Change of dummy's card

[VixTD]

I was called in this situation at a green-point congress at the weekend.

 

Dummy had ♣AK9 left and a few other cards (in no trumps). Declarer had played off ♣A and then called for a club. Dummy waited to be told which one, and the defenders called me. I said that according to law 46B2 declarer is deemed to have played ♣9, all accepted this and play continued.

 

I later went back to the table and asked declarer which card he had intended to play, and he said the king. It was clear to everyone (including dummy) that there could be no merit in leading a small club at this point. I discussed with them the probability of the TD allowing declarer to change an unintended designation in this situation in the following circumstances when declarer calls for a club:

 

(i) if dummy says "which one?" and declarer says "the king"

(ii) if dummy waits to be told which one, and declarer adds "the king"

(iii) if dummy plays ♣9 without hesitation and declarer says "no, I meant the king" before anyone else has played

 

Any thoughts?

[Vampyr]

It seems to me that the small club is played in all cases.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, probably all three. But, as next to play, I would always allow the King in (iii).

[barmar]

Unless dummy is a novice who isn't familiar with the rule that the default card is the lowest when just a suit is named, I would give North a stern warning (and a PP if he's done this before) in the first case. It violates 43A1c: "Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer."

[aguahombre]

Unless dummy is a novice who isn't familiar with the rule that the default card is the lowest when just a suit is named, I would give North a stern warning (and a PP if he's done this before) in the first case. It violates 43A1c: "Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer."

Yep, that covers variations (i) and (ii) of the OP as completely as possible, IMO.

[RMB1]

In case (iii), I would read Law 46B

In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

I would investigate to see if declarer's intention to play ♣k was incontrovertible, and if so I would rule that the king is played.

 

I would probably rule cases (i) and (ii) in the same way as (iii).

[aguahombre]

In case (iii), I would read Law 46B

 

I would investigate to see if declarer's intention to play ♣k was incontrovertible, and if so I would rule that the king is played.

 

I would probably rule cases (i) and (ii) in the same way as (iii).

You would ignore Dummy's participation in the play of the hand in the first two scenarios?

[blackshoe]

I agree with Robin on case iii, and with Barry and Agua on cases i and ii.

[ahydra]

I'm not sure that asking "which one" or waiting for clarification is (necessarily) "participating in the play or communicating anything about the play". To me the former sounds like playing a card automatically (yes, people do this all the time - but I mean when it's not obvious, e.g. ruffing high if an opponent is likely/already showing out), and the latter sounds like dummy saying "5-0 break, ouch" or "can't you claim now?" etc.

 

There is the issue that if dummy knows that the CK is correct and declarer has just had a brain fart, dummy is passing "UI". But if it can be shown that declarer had incontrovertibly meant to play the king (i.e. was aware the king was correct and that was what he meant to call for), then I think the king should be ruled as played in all three cases.

 

ahydra

[barmar]

Better than my "novice" criteria, I would try to find out whether this dummy ALWAYS (or at least usually) asks in the case of an incomplete designation. If he does, then I allow the "which one" question. But if he only asks when it seems like declarer forgot to be specific enough, then I rule that he's violating 43A1c.

[Vampyr]

Better than my "novice" criteria, I would try to find out whether this dummy ALWAYS (or at least usually) asks in the case of an incomplete designation. If he does, then I allow the "which one" question. But if he only asks when it seems like declarer forgot to be specific enough, then I rule that he's violating 43A1c.

 

If dummy ALWAYS or usually asks, I will just be giving a lot of PPs. Why would you allow an illegal practice to continue?

[VixTD]

In case (iii), I would read Law 46B

 

I would investigate to see if declarer's intention to play ♣k was incontrovertible, and if so I would rule that the king is played.

 

I would probably rule cases (i) and (ii) in the same way as (iii).

This was essentially the conclusion I reached. I think it's clear to allow the change in (iii) if the card intended was the king. (i) and (ii) are a little more difficult as there will always be some doubt that dummy's actions caused declarer to wake up to what he had just done.

[chrism]

This was essentially the conclusion I reached. I think it's clear to allow the change in (iii) if the card intended was the king. (i) and (ii) are a little more difficult as there will always be some doubt that dummy's actions caused declarer to wake up to what he had just done.

However, even if dummy woke declarer up to the fact that his incomplete designation resulted in his failing to call the card he incontrovertibly intended, I believe we let him play the card that he meant; there is nothing in Law 43B that countermands 46B. We may impose a PP on dummy for participating in the play, as a separate matter.

[nige1]

I was called in this situation at a green-point congress at the weekend. Dummy had ♣AK9 left and a few other cards (in no trumps). Declarer had played off ♣A and then called for a club. Dummy waited to be told which one, and the defenders called me. I said that according to law 46B2 declarer is deemed to have played ♣9, all accepted this and play continued. I later went back to the table and asked declarer which card he had intended to play, and he said the king. It was clear to everyone (including dummy) that there could be no merit in leading a small club at this point. I discussed with them the probability of the TD allowing declarer to change an unintended designation in this situation in the following circumstances when declarer calls for a club:

(i) if dummy says "which one?" and declarer says "the king"

(ii) if dummy waits to be told which one, and declarer adds "the king"

(iii) if dummy plays ♣9 without hesitation and declarer says "no, I meant the king" before anyone else has played

IMO

1. Dummy actively participated in the play so the director should consider imposing a PP. If the board is still playable, the director should probably insist on the the lead of the small club
2. Ditto
3. The director might allow declarer to clarify the illegal designation.

[blackshoe]

In cases one and two the TD could instruct declarer "if your original intent was to play the king, you may do so, but if your decision to change the call arises from partner's action (or inaction in case two) you may not. Make your call, please."

 

If he says "I guess I wasn't thinking, play the two (or whatever)" kudos to him. If he says "I always meant to play the king, so play the king" I may (or may not - how well do I know him?) view this as suspect, in which case I would make a note of it, and watch out for similar things in the future.

[jallerton]

In all three cases, the smallest club is deemed to have been played initially (Law 46B2. So the question is whether the declarer is allowed to correct under Law 45C4b.

 

In case (i) and (ii), Law 45F may be relevant.

 

45F. Dummy Indicates Card

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.

 

The question "which one?" seems like dummy trying to indicate that a different card be played. With reference to Law 45F, the defenders are very much damaged by this suggested play; otherwise declarer would probably not have corrected the card (under the WBF liberal interpretation of) 'without pause for thought'.

[RMB1]

In all three cases, the smallest club is deemed to have been played initially (Law 46B2. So the question is whether the declarer is allowed to correct under Law 45C4b.

 

I think Law 45C4(b) only applies if declarer meant to SAY "club king" or "top club", and instead the word "club" was unintended.

 

I think the introduction to Law 46B applies if declarer meant to PLAY ♣K but nevertheless designated a different card.