Declarer changes card played from dummy

[dburn]

Funny, that's the ruling (and basis) that I suggested about 65 posts ago.

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Sven thinks declarer has already played ♣4, so that ♦K must be withdrawn to correct the illegal play of ♦K under Law 47. I don't think declarer has already played ♣4, but since he is committed to playing it, ♦K must be withdrawn because it is a revoke under Law 61.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practical purposes this does not matter, because the ways in which Law 47 and the revoke Laws kick in to allow ♦3 to be withdrawn without further rectification are in effect identical.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.

[pran]

Funny, that's the ruling (and basis) that I suggested about 65 posts ago. :o

Me too B-)

 

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Sven thinks declarer has already played ♣4, so that ♦K must be withdrawn to correct the illegal play of ♦K under Law 47. I don't think declarer has already played ♣4, but since he is committed to playing it, ♦K must be withdrawn because it is a revoke under Law 61.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practical purposes this does not matter, because the ways in which Law 47 and the revoke Laws kick in to allow ♦3 to be withdrawn without further rectification are in effect identical.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; {b} 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.

Very well summed up.

However, it doesn't really matter whether the ♣4 has been or must be played. In either case the subsequent lead of the ♦K is illegal, and once attention is called to this irregularity the ♦K must be withdrawn and the ♣4 must be led instead. Involving law 61A and designating the lead of the ♦K a revoke leads to the same result as directly applying Law 45C3 but seems an unneccessary complication. We will use Law 47B in either case.

 

The important fact is that the ♦K was indeed played and that this play was illegal.

 

Now, if we only could get bluejak to concede this fact so that every question of revoke rectification against RHO (playing the ♦3) disappears.

[Vampyr]

Funny, that's the ruling (and basis) that I suggested about 65 posts ago. :o

And I suggested it about 6 posts before that... anyway, I think we will have to be satisfied with a near-consensus -- it does not seem that bluejak will change his mind and go with the mainstream.

[blackshoe]

I am not so much concerned with "mainstream" as I am with "correct", so it worries me that David disagrees.

[pran]

I am not so much concerned with "mainstream" as I am with "correct", so it worries me that David disagrees.

What surprises me is that when met with other (well founded) opinions he just seems to argue that he is right and others are wrong, and then simply goes silent without bothering even to answer specific relevant questions or explain why other opinions are wrong.

 

In this specific thread I have no idea whether he is silent because he eventually agreed with "mainstream", or if he is silent because of his supremacy?

 

But I can no longer care to be "worried".

[RMB1]

There are some people, when they disagree, I am not "worried": instead I find it a positive endorsement. :)

[BudH]

On 18 February 2011, blackshoe said "*I note that this is a bit different from the normal situation: when declarer designates a card from dummy, the card is played when he designates it (Law 45B, first clause of the first sentence), and dummy's placing it in the played position is merely administrative."

 

The ACBL disagrees with you (and me) regarding the phrase "after which" in Law 45B.

 

On 20 February 2015, in response to a question, ACBL informed me:

 

"Your description 'Law 45B says dummy’s card is a played card as soon as it is verbally called, not when dummy places the card in front of him' is incorrect. Law 45B clearly states 'dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table.'. Both actions by dummy are required to identify the card called by declarer as played.'

 

and in confirming that ACBL answer, ACBL's Dan Plato wrote:

 

"The person to the left of dummy simply should not play until that card in dummy is detached and put in a played position. It can be a painful and costly lesson to learn, but that is our interpretation of the law the way it is written.... If it was as you want to argue [the words 'after which' making one think dummy's card is officially played when verbally named by declarer], I believe the Law would stop after the phrase “after naming the card.” There would be no need to describe the physical action of the Dummy placing the card in a played position as it would be irrelevant. It is not irrelevant—the descriptor of placing it in a played position is a part of the whole step required."

 

So ACBL says Law 45C4(a) COMMITS you to playing the named card - but it not YET a played card until removed from dummy and placed face up in a played position.

 

Law references below.

 

LAW 45B - 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.

 

LAW 45C4(a) - A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.

[barmar]

I guess you're the same one who started a thread about this in rec.games.bridge.

 

As I said there, I don't see any significant impact to this difference. Dummy's LHO playing before dummy moves the card into the played position is not an infraction (or if it is, there's no punishment for it).

[blackshoe]

The ACBL is wrong. B-)

[BudH]

If the ACBL interpretation is correct, it would make many rulings regarding declarer's RHO easier - that player should be waiting for dummy's card to be removed from dummy before playing his card.

 

I don't care which interpretation is correct - just PLEASE get this information to members of the WBF and ACBL Laws Commission and have them re-write Law 45B so there is no possibility of ambiguity.

[BudH]

I admit there is some logic in the ACBL interpretation because then the last act of dummy's card becoming officially played is identical whether (1) declarer verbally names the card or (2) declarer picks up the card himself to play it:

 

(1) declarer verbally names card, dummy removes card from dummy, card is placed face up outside of dummy

 

or

 

(2). declarer removes card from dummy, card is placed face up outside of dummy

 

and in each case, the first act listed (naming the card or declarer picking up dummy's card) commits declarer to play that card but is not yet officially played.

[BudH]

This topic would make an excellent new entry in ACBL's FAQ on law interpretations - but PLEASE ensure there are multiple confirmations (including with WBF and other significant bridge organizations) to make sure the correct meaning and interpretation are published.

 

If you do an internet search for "Law 45B" and "dummy", you will find dozens of references to those like blackshoe an myself who think the words "after which" indicates dummy's card is played when named, contrary to the information received by me from ACBL.

 

I admit there is some logic in the ACBL interpretation because then the last act of dummy's card becoming officially played is identical whether (1) declarer verbally names the card or (2) declarer picks up the card himself to play it:

 

(1) declarer verbally names card, dummy removes card from dummy, card is placed face up outside of dummy

 

or

 

(2). declarer removes card from dummy, card is placed face up outside of dummy

 

and in each case, the first act listed (naming the card or declarer picking up dummy's card) commits declarer to play that card but is not yet officially played.

[BudH]

Would it be possible for bluejak or blackshoe to make contact with some associated law commissions to see if the interpretation of Law 45B is different than ACBL's? Perhaps the EBU, Dutch, or the WBF itself?