Revoke?

[blackshoe]

No way, huh?

 

I disagree.

[mjj29]

On further consideration, perhaps we should treat this as a defective trick under L67B? Attention was drawn to it by the "where's dummy's club" comment. Dummy failed to play a heart to it (a card of the suit led), so puts one there and now has played more than one card, so we restore it to dummy, without changing ownership. This doesn't deal with any revokes, so I think we're back to LHO having revoked, which I don't like, I might use L12A1 treating the defence as non-offending in order to fix this.

 

Now, I know that I'm conflating some of the 'card played' and 'put into the played position' issues with this ruling - still haven't come up with a really good solution.

[pran]

OK.

I take the following events as established facts:

1: Declarer calls a heart from Dummy but Dummy places a club in the played position.

2: RHO "follows suit" with a club of his.

3: Declarer plays a heart to this trick although he has (at least?) one club in his hand.

4: LHO being void in clubs wins the trick with a trump and leads to the next trick.

5: Declarer calls a card from Dummy to this next trick.

6: Declarer notices that a club is missing from Dummy and asks where it has gone.

 

We have a clear Law 45D situation, and if any of the players had called attention to the misplay by Dummy before Declarer played a card to the next trick then this misplay should have been corrected with a heart being led from Dummy. (In that case the rest of the trick would of course also be appripriately corrected.)

 

At the very moment Declarer played a card from Dummy by calling it to the next trick Law 45D no longer allows any correction of the last trick, so that trick must now stand as virtually played. The fact that Declarer had indeed called for a heart is no longer relevant as it is overridden by the fact that Dummy instead placed a club in the played position and nobody called attention to this irregularity in time for correction.

 

I believe the main question in this thread was: "Did anybody revoke?", and the answer must be decided using Law 61a on the fact that a club was led from Dummy (although incorrectly) and that Law 45D prohibits any correction of this lead.

 

Within this group (Laws and Rulings) I cannot see any other way of handling the situation.

[blackshoe]

No. No, no, no, no!

[pran]

No. No, no, no, no!

Do your five "no"s apply to my summary of facts (made from bluejak's rewording and clarification of OP) or what?

 

Would you please for the purpose of ruling a result on the board specify exactly which cards you consider played by each of the four players to the trick in which Declarer called a heart from Dummy?

 

I do hope we agree that if Declarer had called attention to the incorrect lead by Dummy instead of just playing a card from dummy to the next trick then the trick in question would have been corrected as specified in Law 45D, and I expect a very good reason for why you in case consider such correction legal even after each side has played to the next trick.

[BunnyGo]

I think this discussion has left out the interesting possibility that it is DUMMY who has revoked.

 

LAW 61 FAILURE TO FOLLOW SUIT - INQUIRIES CONCERNING A REVOKE

A. Definition of Revoke

Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent in accordance with an agreed penalty, constitutes a revoke (but see Law 59 when unable to comply).

 

Since the heart is the card required by law that he play, and he didn't play it, then by definition dummy has revoked. Just another twist to add to the argument.

[mjj29]

I think this discussion has left out the interesting possibility that it is DUMMY who has revoked.

 

Since the heart is the card required by law that he play, and he didn't play it, then by definition dummy has revoked. Just another twist to add to the argument.

 

I think if you're going down that route, I'd treat it as a defective trick short one card (the heart) and containing one extra card (the club) instead.

[BunnyGo]

I think if you're going down that route, I'd treat it as a defective trick short one card (the heart) and containing one extra card (the club) instead.

 

I dunno. It seems pretty clear that:

 

a) Dummy was required by law 45 to play the heart.

 

b) Dummy placed the club instead

 

c) Per law 45D "card misplayed by dummy" the card was misplayed and is too late to be withdrawn (technically it is only past the "mandatory" stage of withdrawing it based on the wording of the rule "must be withdrawn if..." and it doesn't directly say that it's too late to rectify the play...perhaps this is what should be done even though it no longer is required--another aside)

 

d) Per law 61 failure to play a required card is a revoke

 

Combining a, b, c, and d, we have by definition that dummy has revoked. This seems to be straight out of a basic logic/legal class.

 

Going back to law 45D. It only states that the card "must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick" it says nothing about it being to late to withdraw the card if attention is drawn to it after each side as played to the next trick. While I personally think this specificity implies that it is too late, one should probably amend the law to make that clear.

[pran]

I think this discussion has left out the interesting possibility that it is DUMMY who has revoked.

 

Since the heart is the card required by law that he play, and he didn't play it, then by definition dummy has revoked. Just another twist to add to the argument.

I don't buy the logic, but if you examine it further you will discover that the "revoke" by Dummy became established by the play by declaring side to the next trick. Therefore the "revoke" trick stands as played. This means that Declarer played a heart to a trick in which the lead was a club and thus revoked as well!

[BunnyGo]

I don't buy the logic

Ok, fair enough. But could you please elaborate on this? I spelled it out pretty clearly and in detail. Which step do you not buy?

