, you will be inclined to support the view that the table result should stand. Your view may be reinforced when you learn that North-South "do not play splinters in competition" and "play 2♠ as natural and non-forcing in the sequence 1♦-Double-1(natural)♥-2♣-2♠". If you happen to be the Tournament Director or the Appeals Committee in this case you will rule accordingly, and the strains of Scott Joplin's "The Entertainer" will accompany your entrance while the strains of his "The Easy Winners" will accompany your exit. If on the other hand you believe as I do that North took it upon himself to correct South's impression that North had spades by bidding as he would not have bid if under the impression that South knew North had hearts, you will... well, you may someday finish fourth in the Tollemache. But you'll sleep at night.

Law 16 requires only that it be "illogical" to play the opponents for ten spades. Law 73, on the other hand, requires (more or less) that it be "completely impossible" to play the opponents for ten spades. This discrepancy has been highlighted before, and will be highlighted again, but nothing very much will be done about it.

I am not sure I understand this - North-South are the people who have no idea what they are doing, while East-West are the people who need access to a North-South system file in order to work out what is going on. Will he? If I (West) knew that South's 3♠ was support for his partner's imaginary spades, why would I double it with spades, instead of waiting to see where my opponents ended up? After all, if 4♠ is our side's predestined contract, I can always bid it later. Of course, if North has psyched his 1♥ response (remembering that he has to transfer to his psyche instead of just bidding spades as we used to do in the good old days), then there may be no later and I may collect a bunch of fifties instead of a vulnerable game. But that's life in the big city; if I am granted the disclosure provided in the Laws, then I take my chances when my opponents appear to have bid and supported the suit in which I have a SJO. If I guess wrongly that they have blundered, I pay off; if I guess rightly, I may collect quite a bit more than the value of a vulnerable game when their auction eventually unwinds. But in the actual case where screens are not in use, North is in duty bound to act as though he had bid hearts to show hearts, and his partner had jumped to three spades knowing that North had hearts. That is: if it is not completely impossible that the opponents had failed to bid spades thus far despite having ten of them, South must place that construction upon the auction. Not "unlikely", not "very implausible" as helene suggests, not "virtually impossible" as jallerton suggests, but "completely impossible". At least, that is the way I understand the Laws and the way I have always ruled on committees. If I am supposed to do otherwise... well, no doubt I will be told in due course.

You may think so - I could not possibly comment. But if the North-South agreement over this kind of 2♣ opening was that "we will treat it as a weak 2♦" (sensibly enough), how in the name of all that is wonderful could North pass partner's 3♣? I mean, if I had to guess I would raise to five; if allowed to explore I might hope eventually to raise to six or seven. But this Cyberyeti has recently been something of a mystery to me. He has taken to posting cases asking "was I as bent as a nine-bob note?" to which the answer is always "yes". I suspect a hidden agenda, which may possibly be to demonstrate that the Laws regarding UI are not all that they should be. On the other hand, he may just be bonkers.

An interesting point that had not occurred to me has been made above by kayin801: RHO can (and maybe should, if he is a better player than his partner) falsecard with K10 but not with KJ (because he doesn't know where the ten is). Cases where seemingly equal cards are not in fact equal are of interest only to nerds, but...

When I remarked in the other thread that: "Not sure how irregular this partnership is, but if it has used splinters before I'd say it was using one now. This is a little surprising given my distribution, but that is not my business; I will alert and explain 3♠ as shortage with heart support and game values. "Of course, if this not very regular partnership has used (or discussed using) transfers over takeout doubles in the past, then an alternative explanation is possible. If North actually alerted 1♥, then matters become more complex." I did not know anything about the case at all, let alone how much more complex matters were to become. But I did cast my vote for 4♣, because that was what I would do on the untainted auction (where both my partner and I knew that we had hearts, whatever else was going on). Well, it seems that my partner told the opponents that I had spades. Am I allowed to know that he did this? No. Am I allowed to guess that he might have thought I had spades? No. Oh, wait a minute... yes, because the "only" rational explanation of the opponents' failure to bid spades thus far is that I have temporarily forgotten that we play transfers. Even if it were (which it isn't), how can I in all conscience proceed as if partner or I "must have forgotten"? How am I to understand what the Laws require me to do in this kind of position when to bid 3NT would make me feel almost physically sick, but an anonymous though doubtless extremely competent Director at a national final - having completed the necessary consultations and given due consideration to his or her ruling - thought that it was OK? More disturbingly, some of my distinguished colleagues on the EBU L&E seem to think it OK also. Doubtless the matter will be reviewed in due course. I will try not to eat too much beforehand.