Dummy quits the wrong card

[CamHenry]

[hv=pc=n&s=s8hqd87c82&w=shk764d2c6&n=sthdq543c9&e=sh8djt6cq3]399|300[/hv]

 

S is declarer in 4♠, with the lead in dummy. The next trick goes ♣9-Q-2-6. My recollection is that declarer has lost 2 tricks so far.

 

At this stage, dummy quits the ♠T instead of the ♣9. E leads the ♣3, and declarer then says "Hey, where's dummy's spade?" A director call rapidly follows, and the players report:

 

S: "I had led the ♣9 from dummy, losing to the Q; the ♣3 was then led and I noticed that dummy's remaining trump had vanished".

E: "I only led the ♣3 because there was the 9 on table!"

 

N and W are mostly silent, but the facts are agreed. What is your ruling?

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=s8hqd87c82&w=shk764d2c6&n=sthdq543c9&e=sh8djt6cq3]399|300[/hv]

 

S is declarer in 4♠, with the lead in dummy. The next trick goes ♣9-Q-2-6. My recollection is that declarer has lost 2 tricks so far.

 

At this stage, dummy quits the ♠T instead of the ♣9. E leads the ♣3, and declarer then says "Hey, where's dummy's spade?" A director call rapidly follows, and the players report:

 

S: "I had led the ♣9 from dummy, losing to the Q; the ♣3 was then led and I noticed that dummy's remaining trump had vanished".

E: "I only led the ♣3 because there was the 9 on table!"

 

N and W are mostly silent, but the facts are agreed. What is your ruling?

If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarers RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick. (See Law 16D.)

The ♠10 has been "played" by dummy although declarer did not mention this card, so it is withdrawn and restored to dummy's hand. (Declaring side has not yet played to the next trick).

RHO led the ♣3 after this error but before attention was drawn to it so RHO may withdraw this lead.

 

End of story - simple ruling.

[VixTD]

Pran's solution looks practical, but I'm not sure it's strictly correct. Was ♠10 moved by dummy into the played position (i.e. separated from dummy's other cards face up in such a position as to indicate that it had been played)? If not, I'm not sure you can argue that it has been played, although you could try to make out that putting it among the quitted tricks is putting it in a played position.

 

If ♣9 was played (as per law 45B) by dummy, but ♠10 quitted in its place by dummy, just allow play to continue and adjust the score at the end under law 23 or 12A1 because East was misled by dummy's error.

 

It comes to the same thing.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Sven. As always, if something or someone changes the facts, I might change my ruling.

[RMB1]

Reading the law suggests "played position" in Law 45D is ambiguous. It is taken to refer to the position on the table where a card played from dummy to the current trick is; but "played position" is not defined and could also refer to the position where cards from dummy played to previous tricks are.

 

I think Law 45D is the best we have for this position.

 

Perhaps "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name ..." should say

"If dummy places a card in a position indicating it is/was played [but] that declarer did not name ..."

[blackshoe]

Reading the law suggests "played position" in Law 45D is ambiguous. It is taken to refer to the position on the table where a card played from dummy to the current trick is; but "played position" is not defined and could also refer to the position where cards from dummy played to previous tricks are.

 

I think Law 45D is the best we have for this position.

 

Perhaps "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name ..." should say

"If dummy places a card in a position indicating it is/was played [but] that declarer did not name ..."

Your alternative interpretation makes no sense in context. Why would a law about playing to a trick refer to the place where quitted tricks are kept? Particularly when other laws refer to that place with the phrase "amongst the quitted tricks"?

 

We can discuss your suggested change if you like, but in "Changing Laws..." please, not here.

[pran]

Pran's solution looks practical, but I'm not sure it's strictly correct. Was ♠10 moved by dummy into the played position (i.e. separated from dummy's other cards face up in such a position as to indicate that it had been played)? If not, I'm not sure you can argue that it has been played, although you could try to make out that putting it among the quitted tricks is putting it in a played position.

 

If ♣9 was played (as per law 45B) by dummy, but ♠10 quitted in its place by dummy, just allow play to continue and adjust the score at the end under law 23 or 12A1 because East was misled by dummy's error.

 

It comes to the same thing.

 

If necessary I shall argue that a card cannot possibly be moved from among the unplayed cards to among the quitted cards without somehow passing a "played position".

[barmar]

If necessary I shall argue that a card cannot possibly be moved from among the unplayed cards to among the quitted cards without somehow passing a "played position".

 

You could do that with a card from one of the other hands, why can't you do it with dummy's cards?

 

The laws clearly distinguish the steps involved in playing a card to a trick and quitting the cards. I don't think you can claim that all quitted tricks were played. That's the normal sequence, but we're talking about an abnormal situation.

[nige1]

Your alternative interpretation makes no sense in context. Why would a law about playing to a trick refer to the place where quitted tricks are kept? Particularly when other laws refer to that place with the phrase "amongst the quitted tricks"?

We can discuss your suggested change if you like, but in "Changing Laws..." please, not here.

"Played position" is certainly ambiguous. Most Bridge laws urgently need clarification. In the mean time, the director must still fudge some interpretation and make the best ruling he can.

[campboy]

For me the problem laws are 45A-B. It is very common to play a card without ever facing it on the table, by withdrawing it from your hand and holding it just above the table so that everyone can see it. There is no good reason to designate this incorrect procedure, yet the laws do. So yes, it is technically possible for dummy to move a card to the quitted tricks without it passing through the played position as described in 45B. But if we follow such a narrow interpretation of "played position" then what are we to do about all the times dummy plays an incorrect card and quits it, without it ever passing through the played position?

[blackshoe]

Some of my opponents tend to hold their "played" cards in a position or for such a short length of time that I can't see it. Even when I'm dummy I find this extremely annoying. Should I call the director and invoke Law 724A2? (If I'm dummy of course I can't call until after the play).

 

I would, by the way, argue that dummy is entitled to see the played cards, since if Law 45A is followed correctly, he will see them, if he's paying attention.