 

if you examine it further you will discover that the "revoke" by Dummy became established by the play by declaring side to the next trick. Therefore the "revoke" trick stands as played. This means that Declarer played a heart to a trick in which the lead was a club and thus revoked as well!

 

That's a nice continuation of this route. Seems like it starts an interesting chain reaction.

[pran]

Ok, fair enough. But could you please elaborate on this? I spelled it out pretty clearly and in detail. Which step do you not buy?

Dummy does not actually "play" his cards, he acts as an agent for declarer.

 

The situation we discuss is specifically handled by Law 45D, we cannot avoid applying this law by invoking more general laws.

 

So far I have only seen one argument that has some weight against my logic: Law 45D requires a correction of dummy's mis-play if attention to it is drawn before each side has played to the next trick, it does not explicitly prohibit such correction after this time limit has expired.

 

I do not accept that argument either, but I have passed it on to Grattan for consideration. (That discussion should in case be moved to the "Changing Laws & Regulations" section)

[BunnyGo]

Dummy does not actually "play" his cards, he acts as an agent for declarer.

 

If dummy does not actually "play" his cards, why is Law 45D specifically titled "Card misplayed by dummy"?

 

I understand that declarer "plays" and dummy "places" but based on law 45D clearly dummy "plays" as well. Yes?

 

I definitely agree that when there is a specific law dealing with a situation one does not seek more specific laws, but law 45D does not deal with this situation. It only states what is done up until both sides play to the next trick. I think that after that point that law 61 is the only law that applies as these laws are currently stated.

 

P.S. Thanks for the reply, I am merely attempting to flush out this line of logic. No offense is taken nor intended in case my wording is harsh.

[mjj29]

I think this discussion has left out the interesting possibility that it is DUMMY who has revoked.

 

Since the heart is the card required by law that he play, and he didn't play it, then by definition dummy has revoked. Just another twist to add to the argument.

Even better, if you say that the trick was hearts and dummy revoked, then the defenders also revoked, so there's no L64A penalty (per L64B7) and you just restore equity under L64C. This seems like the most equitable (hah) outcome - and you might even manage to justify it as being legal. (certainly better than all the solutions that apply revoke penalties to the defenders for dummy's misplay)

[c_corgi]

I agree with BunnyGo, it sounds like dummy has revoked. The revoke is established and cannot be unwound. But surely the suit to follow for the trick is determined by the card played (called) by declarer, not the revoke by dummy, i.e. dummy and a defender both revoked, so there is no rectification (L64B7). Play continues.

 

If law 45 is interpreted so that the card deemed to have been 'contributed' by dummy is the card called by declarer, and it is deedmed to take precedence over law 61, then it will inevitably lead to the same card being played to more than one trick, thereby invoking L12A2 as suggested by Xiaolongnu.

[blackshoe]

Do your five "no"s apply to my summary of facts (made from bluejak's rewording and clarification of OP) or what?

 

Would you please for the purpose of ruling a result on the board specify exactly which cards you consider played by each of the four players to the trick in which Declarer called a heart from Dummy?

 

I do hope we agree that if Declarer had called attention to the incorrect lead by Dummy instead of just playing a card from dummy to the next trick then the trick in question would have been corrected as specified in Law 45D, and I expect a very good reason for why you in case consider such correction legal even after each side has played to the next trick.

 

Heart from dummy (his lowest), club from declarer's RHO, heart from declarer, trump from declarer's LHO.

 

Yes, if attention had been called in time, the dummy's error should have been corrected. I never said it should be corrected once it is too late per Law 45D to do so.

[blackshoe]

I understand that declarer "plays" and dummy "places" but based on law 45D clearly dummy "plays" as well. Yes?

 

No.

[BunnyGo]

No.

 

So you are saying that law 45D is badly written and should say "card misplaced by dummy"?

 

If that's the case, the law should be edited as such. However as the law is currently written, it seems that dummy can misplay a card.

 

 

CORRECTION: I have made a logical fallacy: just because dummy can "misplay" does not require nor imply that it can "play". However, to apply law 61 I need only that Dummy can misplay, and by the statement of law 45D dummy does "misplay" if he plays the club instead of the heart.

Edited December 26, 2011 by BunnyGo

[pran]

Heart from dummy (his lowest), club from declarer's RHO, heart from declarer, trump from declarer's LHO.

 

Yes, if attention had been called in time, the dummy's error should have been corrected. I never said it should be corrected once it is too late per Law 45D to do so.

So what happens to the heart played from, but still present among dummy's cards, and to the club not played from, but now absent from dummy's cards?

[blackshoe]

Look, either declarer plays dummy's cards by naming or otherwise designating them, or declarer and dummy collaborate in the play - it takes both of them. Law 45B says the former. So does Law 41D ("declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy").

 

Law 61 says "failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity constitutes a revoke."

