The matter of timing?

[grishav]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk94haqj42datck92&w=s8632h8653d85cq84&n=sat5hk97d764cj753&e=sqj7htdkqj932cat6&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1d1hp2hp4hppp&p=d8d4dj]399|300[/hv]

 

Israel international festival.

All players are experienced, but not experts.

 

Declarer took the ♦ lead, drew 2 rounds of trumps with A and Q, played ♠ to A, then ♣ from dummy to 9 and Q. West returned ♦ and East (me) continued then with ♠Q.

Declarer took ♠K, West played small spade. Dummy also played small spade and turned the card. Declarer paused for a second or so and said "Spade".

I've taken this as a lead from dummy and played ♠J.

TD was called.

South: "When I called for a spade, I meant the card from the previous trick.

I think I said it before turning my card."

East: "I saw that dummy already turned his card. I can't be sure about declarer (I was looking at the dummy), but I think his card was turned also - before he said "Spade". Anyway, I was sure the trick was over. Declarer called for a card from dummy (out of turn) and I accepted it by playing the J"

According to TD decision, ♠J became a penalty card. Declarer played another round of trumps, East discarded the ♠J perforce and ♠9 was declarer's 10th trick.

As one can see, declarer had no legitimate way to make his contract at the point of infraction.

(though initially he could make it - the ♠A was a mistake of course).

 

Do you agree with TD decision?

Does it matter whether South first turned his card and then said "spade", or vice versa?

(There was disagreement about the order of these 2 facts between NS and EW).

Obviously, I (East) was misled by dummy which played his card without waiting for the declarer.

TD said that what dummy does is actually immaterial and I should have waited for the declarer.

Thanks.

[gnasher]

Dummy committed an infraction by playing a card without being told to, in breach of Law 43A1c. Dummy could have known that this would damage EW. It did damage EW. I adjust it back to 4♥-1 under Law 23 .

 

Why do people like South play bridge? And how do they find partners?

[BunnyGo]

I agree with gnasher, but you also committed an infraction which led to your trouble in the first place: you failed to call the TD when there was an irregularity and attempted to apply the law on your own. While lots of people (myself included) do this, it does not provide you any protection (in particular from dumb TDs).

[barmar]

You're required to call the TD when attention is drawn to an irregularity. It doesn't sound like anyone called attention to dummy playing a card before it was called, so there's no requirement to call the TD. So that's not an infraction.

 

I suspect East didn't even realize that declarer hadn't called a card on the previous trick.

[blackshoe]

The normal way to call for a card from a previous trick is "may I see the cards, please?" or "may I see the trick, please?" I have, rarely, heard someone ask "what did you play?" or "did you play a spade?" I have never heard anyone just say "spade". Perhaps I need to get out more, but I doubt it.

[BunnyGo]

The normal way to call for a card from a previous trick is "may I see the cards, please?" or "may I see the trick, please?" I have, rarely, heard someone ask "what did you play?" or "did you play a spade?" I have never heard anyone just say "spade". Perhaps I need to get out more, but I doubt it.

 

I believe that declarer was saying, "I was calling for the spade from dummy, the one the dummy took and turned before I called it. I didn't see that dummy had incorrectly pulled the card before I indicated he should."

[Vampyr]

Why do people like South play bridge? And how do they find partners?

 

What about North? Playing a card from dummy without being told? And quitting the trick before declarer?

[grishav]

Well, I start to think something was wrong in my OP - I didn't expect such strong comments.

 

Why do people like South play bridge? And how do they find partners?

I don't agree with this... South didn't made anything bad on purpose. I believe he was deep in his thoughts,

didn't realize that his partner already played a card and asked him to play the small spade. I think BunnyGo's guess is right:

I believe that declarer was saying, "I was calling for the spade from dummy, the one the dummy took and turned before I called it. I didn't see that dummy had incorrectly pulled the card before I indicated he should."

 

I suspect East didn't even realize that declarer hadn't called a card on the previous trick.

That's correct - I admit. I was looking at dummy, he played the card - so from my point of view the trick was played. Then declarer called for spade in the new trick and I played my card. That's it. Moreover, I admit that I didn't payed the attention to the fact that the lead should be from declarer's hand. I don't think it matters however...

 

it does not provide you any protection (in particular from dumb TDs)

Actually, the TD in charge was of very high level (probably one of the best TD in Europe) and I think that calling him "dumb" would be very far-fetched to say the least. That doesn't necessarily mean that he was right... He explained that he couldn't establish the exact facts - it was my word against declarer's word. He has chosen to believe the declarer that he didn't finish the trick. Actually neither me nor declarer were sure about the exact timing - he thought that he first called for a spade and then turned his card, while I think it was the opposite way.

Hope that clarifies the things - I'm trying not to be too biased.

[BunnyGo]

Actually, the TD in charge was of very high level (probably one of the best TD in Europe) and I think that calling him "dumb" would be very far-fetched to say the least. That doesn't necessarily mean that he was right... He explained that he couldn't establish the exact facts - it was my word against declarer's word. He has chosen to believe the declarer that he didn't finish the trick. Actually neither me nor declarer were sure about the exact timing - he thought that he first called for a spade and then turned his card, while I think it was the opposite way.

