Law 57C2

[mycroft]

Well, until last night, I'd never heard of or been involved in a ruling under this Law. In fact, when I did hear about it (was playing, not the TD; was asked afterward), I had to go look up what happened. I was actually surprised at the flat-out wording of that Law.

 

(given that declarer playing from both hands before either defender is a pet peeve of mine, I'm *glad* it's worded that way; just surprised).

 

Now, I'm sure, I'll be told this happens once-a-tournament everywhere else!

[pran]

Well, until last night, I'd never heard of or been involved in a ruling under this Law. In fact, when I did hear about it (was playing, not the TD; was asked afterward), I had to go look up what happened. I was actually surprised at the flat-out wording of that Law.

 

(given that declarer playing from both hands before either defender is a pet peeve of mine, I'm *glad* it's worded that way; just surprised).

 

Now, I'm sure, I'll be told this happens once-a-tournament everywhere else!

That is also one of the reasons why dummy should never play even a singleton to a lead by declarer before being requested (by declarer) however obvius it is which card shall be played from dummy to the trick.

 

Although declarer in such cases has not played from both hands, dummy has violated Laws 43A1{c}, 45D and 45F, and the immediate rectification will (only) be that prescribed in Law 45D with the consequence that knowledge of the card played and possibly withdrawn by RHO is AI to LHO and UI to declarer.

[Vampyr]

That is also one of the reasons why dummy should never play even a singleton to a lead by declarer before being requested (by declarer) however obvius it is which card shall be played from dummy to the trick.

 

Although declarer in such cases has not played from both hands, dummy has violated Laws 43A1{c}, 45D and 45F, and the immediate rectification will (only) be that prescribed in Law 45D with the consequence that knowledge of the card played and possibly withdrawn by RHO is AI to LHO and UI to declarer.

 

Interesting. The text of this law reads, in part,

 

nor if dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played

 

This has some relevance to the "Revoke?" thread, where one of the main questions is whether dummy can be considered to have "played" a card.

[RMB1]

This has some relevance to the "Revoke?" thread, where one of the main questions is whether dummy can be considered to have "played" a card.

 

I think, given the wording of the Law 45B, whereever the Laws say dummy has [mis]played a card (as dummy's own action) this should be read as dummy has [mis]placed a card in the played position.

[barmar]

Since 57 is about premature plays, I think its reference to dummy playing a card is about dummy moving a card into played position before declarer has said anything at all, as if dummy were an ordinary player.

[mycroft]

well, the position was something like this (spades trumps):

[hv=pc=n&s=sqhdc95&w=sth9d9c&n=sk9hd7c&e=shdtct7]399|300[/hv]

and South played a club and said "ruff" before West played. "which?" "low, I guess" "Then I get a trick."

 

As she said:

1. if it was going to make a difference (-800 to -1100 was zero matchpoints, and that was clear to all), probably she would have given the trick back, and
   
2. she only did it because this particular habit is particularly annoying, and the players at that table *should* know better.
   

 

But I was, as I said, very surprised at the fact that there is *no* leeway given in that Law (no "normal" or "irrational" or "evidence" or...)

 

Hmm. It seems that everyone's been commenting about 57C*1*, which, of course, we all see frequently. That's why I was so surprised at this one.

[bluejak]

I think, given the wording of the Law 45B, whereever the Laws say dummy has [mis]played a card (as dummy's own action) this should be read as dummy has [mis]placed a card in the played position.

That, of course, depends on your interpretation of Law 45B, which is not agreed by everyone. It has always been my view that the first sentence of Law 45B describes the play of a card from dummy as a two-part action. While I know may people disagree, I have not yet seen a convincing argument that I am wrong.

[blackshoe]

You know, a while back somebody (I think it was J. Neil Schulman) had the same problem with the wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, so he submitted the question to a grammarian: "what does this thing actually say?" Perhaps we should do that with Law 45B. B-)

[axman]

That, of course, depends on your interpretation of Law 45B, which is not agreed by everyone. It has always been my view that the first sentence of Law 45B describes the play of a card from dummy as a two-part action. While I know may people disagree, I have not yet seen a convincing argument that I am wrong.

 

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card…

 

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card dummy picks up the card…

 

Notice the drawing attention as to what the word which means.

 

It being notable that different passages of law otherwise/additionally provide that dummy's card can be played by the moving of dummy's card without declarer naming it.

 

It is clear that this does not convince you, but it convinces others.

[barmar]

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card…

 

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card dummy picks up the card…

 

Notice the drawing attention as to what the word which means.

which could also refer only to naming the card. Consider the sentence "You drive from Boston to New Hampshire by going to Leverett Circle, after which you get on I-93 going north."

 

We disambiguate the latter using common sense regarding driving from A to B -- by understanding the whole process, you know how the clauses fit in. Unfortunately, in the case of 45B, we're trying to go the other way: we want to know the intended process, and we're given an ambiguous sentence that makes it hard to do that.

[pran]

which could also refer only to naming the card. Consider the sentence "You drive from Boston to New Hampshire by going to Leverett Circle, after which you get on I-93 going north."

 

We disambiguate the latter using common sense regarding driving from A to B -- by understanding the whole process, you know how the clauses fit in. Unfortunately, in the case of 45B, we're trying to go the other way: we want to know the intended process, and we're given an ambiguous sentence that makes it hard to do that.

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card…

Dummy picking up the card is not part of playing the card, it is executing the play of the card!

 

On the contrary: If Dummy picks up a card without instruction by Declarer he is indeed (illegally) playing the card (or at least suggesting such play of the card which constitutes the same).

[Cascade]

Interesting. The text of this law reads, in part,

 

nor if dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played

 

This has some relevance to the "Revoke?" thread, where one of the main questions is whether dummy can be considered to have "played" a card.

 

This text is in Law57C1 not Law57C2 in my lawbook.

[mycroft]

Heh, Wayne, I was trying to point that out earlier, but thread drift iz thread drift, oh well.

[blackshoe]

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card…

Dummy picking up the card is not part of playing the card, it is executing the play of the card!

 

On the contrary: If Dummy picks up a card without instruction by Declarer he is indeed (illegally) playing the card (or at least suggesting such play of the card which constitutes the same).

 

Not when declarer has already played a different card from dummy to this trick. Do you think this is a "fifth card" situation?

 

If you want to rule dummy has suggested a play, go ahead, but that's a side issue and does not tell us how to resolve the main issue.

[pran]

Not when declarer has already played a different card from dummy to this trick. Do you think this is a "fifth card" situation?

 

If you want to rule dummy has suggested a play, go ahead, but that's a side issue and does not tell us how to resolve the main issue.

No, it looks to me as if dummy executes the play of a card called by declarer, except that he executes the play of an incorrect card (usually because he misheard the call).

And the way I have always understood Law 45D the play so (incorrectly) executed by dummy becomes the card actually played (instead of the card called by declarer) unless any of the players object in time.

[blackshoe]

"Becomes" how? Magic? No. If it "becomes" the actual played card, the law would surely say so. It does not say so.

[barmar]

The problem is that the Law isn't clear about what the final disposition of the trick is, except that it's too late to rectify it. When I first read 45D, my inclination was that anyone not following to the card that was named has revoked, but reasonable arguments have been made otherwise. Whatever the intent may have been, it seems clear to me that the Laws are not clear about it.