Declarer changes card played from dummy

[dburn]

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.

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.

[pran]

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.

Your answers are correct: A penalty card is not "played" until the player actually plays it; South's "ruff" with the ♥2 is actually a lead out of turn and West has accepted this Lead out of turn by subsequently playing to the trick.

 

We have some guidance in Law 57C1 which, although aimed at compulsory plays from Dummy, establishes as a main principle that a card is not played just because it must be played.

[dburn]

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...

[gordontd]

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.

I think, having read the original post and L45B, that ♣4 had been played.

 

In playing from dummy’s hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself.

 

He did pick up the desired card, so he has engaged in the process of playing from dummy's hand. If he had merely (deliberately) touched it, then it would be a card that had not yet been played but that must be played.

[blackshoe]

He did pick up the desired card, so he has engaged in the process of playing from dummy's hand. If he had merely (deliberately) touched it, then it would be a card that had not yet been played but that must be played.

 

I understand the argument is that the law says that declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it, and that when the card is named, it is played, and that alternatively declarer may pick up the card, and that the law says nothing about declarer then moving the card to the played position, and therefor the card is played when declarer picks it up, which is certainly different from the situation for the other three players, whose card is not played just because they pick it out of their hand. I also understand that there are places where the laws are deemed not to mean exactly what they say, for various reasons. I had expected this might be such a place, but apparently this is one where we are expected to read the law literally. Fine with me, but I sure wish there was something other than "because that's the way it is" behind this different way of reading certain laws. How the Hell is someone who is not privy to the Secret Handshake supposed to know which laws are to be taken literally, and which not?

[dburn]

I think, having read the original post and L45B, that ♣4 had been played.

 

He did pick up the desired card, so he has engaged in the process of playing from dummy's hand. If he had merely (deliberately) touched it, then it would be a card that had not yet been played but that must be played.

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."

[blackshoe]

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

 

Is this another of those "that's just the way it is" things? :(

[barmar]

45B says:

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.

 

Bluejack seems to think that the second sentence is an alternative to the entire first sentence. I think (and I think dburn concurs) that it's an alternative only to the clause "dummy picks up the card". In other words, its simply stating that declarer can perform the physical action normally performed by dummy. But the required action (picking up the card and facing it on the table) is the same regardless of who does it; it doesn't become only "pick up the card" if declarer does it himself -- he still has to face it on the table to complete the process. He also has to name the card BEFORE picking it up.

[gordontd]

45B says:

 

 

Bluejack seems to think that the second sentence is an alternative to the entire first sentence. I think (and I think dburn concurs) that it's an alternative only to the clause "dummy picks up the card". In other words, its simply stating that declarer can perform the physical action normally performed by dummy. But the required action (picking up the card and facing it on the table) is the same regardless of who does it; it doesn't become only "pick up the card" if declarer does it himself -- he still has to face it on the table to complete the process. He also has to name the card BEFORE picking it up.

So, if he hasn't named it, he hasn't played it?

[iviehoff]

No, it {♦K} is not played: the ♣4 must be played, so a later attempt to play another card is merely another card played.

I find this a rather fine distinction, ♦K is not "played", it is "another card played". Interestingly the only law that seems to deal with declarer/dummy playing two cards from the same hand (neither of them a lead to the next trick - and I think we can be sure ♦K was not a lead to the next trick) is 45E2, which is headed "fifth card played to a trick", but in the body of the law rather coyly refers to the 5th card being "contributed" rather than "played". The law tells us to return the card to hand without rectification (in the case of declarer). It seems obvious that one of the excess cards must be returned to hand, but it is useful to have a law that tells us as much, as it had seemed that not all potential deviations from L44B ("After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick") were covered.

 

Declarer's LHO objected to what declarer did immediately after RHO played. Now what would happen if LHO had delayed his objection, for example to the end of the hand? Or at least until after both himself and declarer have played as though the diamond was led. Is the ♣4 still played to that trick? Has RHO (and everyone else no doubt) still revoked? Is it a defective trick with 5 cards in it? I think in that situation the ♣4 was no longer played and the ♦K was, and the answers to the other questions are all "no". But is this merely a private arrangement among the players, or is it a matter of law. Fortunately, I think it is a matter of law.

 

The legal foundation for this is Law 60, headed "Play after an illegal play", and it starts:

 

Law 60 PLAY AFTER AN ILLEGAL PLAY

A Play of Card After an Irregularity

1. 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.

