When is a card played from dummy

[blackshoe]

Awarding 60/40 or 55/45 via 12c1{c} I think would be a Reverly ruling. A play where there is UI can't be partly legal.

My thinking was that absent the UI West might or might not discard the ♦K. I don't see how that's a Revely ruling.

[blackshoe]

Dummy has clearly violated Law 45F and (technically) suggested a card. Law 57C is very clear that East is not subject to any rectification or penalty in this situation. Consequently any information available from the card played by East is authorized to West.

The conclusion in your last sentence does not follow from the premise in your second, which is wrong anyway. I maintain that the rectification concerned is that specified in 57A. AFAIK since that rectification exists (even if it does not apply) you can't substitute another rectification, such as adjusting on the grounds there's no rectification (part of Law 12, I don't feel like looking up the specifics). So in effect "no rectification" period. But 57C doesn't say a thing about penalties, so "or penalty" in your second sentence is wrong. Not that it matters — we're talking about rectification, not penalties. Also, the provisions of Law 16A are not changed by Law 57C - what is and is not authorized is still as defined by that law. If you want to argue that West's knowledge of East's ♦K is not unauthorized according to 16A, have at it.

[mink]

Bridge is played clockwise. This is so basic that the Laws fail to state it explicitly for the play of the cards. If some Law might declare that some play out of rotation is considered to be a legal play under certain circumstances, I would expect the Law to state this explicitly, maybe like "The card played out of rotation becomes a legally played card, and the play out of rotation is a legal action and not an irregularity." In contrast to that, if a law says "A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner ..." (btw. Pran, there is no "any"), the play out of rotation is still an infraction and not legal.

 

If a Law says "The penalty for driving across a junction while traffic light was red is not executed if the traffic light was red for less than a second in the moment the car passed it.", this does not mean that it is legal or advisable to do so. Consequently, if an accident occurs, the driver who ignored the red light is considered guilty.

 

Karl

[mycroft]

it's an infraction. But it's an infraction without rectification, and I don't see how "there's no penalty, but there's a penalty" works. I definitely think that if the OS (and by that I mean dummy) gains by doing this, then there's something fundamentally wrong with the way the Law is being interpreted. I believe strongly that the play is not UI, it's simply accepting a play out of turn; and that any potential bad score the defenders could have got had play run completely to form that is no longer available after the infraction is a really nice incentive to 'shut up and be dummy next time'.

 

If told to rule otherwise, I will. But I really hope I won't be.

[nige1]

I have been following this discussion with some surprise.

Yes. Surprising, in the light of the laws that RMB1 and Pran quote:

After dummy's hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested.

A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands, nor if dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played. A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit, is not considered to be played until declarer has instructed (or indicated¹⁸) the play.

[pran]

The conclusion in your last sentence does not follow from the premise in your second, which is wrong anyway. I maintain that the rectification concerned is that specified in 57A. AFAIK since that rectification exists (even if it does not apply) you can't substitute another rectification, such as adjusting on the grounds there's no rectification (part of Law 12, I don't feel like looking up the specifics). So in effect "no rectification" period. But 57C doesn't say a thing about penalties, so "or penalty" in your second sentence is wrong. Not that it matters — we're talking about rectification, not penalties. Also, the provisions of Law 16A are not changed by Law 57C - what is and is not authorized is still as defined by that law. If you want to argue that West's knowledge of East's ♦K is not unauthorized according to 16A, have at it.

I included the reference to penalty so that an unqualified director should not be tempted to use Law 90A and give East a procedure penalty.

 

And I think Nige1 summed it up perfectly, no need for me to elaborate any further. Yes, there is absolutely no reason for any rectificatgion against East.

[barmar]

I agree with the people who say that "no rectification" means that existence of East's ♦Q is AI to West, UI to South. But I sure hope no one thinks that the adjusted clause criteria of 45D is met -- the cards in dummy are equivalent, so the suggested play can't help declarer. The only thing that happened wrong is that the premature play from dummy induced East to play prematurely, it didn't have any effect on the cards.

[Vampyr]

Yes, there is absolutely no reason for any rectificatgion against East.

 

Quite. I find the suggestion astonishing.

