Declarer changes card played from dummy

[bluejak]

Yeah. I said that already.

 

I agree with Mr. Christiansen, who is reportedly of the opinion that the ♣4 must be played, but has not yet been played (at the point where the question arose at the table) because it was not placed in the played position. I am of the opinion, though, that it does not matter whether it has been played, or just must be played, because in either case the subsequent play of the ♦K is illegal. I gave my ruling in an earlier post; I stand by that in its entirety. I do wonder whether anyone read it. :unsure:

Of course: I have read it and disagreed with it. It is a fact that I neither quoted it nor disagreed with it in the next post: you should not infer I have not read it from that.

[pran]

Yeah. I said that already.

 

I agree with Mr. Christiansen, who is reportedly of the opinion that the ♣4 must be played, but has not yet been played (at the point where the question arose at the table) because it was not placed in the played position. I am of the opinion, though, that it does not matter whether it has been played, or just must be played, because in either case the subsequent play of the ♦K is illegal. I gave my ruling in an earlier post; I stand by that in its entirety. I do wonder whether anyone read it. :unsure:

 

Of course: I have read it and disagreed with it. It is a fact that I neither quoted it nor disagreed with it in the next post: you should not infer I have not read it from that.

 

And pray: Please specify precisely what law was violated by the play of ♦3 after the ♦K was placed in a played position but before attention was called to any irregularity? I must admit it has escaped my attention if you have already done so, I hope this will not deter you from specifying the law now?

[bluejak]

44C.

[blackshoe]

Of course: I have read it and disagreed with it.

 

Fair enough.

[pran]

44C.

So the ♦K was in your opinion never played, not even illegally?

 

Do you deny that declarer played the ♦K from dummy when he picked up that card and placed it in a played position on the table?

 

From Law 45B: In playing from dummy’s hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself.

There is nothing in Law 45 to indicate that a card illegally played is not played. On the contrary we have places in the laws where for instance the distinction between a deliberately (but illegal) play and an accidental exposure of a card is important.

 

At the time the ♦3 was played the only card from dummy placed in a played position was the ♦K and it appears obvious that the ♦3 was a play following suit to the ♦K.

 

I cannot agree that Law 44C is applicable on the play of the ♦3.

[axman]

My point is that the ♦3 was not played to the ♣4, it was played to the ♦K.

 

I consider it a fact from OP that declarer did indeed play two cards from Dummy: First the ♣4 and then (illegally, for whatever reason) the ♦K. This second play was definitely illegal, but it was still a play.

 

On second thoughts I am convinced that Law 47B must apply to the illegal play of ♦K, and thereafter Law 47D clearly applies to the play of ♦3.

 

prior to the play of the D3 which thereby made the plays [of the C4 and DK] to be in turn**, what was the ruling that required the cancelling of the C4?

 

**forfeiting the right to rectification

 

or; to which card was the DK changed <so as to invoke the provision of 47D>?

[bluejak]

Ok, let us try something different. I believe the club was played: others do not. I believe that once you start a procedure which is not allowed to be stopped that is good enough.

 

What does the Law say?

 

Law 45

A. Play of Card from a Hand

Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him.

B. Play of Card from Dummy

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy’s hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself.

So A is irrelevant. The first sentence of B is also irrelevant since the two sentences actually work as alternatives. So we are left with the second sentence. According to that the card is played by declarer picking it up - and that is what happened. So the club was played.

[Vampyr]

According to that the card is played by declarer picking it up - and that is what happened. So the club was played.

Then so was the diamond.

[pran]

So the club was played.

Then so was the diamond.

Precisely! (Thanks)

[pran]

prior to the play of the D3 which thereby made the plays [of the C4 and DK] to be in turn**, what was the ruling that required the cancelling of the C4?

 

**forfeiting the right to rectification

 

or; to which card was the DK changed <so as to invoke the provision of 47D>?

First the ♣4 was played (this is not disputed)

Then (before RHO played) the ♣4 was withdrawn and restored to dummy, and the ♦K was played instead.