2. Once the right to rectification has been forfeited, the illegal play is treated as though it were in turn (except when Law 53C applies).

 

So when exactly is soon enough to say that it is ♦K and not the ♣4 that was played. I think actually that moment has already arrived. Once RHO has played over dummy's play, the director would be within his rights to say (L60A1) it is already too late, and by playing after it as though ♦K was the played card, it in fact is the legally played card (L60A2). Although ♣4 "must" be played, it would be a 5th card and must be put back.

 

I think this might be the simplest legal ruling, and gets us away from trying to decide whether RHO's card is a revoke or not.

[iviehoff]

Duplicate posting deleted.

[gordontd]

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).

No, these are the requirements for when a card must be played, not for when it has been played.

 

L45A tells us:

 

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

So, the requirement for when a card has been played is that it have been faced on the table immediately in front of the player.

 

The trouble with this is that there are players who don't ever put their cards on the table - they hold them steady above the table. Now, if you are going to insist on the distinction between a card that must be played and a card that has been played, this is going to get very messy indeed.

 

Would there be any problem if in future versions of the Laws they replaced "must be played" with "is considered to have been played"?

[pran]

From OP:

Dummy is to lead. Declarer takes ♣4, but changes his mind. and plays ♦K.

This clearly describes two distinct plays:

First the lead of the ♣4

and second the (illegal withdrawal of the ♣4 and) the lead of the ♦K

 

In the discussion Bluejak asserted:

No, it is not played: the ♣4 must be played, so a later attempt to play another card is merely another card played.

At least here bluejak admitted that the ♦K was indeed a played card. Sure it was another card played, what on earth is the significance? Do the laws relevant to played cards apply only to played cards, not to another played cards?

 

I find this a rather fine distinction, ♦K is not "played", it is "another card played".

.....(snip)

Declarer's LHO objected to what declarer did immediately after RHO played. Now what would happen if LHO had delayed his objection, for example to the end of the hand? Or at least until after both himself and declarer have played as though the diamond was led. Is the ♣4 still played to that trick? Has RHO (and everyone else no doubt) still revoked? Is it a defective trick with 5 cards in it? I think in that situation the ♣4 was no longer played and the ♦K was, and the answers to the other questions are all "no". But is this merely a private arrangement among the players, or is it a matter of law. Fortunately, I think it is a matter of law.

 

The legal foundation for this is Law 60, headed "Play after an illegal play", and it starts:

A. Play of Card after Irregularity

 

1. 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.

 

2. Once the right to rectification has been forfeited, the illegal play is treated as though it were in turn (except when Law 53C applies).

So when exactly is soon enough to say that it is ♦K and not the ♣4 that was played. I think actually that moment has already arrived. Once RHO has played over dummy's play, the director would be within his rights to say (L60A1) it is already too late, and by playing after it as though ♦K was the played card, it in fact is the legally played card (L60A2). Although ♣4 "must" be played, it would be a 5th card and must be put back.

 

I think this might be the simplest legal ruling, and gets us away from trying to decide whether RHO's card is a revoke or not.

The only objection against this is that law 60A1 applies explicitly to leads and plays out of turn or prematurely so it isn't immediately obvious that it applies in the present case.

 

However, whichever way we look at it once we agree that the ♦K was an illegally played card we have Law 47B: A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal play ....., and once we applied this law we have Law 47D which allows RHO to withdraw his ♦3 without further rectification: After an opponents change of play a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.)

[iviehoff]

The only objection against this is that law 60A1 applies explicitly to leads and plays out of turn or prematurely so it isn't immediately obvious that it applies in the present case.

(Edited to add this comment) It seems to me that the play of the ♦ is premature since it should not have been played at that moment, so it seems to me as if it does apply.

 

But leaving that aside, then we have to agree that if play proceeded for long enough as if the ♦ is the played card, then the ♦ is the played card, and the ♣ isn't. Which leads to the question of how much needs to have happened after the irregularity before it becomes untangle-able. Perhaps I was wrong, perhaps this isn't a matter of law, it is simply a private arrangement among the players that becomes sufficiently established that the director no longer attempts to untangle it. I suppose that with just one card played after the irregularity it is obvious that it still can be untangled, because we are used to revokes being untangled at that point. But at least with revokes we have a law that tells us precisely when we can no longer untangle it.