[blackshoe]

I agree with the people who say that "no rectification" means that existence of East's ♦Q is AI to West, UI to South.

Okay. What is your legal reasoning for this position?

[iviehoff]

If you want to argue that West's knowledge of East's ♦K is not unauthorized according to 16A, have at it.

If you look in the wrong place, you won't find it. But for me it's implicit in 16D if nothing else. 45D gives E the right to withdraw the card for reason of innocence, and play it again at the proper time, and West's knowledge is not UI via 16D.

 

If declarer had explicitly played the card from dummy out of rotation we wouldn't be arguing about this. Dummy playing it for him is really no different.

[pran]

I agree with the people who say that "no rectification" means that existence of East's ♦Q is AI to West, UI to South.

Okay. What is your legal reasoning for this position?

If the Director rules that East may withdraw his ♦Q and East does so then all inferences from seeing the ♦Q is UI to South until that card is again played by East. (Law 16D2)

 

All inferences from seeing the ♦Q is AI to West all the time. (Laws 57C1 and 16D1).

 

If the ♦Q remains exposed (played) all the time then there is of course no question about UI related to this card.

[pran]

If you look in the wrong place, you won't find it. But for me it's implicit in 16D if nothing else. 45D gives E the right to withdraw the card for reason of innocence, and play it again at the proper time, and West's knowledge is not UI via 16D.

 

If declarer had explicitly played the card from dummy out of rotation we wouldn't be arguing about this. Dummy playing it for him is really no different.

Quite so. Law 57C1 (together with Law 45F) does not distinguish between declarer actually playing out of rotation from dummy and dummy touching i.e. suggesting a play.

[barmar]

If the Director rules that East may withdraw his ♦Q and East does so then all inferences from seeing the ♦Q is UI to South until that card is again played by East. (Law 16D2)

 

All inferences from seeing the ♦Q is AI to West all the time. (Laws 57C1 and 16D1).

That was what I was thinking of, but I didn't look up the specific laws at the time I posted.

[mink]

It appears to me that there are some misconceptions about the Laws that are revealed in this thread.

 

 

1. People think that it is possible to accept a card played out of rotation. But this is only true for cards led - see Law 53. A Law that says something like this for cards played out of rotoation subsequently to a trick does not exist. A card played out of rotation to a trick after the lead cannot be accepted by an opponent, and if the LHO of a player who played out of rotation plays a card, this one is out of rotation, too, no matter if the dummy suggested a play or a card was really played out of rotation.

 

 

2. People think that Law 45D is applicable in our case. This is not true. When Law 45D refers to a card "played" by the dummy, it is assumed that it is the dummy's turn to lead or play a subsequent card. Only then a defender can reasonably assume that the card was played, because he just overheard what the declarer said or did not see the gesture by which the declarer instructed the dummy to play. If something happens with the dummy when it is not his turn, then usually defenders are aware that this is not a legal action. There is no Law that enables them to do something illegal themselves after that. If some defender accidentally plays out of rotation after an out-of-rotation action by the dummy, this defender is protected by Law 57C, but not by Law 45D. (It would also be very inconsistent if both Laws applied.) Please note that there is no real penalty for an out-of-rotation subsequent play by the dummy or the declarer himself, therefore this is an irregularity but not an infraction. The same is true for a defender who plays out of rotation after his partner has played to the trick. But an action that invokes Law 57 is always an infraction.

 

The fact that the provisions of Law 45D do not apply if the declarer leads from his hand and then really plays the dummy before any opponent does something also indicates that only Law 57C is applicable. Declarer playing from both hands is only mentioned there and nowhere else.

 

 

3. People think that Law 57C disables any rectification for which a connection to play out of turn by a defender can be found. This is not true. Rather, only a rectification that aims at the act of playing before his partner is prohibited. That means, in our case, that if East had played the ♣2 prematurely, really no rectification at all would have been necessary. But playing the ♦Q is evil. It gives UI to partner, and East could have known that his side will benefit. If this has been done deliberately, which seems likely for me, it is unethically.

 

Karl

[axman]

It appears to me that there are some misconceptions about the Laws that are revealed in this thread.