Hope that clarifies the things - I'm trying not to be too biased.

 

Yes, good point. I actually was saying "dumb TDs--in general" not necessarily this specific one, but the ambiguity was inappropriate.

[mrdct]

I was looking at dummy, he played the card - so from my point of view the trick was played. Then declarer called for spade in the new trick and I played my card. That's it. Moreover, I admit that I didn't payed the attention to the fact that the lead should be from declarer's hand. I don't think it matters however...

I think it matters quite a lot. If declarer calls for a card from dummy when the lead is in his own hand you can't be making rulings yourself and presume that you are able to accept the lead; you must call the TD and have him tell you whether or not you can accept it. Accordingly, if you are going to put your ♠J on the table when it's not your turn and the TD had told you that you can do it - it becomes a penalty card. I think the TD has got this one right.

[blackshoe]

The lead was in declarer's hand. He said "spade", and his RHO took this as a spade lead from dummy, at least in part because dummy had already quitted the spade he had illegally "played' to the trick in progress at the time he did that.

 

Law 54A: If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after mis-information, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently, the option expressed by the defender next in turn to the hand from which the card was led out of turn shall prevail.

 

Law 53: Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law 47E1). it becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead (but see C). if there is no such acceptance or play, the director will require that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).

 

Neither Law 47E1 nor Law 53C applies to this case.

 

If "spade" is deemed to be a lead out of turn, East has done nothing wrong in playing the ♠J. If "spade" is deemed not to be a lead out of turn, but rather a call for all four cards to the trick to be faced, or declarer's call for a play from dummy on the original trick, then the ♠J is an exposed defender's card, which may or may not become a penalty card. What was the state of the other cards played to the trick in question at the time declarer said "spade"? I see there is dispute about South's card. What about West's and East's?

[iviehoff]

Whilst I think on balance I agree with gnasher's ruling here, what is certain is that the defender placed himself at an entirely unnecessary risk of suffering the actual outcome by being a bit previous in his attempt to take advantage of declarer's apparent mistake. There was absolutely no cost in waiting for dummy to move the card the defender believes has been called for, and that would have completely protected the defender against what actually happened. And the law is so clear that there is very little risk of being skewered by any but a completely incompetent director.

 

Now in principle there is no reason why a defender should not play as soon as a card has been called from dummy - at that point it must be played and the fact that dummy has not yet moved it cannot alter that. But the defender had better be sure that a card has in fact been called from dummy if he doesn't wait for dummy to move it to the played position. If in fact the defender is under a misapprehension, he is on his own risk at this point. By waiting for dummy to move the card to the played position, he is now protected from any misapprehension by Law 45D. At this point, the defender can withdraw his card without penalty if it is subsequently demonstrated that declarer had not called for that card from dummy, and dummy has to put the card back.

 

There is no cost in waiting for dummy to move the card. Once declarer has called for the card, dummy must do what declarer says: dummy may not draw attention to playing from the wrong hand at this point. And if he does draw attention illegally, or sit there quietly refusing to move the card, that doesn't prevent the play of the card being enforced by the defence. Only if a defender draws attention to it and objects to it can declarer play from the correct hand. But even if declarer's LHO had drawn attention to it, declarer's RHO has the right to overrule partner and decide whether the card is accepted or not.

 

So it is completely costless to wait until dummy moves the card into the played position, even for a wrong hand play. And this completely protects you from any misunderstanding over whether or what declarer called for.

[Zelandakh]

So it is completely costless to wait until dummy moves the card into the played position, even for a wrong hand play. And this completely protects you from any misunderstanding over whether or what declarer called for.

 

Costless until declarer calls for a spade from Dummy and dummy is asleep. After a pause they realise and move the card and I play my last/only spade. Declarer later calls the Director saying that I paused with a singleton which misled them.

 

The defenders are the NOS here imho and it is a good lesson for dummy not to play cards before declarer has called for them. It is irrelevant that the card from dummy is a LOOT - the ruling should be the same if dummy had won the previous trick. The same situation could also arise, for example, where dummy has the singleton king (or ace, etc) or the led suit and the same rank in a second suit. Then calling king after dummy has played and quitted the singleton king would have a similar effect.

 

Note that if declarer had quit the trick before calling for the spade then this would tend to be pretty strong evidence that they were pulling a fast one. My guess is that this was not the case and that declarer was simply deciding whether unblocking the 10 might have any merit. There does not seem to be any evidence that declarer has done anything wrong. What I personally would have done in this situation, where dummy still has more than one of the suit led, is to ask dummy to wait for declarer's call before playing a card.

 

That said, dummy committed an offence; the offence resulted in damage. So adjusting the score seems to be indicated. In other words, I agree with Andy 100% (well, except for his last line; it is North I have issue with, not South).