This activity by declarer was a violation of Law 45C3, eventually the ♦K must be restored to dummy and the ♣4 that was first played must be ruled as the card played.

The problem is that in the meantime (before attention was called to the irregularity) RHO has followed suit to the ♦K with his ♦3 and the discussion is all about what law shall apply to this card.

 

I understand David to be of the opinion that the ♦3 has been played to the trick to which the ♣4 was led and therefore constitutes a revoke if RHO possesses at least one club in his hand.

 

I (for one) is of the opinion that the ♦K has also been played (illegally) and that the restoration of this card to dummy is a consequence of Law 47B. If this is accepted then Law 47D applies undisputably to the ♦3.

[bluejak]

How do you "withdraw" a played card? You cannot.

 

Compare bidding: you place the 5♦ card on the table. You then decide 4♦ would be a better bid. Now, assuming this is not a mechanical error, you cannot withdraw the 5♦ bid: it is the bid you have made and remains the bid you have made even if you put it back in the box. Either you can withdraw it, or you cannot. Law 25A allows a call to be withdrawn [and other Laws in certain circumstances, eg after MI] but if it is not allowed to be withdrawn, physically putting it back in the box does not mean it is withdrawn.

 

So, declarer played a card, and it cannot be withdrawn. Putting it back and pickling out another does not work.

 

Another comparison. Declarer takes a card out of his hand, puts it on the table, and then changes his mind. It does not matter whether he puts it back in his hand, he cannot withdraw it because it has been played.

 

So, if the club has been played from dummy it cannot be withdrawn. If RHO now plays a card it is because the club has been played from dummy.

 

Sure, declarer then committed an irregularity, but the rule is simple: after an irregularity you call the TD, and if you don't, you proceed at your own risk [Laws 9 to 11].

[blackshoe]

It seems to me the sequence of events is important. As I read it, that sequence was [1] declarer played* the ♣4, [2] declarer put the ♣4 back amongst dummy's cards, [3] declarer placed the ♦K in the played position, [4] declarer's RHO played the 3. Now you say that [4] came after [1], and before [3] (it's not clear to me whether you think it came before or after, or simultaneously with [2]). What is your basis for this position?

 

*I'm not convinced that your argument is valid that a card from dummy is played when declarer picks it up, but now that you've actually explained the basis for it, I can see it at least is worth discussing.

[Vampyr]

So, if the club has been played from dummy it cannot be withdrawn. If RHO now plays a card it is because the club has been played from dummy.

 

Sure, declarer then committed an irregularity, but the rule is simple: after an irregularity you call the TD, and if you don't, you proceed at your own risk [Laws 9 to 11].

 

It seems obvious that declarer's RHO did not realise that an irregularity had taken place. It was this player's partner who queried whether the original club had been played. And, as another poster mentioned, there is always the possibility that RHO never saw the club picked up, but saw only the diamond in the played position.

 

But any arguments are simply met with bluejack's "you cannot withdraw a played card" in an endless loop. I do not plan to respond to the same comment again.

[pran]

How do you "withdraw" a played card? You cannot.

 

Compare bidding: you place the 5♦ card on the table. You then decide 4♦ would be a better bid. Now, assuming this is not a mechanical error, you cannot withdraw the 5♦ bid: it is the bid you have made and remains the bid you have made even if you put it back in the box. Either you can withdraw it, or you cannot. Law 25A allows a call to be withdrawn [and other Laws in certain circumstances, eg after MI] but if it is not allowed to be withdrawn, physically putting it back in the box does not mean it is withdrawn.

 

So, declarer played a card, and it cannot be withdrawn. Putting it back and pickling out another does not work.

 

Another comparison. Declarer takes a card out of his hand, puts it on the table, and then changes his mind. It does not matter whether he puts it back in his hand, he cannot withdraw it because it has been played.

 

So, if the club has been played from dummy it cannot be withdrawn. If RHO now plays a card it is because the club has been played from dummy.