 

 

2. People think that Law 45D is applicable in our case. This is not true. When Law 45D refers to a card "played" by the dummy, it is assumed that it is the dummy's turn to lead or play a subsequent card. Only then a defender can reasonably assume that the card was played, because he just overheard what the declarer said or did not see the gesture by which the declarer instructed the dummy to play. If something happens with the dummy when it is not his turn, then usually defenders are aware that this is not a legal action. There is no Law that enables them to do something illegal themselves after that. If some defender accidentally plays out of rotation after an out-of-rotation action by the dummy, this defender is protected by Law 57C, but not by Law 45D. (It would also be very inconsistent if both Laws applied.) Please note that there is no real penalty for an out-of-rotation subsequent play by the dummy or the declarer himself, therefore this is an irregularity but not an infraction. The same is true for a defender who plays out of rotation after his partner has played to the trick. But an action that invokes Law 57 is always an infraction.

 

The fact that the provisions of Law 45D do not apply if the declarer leads from his hand and then really plays the dummy before any opponent does something also indicates that only Law 57C is applicable. Declarer playing from both hands is only mentioned there and nowhere else.

 

 

 

Karl

 

 

Some care is due here. The passage provides no such qualification; and is in fact rather unilateral.

 

 

It perhaps is worth ruminating over what effect L45C4a has; and L16D provides its own obfuscation.

[blackshoe]

I think I agree with the Axman here, if I understand what he's saying. In any case, I don't entirely agree with Karl.

[pran]

The prime purpose of Law 57C1 is to confirm the obvious: If declarer has played from both his own hand and from dummy to a trick before any defender has played to that trick then the defenders may contribute cards to that trick in any sequence.

 

Law 57C1 further elaborates this to include the case that RHO is free to play to the trick once dummy has played, suggested a play or just touched a card with the apparent effect of at least suggesting a play. (This is where Law 45F is relevant.)

 

Defendes are not supposed to keep track on the correct order of play to a trick when declarer and/or dummy has "disturbed" such order.

[mink]

Some care is due here. The passage provides no such qualification; and is in fact rather unilateral.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

 

It perhaps is worth ruminating over what effect L45C4a has;

Obviously this does not apply to the dummy, because it would be a contradiction with Law 45D.

 

and L16D provides its own obfuscation.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

 

 

Karl

[axman]

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

 

Obviously this does not apply to the dummy, because it would be a contradiction with Law 45D.

 

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

 

 

Karl

 

It is presumptuous to believe ‘it is assumed that it is the dummy's turn to lead or play a subsequent card.’ Further, the language of 45D specifies ‘If dummy places in the played position’ as the relevant qualification.

 

Yes, declarer’s agent is not empowered to act on his own volition; yet, by doing so [having designated] the card must be played. And having been played, presumably does not preclude it from being affected by other passages.

 

There is some question as to who qualifies [or ought it be said, does not qualify] as OS.

[iviehoff]

1. People think that it is possible to accept a card played out of rotation. But this is only true for cards led - see Law 53.

Someone might have said it, but none of the serious arguments are on this basis.

 

2. People think that Law 45D is applicable in our case. This is not true. When Law 45D refers to a card "played" by the dummy, it is assumed that it is the dummy's turn to lead or play a subsequent card. Only then a defender can reasonably assume that the card was played, because he just overheard what the declarer said or did not see the gesture by which the declarer instructed the dummy to play.

 

You are quite correct, we do think that 45D is applicable, and that is because we disagree completely with your argument for saying it isn't. The law defines playing a card or putting a card into the played position in a way which is quite independent of whether it is done in rotation or not. A card played out of rotation or put into the played position when not played may in some circumstances be withdrawn of course, but that doesn't mean it wasn't played or wasn't put into the played position. Thus there is absolutely no reason to think that 45D applies only if it is done in rotation, and every reason to think it applies whenever the card is played or put into the played position.

 

3. People think that Law 57C disables any rectification for which a connection to play out of turn by a defender can be found. This is not true. Rather, only a rectification that aims at the act of playing before his partner is prohibited. That means, in our case, that if East had played the ♣2 prematurely, really no rectification at all would have been necessary. But playing the ♦Q is evil. It gives UI to partner, and East could have known that his side will benefit. If this has been done deliberately, which seems likely for me, it is unethically.

