Very easy one

[mr1303]

South (declarer) is playing on lead. He plays (not drops) a card, but before West has a chance to play, decides he wishes to play another card.

 

Can he?

[RMB1]

No. There is no equivalent of Law 25 for played cards.

A card that is deliberately exposed and left on the table must be played.

 

Robin

 

PS

Without geometry, life is pointless!

With Topos theory, even geometry is pointless.

[peachy]

Even *I* can answer. No. A card played (not dropped) is a card played. He intended to play that card and then changed his mind. If he didn't intend to play it, he "has" played it and it stands.

[duschek]

Now suppose that when LHO says the card has been played, declarer replies that he can show his cards without being penalised (we have all heard that one before). So declarer changes his play, and the hand is completed.

 

Would you change the ruling made by the players at the table?

[bluejak]

Depends on circumstance. But if declarer has basically bullied the opposition into accepting his ruling, I deduct one or more tricks via adjustment, and tell him next time he gets a standard fine. Or if I think it really did not matter and cannot justify an adjustment, give him the PP now.

 

It really depends on how I got to know about this. If the players have agreed to something, where did the TD come into it?

[duschek]

A situation like this came up in a recent Danish league game. At this level, I would expect players to call the TD rather than believe the opponents and would probably rule that the non-offending side had lost its rights.

 

At most other levels below I would not expect anything from the players and would almost certainly adjust the score.

 

However, this thread made me wonder whether the Law 11A ruling is legal at all. A change of call can be accepted via Law 25B, but how about a change of play?

[mycroft]

"okay, prove to me that you were just showing your card and not playing it." Law 45C2, 48A.

 

Basically, declarer is going to have to convince me that it was not a played card for me to allow a "change". If she's trying one on, I am expecting it to become very clear very quickly. Similarly, if she has a legitimate "change", that will also become clear very quickly. If she just has had a belated change of mind, she will most likely tell me, and I will do some education.

 

To answer your last question, a change of play can be made whenever allowed in Law 47.

 

On a similar note, I've only once had a "I'm not claiming, I'm just showing you I have the rest of the tricks" gamer at my table (as opposed to declarer showing me I'm endplayed at T11 or whatever, which is, basically, a claim). That person has been burned by a "claim" before, and wants all the benefit without any of the possible problems if it fails. Strangely, I never conceded. I can't imagine why.

 

What. Passive-aggressive? Me? Never heard of the word.

[duschek]

Sorry, I was not making myself really clear. Let me try to rephrase.

 

Suppose declarer changes his play, not being in accordance with Law 47. Somehow he manages to convince the defenders that he is allowed to do it as long as no opponent has played to the trick. After the play has finished, the defenders approach the TD to verify declarer's statement as to his rights. Everybody agrees on the facts, and declarer gracefully accepts any PP.

 

Since the change of play was clearly not allowed and cannot be accepted by the defenders (unless I have forgotten some other Law), must the TD determine an adjusted score based on the original play, or can he use Law 11A to decide that the defenders have forfeited their rights to have the irregularity rectified? Or can he do either, based on judgement?

[bluejak]

Law 10B says he can do either based on his judgement.

[VixTD]

Suppose declarer changes his play, not being in accordance with Law 47. Somehow he manages to convince the defenders that he is allowed to do it as long as no opponent has played to the trick. After the play has finished, the defenders approach the TD to verify declarer's statement as to his rights. Everybody agrees on the facts, and declarer gracefully accepts any PP.

 

Since the change of play was clearly not allowed and cannot be accepted by the defenders (unless I have forgotten some other Law)....

Doesn't law 53A apply here:

 

Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law

47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case

may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made

from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead (but see C).

 

and law 61A1:

 

A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or

played out of turn or prematurely, and before rectification has been

assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of that offence.

 

If declarer leads a club, changes his mind and replaces it with a heart, and LHO follows to the heart lead, what should the director do if called at this point? The "offence", in this instance, is the lead of the heart. LHO has forfeited his right to rectification (i.e. he cannot insist that the heart lead be retracted and the original club lead stand), but that's not to say that the director won't do it anyway.

 

If he does, what happens to LHO's card? Is it withdrawn without penalty, or does it become a major penalty card?

 

I sense this is going to hinge on the interpretation of declarer's heart lead not being a lead out of turn, even though it is clearly a lead made at somebody else's turn to play, and thus seems to fit the description.

[RMB1]

If the second card lead by declarer is a lead out of turn then it is a lead to the next trick. So declarer has lead to trick n, no one else has played to this trick and declarer has illegally replaced the card lead in his hand; now declarer has lead out of turn to trick n+1 and this has been accepted by LHO. If play continues, we will reach trick 14, with apparently no cards having been played to trick n. Trick 14 does not stand and instead trick n is (woefully) decificient and is dealt with under the appropriate law. This probably gives the TD sufficient scope to award any result he thinks is appropriate.

 

Robin

[bluejak]

Do not forget, VixTD, you are completely changing the question: no wonder the answer is different. The question to which I answered, unlike yours, was when declarer gave an incorrect ruling at his own table. Now, in such cases, I can adjust because of Law 10B.

 

Your case, where a player does something wrong and it is condoned, is not the same case.

[VixTD]

Do not forget, VixTD, you are completely changing the question: no wonder the answer is different.

I'm changing it slightly, and making this clear by quoting a passage in which Duschek asks a question at the top, to show what point I am addressing. (I thought that was the entire point of the quote function.) I'm not particularly surprised that my answer was different from your one to a different question.

 

I think the difference between

 

(1) declarer leads a club and changes it to a heart, LHO follows to the heart, and (2) declarer leads a club and changes it to a heart, and declarer says "You haven't played yet, so I'm allowed to change my card, you have to play to the heart now"

 

is going to depend on the experience of both sides. You won't let an experienced declarer bully a less experienced defender, neither will you give full redress to a defender who knew at least enough to call the director.

 

I also take Robin's point that I haven't found a law that lets me deal with the original card led (i.e. to sanction its retraction).

[blackshoe]

OP: Can he?

My answer: No.

 

Duschek: suppose declarer asserts that he can change his card, does so, and his LHO follows to the change. Would you change the ruling made by the players at the table?

 

My answer: if I expect LHO is sufficiently knowledgeable that he knows he should call the director before playing (and it doesn't take much) I might let the result stand, but I would issue a PP to the player who made the assertion.

 

Duschek: A change of call can be accepted via Law 25B, but how about a change of play?

 

My answer: I see no law that would allow or condone that in this case.

 

Duschek: must the TD determine an adjusted score based on the original play, or can he use Law 11A to decide that the defenders have forfeited their rights to have the irregularity rectified? Or can he do either, based on judgement?

 

Bluejak: Law 10B says he can do either based on his judgement.

 

My answer: I agree with David.

 

That pretty much settles the discussion of the original case, I think. I'm tempted to split the thread now.