 

Dummy (the hand, declarer the player of that hand) did not 'fail to follow suit' in this case, because that hand was on lead. "Failure to lead or play..." refers, IMO to penalty cards. "Specified by an opponent..." obviously does not apply. Can dummy (the hand) revoke? Certainly - provided declarer, the player of dummy (the hand) calls for a card not of the suit led when dummy (the hand) contains such a card — for example, it is hidden behind another card or cards, or it fell on the floor, or was left in the board. Also, dummy can revoke if a situation occurs where a defender in exercising an option as stated above specifies a card to be played and declarer plays something else. In the case at hand, then, none of the criteria for dummy to have revoked occurred. Therefore, dummy did not revoke.

[mjj29]

Look, either declarer plays dummy's cards by naming or otherwise designating them, or declarer and dummy collaborate in the play - it takes both of them. Law 45B says the former. So does Law 41D ("declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy").

 

Law 61 says "failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity constitutes a revoke."

 

Dummy (the hand, declarer the player of that hand) did not 'fail to follow suit' in this case, because that hand was on lead. "Failure to lead or play..." refers, IMO to penalty cards. "Specified by an opponent..." obviously does not apply. Can dummy (the hand) revoke? Certainly - provided declarer, the player of dummy (the hand) calls for a card not of the suit led when dummy (the hand) contains such a card — for example, it is hidden behind another card or cards, or it fell on the floor, or was left in the board. Also, dummy can revoke if a situation occurs where a defender in exercising an option as stated above specifies a card to be played and declarer plays something else. In the case at hand, then, none of the criteria for dummy to have revoked occurred. Therefore, dummy did not revoke.

I think everyone agrees that there's no sensible way of handling this which is entirely within the laws, at least not that doesn't assess revoke penalties against the (IMO) innocent defence (certainly if attention had been drawn in time they would be the NOS, don't see why that should change now). What I think everyone would like is to be able to just restore some kind of equity - this logic is at least close to being a legal justification and if it happens at the congrees I'm directing tomorrow, one I just might invoke and then let various committees sort it out later if anyone is unhappy.

[BunnyGo]

I don't disagree that 41D makes it clear that declarer plays dummy's cards. However, just because declarer "plays" the cards does not mean dummy cannot "misplay" (one does not negate the other). And in fact 45D makes it clear that dummy can misplay (and law 42A3 makes it clear that dummy "plays" as well).

 

Furthermore, if law 61 only meant "failure to lead or play a card specified by an opponent" (as in for penalty cards) it wouldn't have an "or" clause to add the part about playing a card required by law. Hence there is necessarily more to 61 than you suggest. If your opinion is what the law writers intend, they should rewrite the law.

 

As per law 42A3 dummy does indeed "play" the cards as directed by declarer. Hence failure to play the card directed is failure to play the card required by law (specifically law 42A3), hence is LITERALLY a violation of law 61.

 

 

I understand your preconceived notions that dummy does not "play", in general I agree with you that it is the first of your two options. However the law here seems pretty literal and clear.

 

It is fine to use mental shortcuts and "understandings" (this is how humans compartmentalize ideas and make connections and inferences), but when the law specifies something that is what must hold, regardless of what understandings guide us in most cases.

Edited December 26, 2011 by BunnyGo

[Cascade]

While Law 45D is entitled "Card Misplayed by Dummy" the text of that law uses the more consistent with other laws phrase "dummy places in the played position a card.." which does not indicate that dummy "plays" the card.

 

Law 45D also says what to do when attention is drawn to such a card before both sides play to the next trick. However Law 45D is silent on what to do when attention is first drawn to the wrong card being placed in the played position subsequent to that.

 

Therefore I think rectification is possible only under Law 84D. "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side.

He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a nonoffending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12)."

[blackshoe]

We disagree as to what the law specifies.

[Cascade]

Which law?

[pran]

Look, either declarer plays dummy's cards by naming or otherwise designating them, or declarer and dummy collaborate in the play - it takes both of them. Law 45B says the former. So does Law 41D ("declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy").

 

Law 61 says "failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity constitutes a revoke."

 

Dummy (the hand, declarer the player of that hand) did not 'fail to follow suit' in this case, because that hand was on lead. "Failure to lead or play..." refers, IMO to penalty cards. "Specified by an opponent..." obviously does not apply. Can dummy (the hand) revoke? Certainly - provided declarer, the player of dummy (the hand) calls for a card not of the suit led when dummy (the hand) contains such a card — for example, it is hidden behind another card or cards, or it fell on the floor, or was left in the board. Also, dummy can revoke if a situation occurs where a defender in exercising an option as stated above specifies a card to be played and declarer plays something else. In the case at hand, then, none of the criteria for dummy to have revoked occurred. Therefore, dummy did not revoke.

We agree that Dummy did not revoke.

 

But I still need an answer to (in your opinion):

 

What happens to the heart played from, but still present among dummy's cards, and to the club not played from, but now absent from dummy's cards?

 

when you claim that the card played from dummy is the heart called by Declarer and not the club placed in the played position by Dummy, and nobody drew attention to this misplay until after each side had played a card to the next trick.