Edited February 21, 2011 by iviehoff

[bluejak]

I understand the argument is that the law says that declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it, and that when the card is named, it is played, and that alternatively declarer may pick up the card, and that the law says nothing about declarer then moving the card to the played position, and therefor the card is played when declarer picks it up, which is certainly different from the situation for the other three players, whose card is not played just because they pick it out of their hand. I also understand that there are places where the laws are deemed not to mean exactly what they say, for various reasons. I had expected this might be such a place, but apparently this is one where we are expected to read the law literally. Fine with me, but I sure wish there was something other than "because that's the way it is" behind this different way of reading certain laws. How the Hell is someone who is not privy to the Secret Handshake supposed to know which laws are to be taken literally, and which not?

The whole approach to learning the application of the Laws of bridge, like learning anything else, is a complicated mixture or reading, training, discussing and so forth. If we reach a convincing answer in this or any other thread we hope and trust that our readers, including th many who never post here, will have learnt something more and the game will benefit.

 

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 is all very well saying that the Laws mean something different from what they say, but there is little support for this approach as a generality. Thew Laws make it quite clear that cards are played differently from dummy - they say so explicitly - so saying it must be so because it is so when cards are played otherwise than from dummy is totally unconvincing.

 

Is this another of those "that's just the way it is" things? :(

No, it is a matter of the English language.

 

45B says:

 

 

Bluejack seems to think that the second sentence is an alternative to the entire first sentence. I think (and I think dburn concurs) that it's an alternative only to the clause "dummy picks up the card". In other words, its simply stating that declarer can perform the physical action normally performed by dummy. But the required action (picking up the card and facing it on the table) is the same regardless of who does it; it doesn't become only "pick up the card" if declarer does it himself -- he still has to face it on the table to complete the process. He also has to name the card BEFORE picking it up.

If it said that, fine, but it does not.

[dburn]

It is all very well saying that the Laws mean something different from what they say, but there is little support for this approach as a generality. The Laws make it quite clear that cards are played differently from dummy - they say so explicitly - so saying it must be so because it is so when cards are played otherwise than from dummy is totally unconvincing.

That isn't what I said. But it might assist your comprehension to read Law 45B carefully:

 

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.

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 is a matter of the English language.

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.

[pran]

The only objection against this is that law 60A1 applies explicitly to leads and plays out of turn or prematurely so it isn't immediately obvious that it applies in the present case.

(Edited to add this comment) It seems to me that the play of the ♦ is premature since it should not have been played at that moment, so it seems to me as if it does apply.

I agree, this could be a possible approach although I do not for a second believe that declarer played the ♦K prematurely (to the next trick). He could not possibly expect to have the lead in dummy for the trick after the trick to which he led the ♣4.

 

But that approach will not in any way change the fact that the ♦K is the currently led card as RHO has played to the trick with his ♦3 before attention was called to the irregularity.

 

Whether this solution is acceptable (or reasonable) is a different question, personally I don't think it is.

[blackshoe]

That isn't what I said. But it might assist your comprehension to read Law 45B carefully:

 

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.

 

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).

 

Apparently it doesn't assist my comprehension, because as I see it, the first clause of the first sentence in that law says that dummy's card is played when declarer designates it, not when dummy places it.

[Vampyr]

Apparently it doesn't assist my comprehension, because as I see it, the first clause of the first sentence in that law says that dummy's card is played when declarer designates it, not when dummy places it.

When declarer plays the card himself, though, no one actually "designates" or as per the law "names" it.

[blackshoe]

I wasn't talking about that, Stefanie, but only about the normal way in which cards are played from dummy.

 

At this point I have four questions for the forum, and in particular for dburn:

 

1. If declarer names a card in dummy, has that card been played?

2. If declarer points at a card in dummy, has that card been played?

3. If declarer picks up a card from dummy, has that card been played?

4. If declarer touches a card from dummy, but does not pick it up, has that card been played?

 

Please explain your reasoning.

[pran]

I wasn't talking about that, Stefanie, but only about the normal way in which cards are played from dummy.

 

At this point I have four questions for the forum, and in particular for dburn:

 

1. If declarer names a card in dummy, has that card played?

2. If declarer points at a card in dummy, has that card played?

3. If declarer picks up a card from dummy, has that card played?

4. If declarer touches a card from dummy, but does not pick it up, has that card played?

 

Please explain your reasoning.

I take the liberty to give my answers just before I go to bed:

 

Law 45B: 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

1. Obviously yes

2. IMHO No, not until dummy has picked it up and faced it on the table.

3. IMHO No, not until declarer faces the card on the table.

4, IMHO No.