In a colloquial sense, playing in rotation means playing after the player on your right has (apparently) played. Now the fact that your RHO played out of rotation, or that dummy put the card in the played position without it being properly called by declarer, was their offence. And what L57C is aimed at is protecting the player who plays after a card on his right was apparently played, because the card apparently played on your right may still be withdrawn, and beacuse it may gull you into playing out of turn. To declare the card you played as being UI to partner would not be protecting the NOS. Now you are quite happy to take this interpretation when it is done inadvertently. But you can't really make the advertent/inadvertent distinction in this case. In general we are not in the business of deciding whether things are done inadvertently or not, although there are some very specific laws related to "unintended" things that do require that distinction. So the effect of this law is to give a player an effective right to play before his partner when the other side have played out of rotation, or dummy has placed a card in the played position a card that declarer has not called.

[barmar]

Law 47D also may be relevant:

After an opponent’s 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.)

When dummy's premature play is retracted, does that count as a change of play? Or does this depend on whether declarer plays the same or a different card when he properly calls a card from dummy?

[mink]

Law 47D also may be relevant:

 

When dummy's premature play is retracted, does that count as a change of play? Or does this depend on whether declarer plays the same or a different card when he properly calls a card from dummy?

 

The dummy did not play, and therefore nothing is retracted. Even if the declarer had instructed the dummy to play, there would have been no change of this play.

 

Karl

[pran]

Law 47D also may be relevant:

 

When dummy's premature play is retracted, does that count as a change of play? Or does this depend on whether declarer plays the same or a different card when he properly calls a card from dummy?

 

 

The dummy did not play, and therefore nothing is retracted. Even if the declarer had instructed the dummy to play, there would have been no change of this play.

 

Karl

 

If Dummy has violated Law 45F and RHO subsequently has played a card to the trick then sure Law 57C1 is applicable.

 

And if Dummy's illegal play/suggestion/touching is retracted/nullified for whatever reason then RHO may withdraw his played card under Law 47D without any rectification. Any information from RHO's card such retracted is AI to his partner and UI to declarer (Law 16D).

[mink]

You are quite correct, we do think that 45D is applicable, and that is because we disagree completely with your argument for saying it isn't.

Nice reason.

 

The law defines playing a card or putting a card into the played position in a way which is quite independent of whether it is done in rotation or not.

Yes, if you read it literally. But it is only about putting a card into a played position and not about playing a card. I think we agree that Law 45D does never apply if the card is really played or designated by the declarer.

 

A card played out of rotation or put into the played position when not played may in some circumstances be withdrawn of course, but that doesn't mean it wasn't played or wasn't put into the played position.

I fail to find a law that allows the retraction of a card simply for the reason it was played out of rotation. On the contrary, Law 47 that lists all cases when a card may be retracted, and fails to mention a card played out of rotation.

 

Thus there is absolutely no reason to think that 45D applies only if it is done in rotation, and every reason to think it applies whenever the card is played or put into the played position.

Nearly always when more than one infraction happens at the same time or close to each other, the Laws fail to tell us exactly what to do. Such a case is the dummy "playing" a card, doing this out of turn, and the defender after the dummy plays out of rotation, too. If the dummy puts a card in the played position when it is his turn to play, and the declarer had named a different card or no card a all, we use Law 45D of course. On the other hand, if the declarer makes a legal lead from the dummy, and the next card is played by the declarer from his hand while RHO is still thinking, there is no Law that defines any rectification for this situation. Especially the declarer is not allowed to put the played card back into his hand, which Law 45D requires for the dummy. Only if LHO now plays out of turn, too, Law 57C becomes effective and again no rectification occurs for this play out of turn. It would be ridiculous if the defender playing out of turn after the dummy does something wrong may take back his card, while the other defender who plays out of turn after the declarer's play out of turn must not retract his card. A solution to this ambiguity is only to use Law 57C in both cases and Law 45D only if the dummy "plays" in turn - this is what it was designed for.

 

The other reason is that Law 57D is specifically designed to deal with the current situation. If the intention of this Law was that Law 45D should be applied, too, there would be a reference to Law 45D in Law 57C, and probably some words to resolve the ambiguity that though Law 57C just states there is no rectification, Law 45D defines a rectification that affects the defender.

 

Karl