[blackshoe]

So it is completely costless to wait until dummy moves the card into the played position, even for a wrong hand play. And this completely protects you from any misunderstanding over whether or what declarer called for.

 

A very nice analysis, iviehoff, though flawed in at least one respect, as Zel points out. There's a bigger problem, though - nobody is going to go through that analysis at the table, and very few people are ever going to go through it away from the table, or for that matter read it here. Nor should we expect them to do so. And if we can't expect them to go through it, we can't expect them to implement it, or even understand why they should implement it, at the table.

[iviehoff]

A very nice analysis, iviehoff, though flawed in at least one respect, as Zel points out. There's a bigger problem, though - nobody is going to go through that analysis at the table, and very few people are ever going to go through it away from the table, or for that matter read it here. Nor should we expect them to do so. And if we can't expect them to go through it, we can't expect them to implement it, or even understand why they should implement it, at the table.

I think it is just a general point to bear in mind as a defender not to play until the other side have finished doing what they must legally do in terms of their own play, because there is only upside in doing so.

 

I don't accept the "shortcoming" Zel mentions exists. Waiting for the other side to complete the playing procedure they are legally bound to complete is not a meaningful pause that gives UI to partner. The playing of the card is not actually complete until that happens, the card has merely become one that must be played. If I believed declarer had called a card and dummy did not appear to be doing anything about placing it in the played position, I would not just sit there apparently hesitating, I would ask what was going on. After all, I might be mistaken that declarer had called a card. There would surely be no possible UI problem in such a situation.

[blackshoe]

Assuming a competent director, you have a point. Can you assume a competent director?

[gnasher]

I don't agree with this... South didn't made anything bad on purpose. I believe he was deep in his thoughts,

didn't realize that his partner already played a card and asked him to play the small spade.

I wasn't talking about what South did up to the point of the revoke, but about what he did afterwards. Once it became clear why East had played ♠J, South could have told him to put it back in his hand, or he could have asked the director to waive the penalty, or he could have played in a way that didn't exploit the penalty card.

 

Revokes that result from carelessness are part of the game, and it's normal to take advantage of them. But this revoke resulted, at least partly, from dummy's improper action. I don't understand why any declarer would want to gain from that.

 

None of this is relevant to the ruling, of course.

[gnasher]

Costless until declarer calls for a spade from Dummy and dummy is asleep. After a pause they realise and move the card and I play my last/only spade. Declarer later calls the Director saying that I paused with a singleton which misled them.

And you say that you didn't, because you played as soon as dummy had played.

[grishav]

The lead was in declarer's hand. He said "spade", and his RHO took this as a spade lead from dummy, at least in part because dummy had already quitted the spade he had illegally "played' to the trick in progress at the time he did that.

 

 

 

 

 

Neither Law 47E1 nor Law 53C applies to this case.

 

If "spade" is deemed to be a lead out of turn, East has done nothing wrong in playing the ♠J. If "spade" is deemed not to be a lead out of turn, but rather a call for all four cards to the trick to be faced, or declarer's call for a play from dummy on the original trick, then the ♠J is an exposed defender's card, which may or may not become a penalty card. What was the state of the other cards played to the trick in question at the time declarer said "spade"? I see there is dispute about South's card. What about West's and East's?

North's, West's and East's cards were played and turned face down. I'm sure about this, but just to be on the safe side I asked my partner and he is sure also.

Note that this question was not asked by TD at the table. His question was about South's card.

 

BTW, what do you mean by "may or may not become a penalty card"? I thought that exposed defender's card is automatically a penalty one (unless declarer requires/restricts the leads of the suit). Is TD allowed to rule that the exposed card can be taken back without any penalty? If so, under which circumstances? (Of course, under assumption that "spade" is deemed not to be a lead out of turn)

[blackshoe]

Law 50, in part: A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the director designates otherwise.

While I'm not at all sure there is justification in this case for the TD to "designate otherwise", I won't discount the possibility until I've examined it.

 

Law 49 says "except in the normal course of play or application of law" a defender's exposed card becomes a penalty card. Other than that, AFAIK, there is no guidance as to when the TD may "designate otherwise".

[gordontd]

While I'm not at all sure there is justification in this case for the TD to "designate otherwise", I won't discount the possibility until I've examined it.

 

Law 49 says "except in the normal course of play or application of law" a defender's exposed card becomes a penalty card. Other than that, AFAIK, there is no guidance as to when the TD may "designate otherwise".

There is no guidance, but nor is there any limitation. I came across a case this week when a declarer had accidentally exposed one of the defenders' cards. The first thing that needed to be done was to rule that it was not a penalty card.

[pran]

While I'm not at all sure there is justification in this case for the TD to "designate otherwise", I won't discount the possibility until I've examined it.

 

Law 49 says "except in the normal course of play or application of law" a defender's exposed card becomes a penalty card. Other than that, AFAIK, there is no guidance as to when the TD may "designate otherwise".

He may designate otherwise for instance if he comes to a table and finds that a player apparently has a penalty card although he (as TD) never has been called and ruled so.

The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions.

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

(My enhancement)