 

Law 45C3: A card in the dummy must be played if it has been deliberately touched by declarer except for the purpose either of arranging dummy’s cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched.

 

Common to items 2-4 is that the card must be played unless declarer says (for instance):

2: "that is not the card I pointed to"

3: "I wanted the card beyond that one"

4: "I was about to arrange the cards more properly"

[dburn]

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

[Vampyr]

Though the ♦K lead was not legal, if RHO didn't see the gesture with the club, and/or didn't know that it meant the card was played, RHO has not committed an irregularity. How can he be penalised? I really don't think that penalising him and then turning to L23 as a last resort can be right. Yes, declarer "could have known" that tempting RHO into creating a penalty card might be to his advantage, but it still smacks of the old Edgar Kaplan approach of deciding you don't like it and finding a Law to apply.

 

I once had an experience a little like this. Declarer won a trick with ♦A. After the trick was quitted, declarer began to think, which he did for quite some time, and I began, as usual, to stare vacantly into space. When I eventually looked down at the table to see if there had been any developments, the ♦A was on the table, face up, in front of declarer. So I followed suit...

 

What happened was that while declarer was thinking, he was playing with his card, flipping it and moving it about. When I looked, he happened to be holding it face up, in the played position. The director (was it you, Gordon?) ruled not that I had led out of turn, but that I (perhaps not being aware of the number of ♦Aces in the average deck) had been fooled into following suit. (I don't mean to imply that declarer did anything on purpose.)

 

When it looks for all the world as if a card has been led, and from the correct hand, it is normal for the next player to play to the trick. It is not normal for the next player to wonder whether the card has "really" been led.

 

By the way, perhaps there is a bit of confusion, with some people thinking that the change of card is from ♣4 to ♦K. That change is irrelevant; it is the change from ♦K to ♣4 that matters for ruling purposes.

[pran]

Though the ♦K lead was not legal, if RHO didn't see the gesture with the club, and/or didn't know that it meant the card was played, RHO has not committed an irregularity. How can he be penalised? I really don't think that penalising him and then turning to L23 as a last resort can be right. Yes, declarer "could have known" that tempting RHO into creating a penalty card might be to his advantage, but it still smacks of the old Edgar Kaplan approach of deciding you don't like it and finding a Law to apply.

 

I once had an experience a little like this. Declarer won a trick with ♦A. After the trick was quitted, declarer began to think, which he did for quite some time, and I began, as usual, to stare vacantly into space. When I eventually looked down at the table to see if there had been any developments, the ♦A was on the table, face up, in front of declarer. So I followed suit...

 

What happened was that while declarer was thinking, he was playing with his card, flipping it and moving it about. When I looked, he happened to be holding it face up, in the played position. The director (was it you, Gordon?) ruled not that I had led out of turn, but that I (perhaps not being aware of the number of ♦Aces in the average deck) had been fooled into following suit. (I don't mean to imply that declarer did anything on purpose.)

 

When it looks for all the world as if a card has been led, and from the correct hand, it is normal for the next player to play to the trick. It is not normal for the next player to wonder whether the card has "really" been led.

 

By the way, perhaps there is a bit of confusion, with some people thinking that the change of card is from ♣4 to ♦K. That change is irrelevant; it is the change from ♦K to ♣4 that matters for ruling purposes.

Much of this thread has been caused by bluejak's statements (at least the way I have understood them) to the effect that the ♦K was never played (apparently because such play would be illegal and against law 45C3).

 

I would greatly appreciate his clarification whether he still considers that the ♣4 was the only card played from dummy to the trick in question, and if so what description should be given to declarer's action of picking up the ♦K and place it in what apparently looked like a played position after putting the ♣4 back among dummy's cards?

 

Notice that once we accept that the ♦K was illegally played then we have a very simple ruling by applying in sequence: Law 47B (ordering the illegal play of ♦K to be withdrawn and replaced with the originally led ♣4), and then Law 47D (allowing the subsequent play of ♦3 to be withdrawn).

 

Remember the description in OP:

Dummy is to lead. Declarer takes ♣4, but changes his mind. and plays ♦K.

[blackshoe]

Notice that once we accept that the ♦K was illegally played then we have a very simple ruling by applying in sequence: Law 47B (ordering the illegal play of ♦K to be withdrawn and replaced with the originally led ♣4), and then Law 47D (allowing the subsequent play of ♦3 to be withdrawn).

 

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