 

Sure, declarer then committed an irregularity, but the rule is simple: after an irregularity you call the TD, and if you don't, you proceed at your own risk [Laws 9 to 11].

Are you serious?

A quick count in Law 47 showed me seven occurrencies of the word "withdrawn" in connection with played cards. And you assert that a played card cannot be withdrawn?

 

There is no dispute that declarers action of taking back the ♣4 and instead place the ♦K in the played position was illegal, but the fact is that declarer did it.

 

How are we to describe declarer's action other than as an illegal withdrawal of the ♣4 followed by an illegal play of the ♦K? Do you assert that declarer didn't do anything with these two cards?

 

Declarer physically (and deliberately) withdrew the ♣4 in conflict with Law 47F2 and played the ♦K in conflict with Law 45C3.

 

So what do we do with the ♦K? We use Law 47B and order it to be withdrawn. And thereafter we have Law 47D for the ♦3.

 

And finally just one comment on your bidding example: You seem to completely overlook Law 25B which handles the situation where a player changes his intended call. The fact that a player physically puts back a bid card to the box and replaces it with another is fully recognized by Law 25B as an attempt to withdraw the first call and make a second call. Whether this change of call is accepted or not is up to the offender's LHO, but asserting that the second call was not made is just nonsense. If the change of call is not accepted the second call is cancelled with the consequences from Law 25B3.

 

To the extent that this example might have any relevance for the current discussion it appears to me that it corroborates the opinion that the ♦K was indeed played (illegally) and the use of Law 47B on this play.

[gordontd]

I'm coming to this discussion rather late, and apologise if what I say has already been mentioned in the various posts I've skipped over.

So the ♣4 is played and may not be changed.

 

 

So the ♦3 is played and may not be changed. If it is a revoke then the normal penalties apply, ie it must be corrected and it becomes a major penalty card.

 

Is this fair? Well, maybe not! But it is the Law. :(

Something that was pointed out to me some time ago by the WBF Chief TD is that Law 50, which contains the words "unless the Director designates otherwise..." places no limit on the TD's discretion to designate otherwise. So, one way to produce a fair result might be to designate that the ♦3 is not a penalty card.

[bluejak]

Gordon: that is legal, certainly, unlike some of the other suggestions. If you go back to my earlier ideas you will find a suggestion of using Law 23 which comes to much the same effect. The arguments here have been over the legalities, not the effect - well mine have, I assume people answering my posts have read them.

 

Ed: if 4 is after 1, then it is after 1, even if 2 and 3 came in-between.

 

Pran: of course there are other legal and irrelevant ways to withdraw cards. So what? Why talk about something that did not happen?

[dburn]

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?

[bluejak]

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?

Designation is naming a card to be played. It never applies to physical methods of playing cards.

[dburn]

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).

[gordontd]

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?

Since the original post says that declarer changed his mind, L45C4b would not apply even if he had designated the card rather than playing it.

[gordontd]

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;

I think it might be difficult to convince the director that declarer was intending to say "king of diamonds" while the words "four of clubs" were coming out his mouth. Much more likely when the call is simply an incomplete designation of a suit, especially if the player is speaking an unfamiliar language.

[dburn]

Since the original post says that declarer changed his mind, L45C4b would not apply even if he had designated the card rather than playing it.

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].

[pran]

Pran: of course there are other legal and irrelevant ways to withdraw cards. So what? Why talk about something that did not happen?

I think you need to be a bit more specific:

Where have I talked about something that did not happen (except when commenting on some of your issues)?

[dburn]

I think it might be difficult to convince the director that declarer was intending to say "king of diamonds" while the words "four of clubs" were coming out his mouth. Much more likely when the call is simply an incomplete designation of a suit, especially if the player is speaking an unfamiliar language.

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".

[gordontd]

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.

My understanding is that there is indeed a difference between these two situations in Law.

 

Note however that a card in dummy must have been "deliberately touched" before it is required to be played.