Call for a card not in dummy and next hand follows

[pran]

It would seem not to matter whether the information is called AI or UI if there is no further rectification.

 

(edit) Sven cross posted a different angle above; but I wonder if the TD really has powers to disregard "no rectification".

 

Hopefully, the side which caused the appearance of an opponent's card cannot gain from it...but, last time I checked, no meant no.

The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

I find nothing here preventing the Director from awarding an adjusted score when he judges damage, even when the relevant Law says "no rectification"?

[blackshoe]

They do if a player is genuinly misled:

The fact that the laws addresses the case where MI misleads an opponent does not imply that there can't be other things that may do so.

 

I think it would be a stretch to say that calling for a card not in dummy is "misinformation". Apparently MI is the only circumstance like this addressed in the laws. One might infer from this that if a player hears a card called from dummy, and assumes that it is played, he's played at his own risk, and if the card for which declarer called actually isn't in dummy, he's screwed. I think that's where Sven is coming from. But I think that a player who knows, rightly or wrongly, that he was following suit, will be rightly aggrieved if he's told 'no, you led out of turn'. So I don't think we should go there. That's why I came to the ruling I did.

 

Law 74B1 says that as a matter of courtesy, players should refrain from paying insufficient attention to the game. Has this player violated that law? Should we add a PP to the "you led out of turn" ruling? The player will view this as adding insult to injury, and perhaps rightly so, even though one could argue that he didn't pay sufficient attention, or he would have noticed there was no ♠2 in dummy. How far do we want to take this?

 

Really, my problem with Sven's approach is that it feels like we're letting declarer gain from his irregularity. After all, if he hadn't called for a card not in dummy, his RHO would not have followed suit to it. I suppose we could apply Law 23, but that doesn't feel right either.

[blackshoe]

Then, does "no further rectification" mean there is no UI to anyone?

There is no rectification in any case for receiving (or providing) UI, because that is not an infraction. I would say then that the "no rectification" provision does not apply to UI. If there is UI (see Laws 16A and 16B1{a}) any infraction would be use of it, and would occur later in the hand. IOW, a separate offense, and still subject to rectification.

[aguahombre]

There is no rectification in any case for receiving (or providing) UI, because that is not an infraction. I would say then that the "no rectification" provision does not apply to UI. If there is UI (see Laws 16A and 16B1{a}) any infraction would be use of it, and would occur later in the hand. IOW, a separate offense, and still subject to rectification.

An interesting approach. I would have thought "further" would include things arising later as a result. Using UI is a result of having it. But, again, I hope your interpretation is correct.

[dburn]

One could, I suppose, rely on an older meaning of "information" - "that which informs one's actions".

 

If East hears declarer call for the two of clubs from the table, this will "inform" East's decision to play ♣Q from his hand. Law 47E1 could then be invoked; indeed, even pran seems to suggest that this Law is appropriate if East is "genuinely misled".

[jallerton]

The ♣Q was not led out of turn it was played in following suit to the card designated (and thus played, whether in dummy or not) by declarer. Ruling as jeffrey suggests is basically giving declarer an advantage from his irregularity. Merry Christmas, declarer!

 

No it isn't. That's the whole point of using Law 23. (Sorry if my ruling was too long for you to get to the end!)

[GreenMan]

One could, I suppose, rely on an older meaning of "information" - "that which informs one's actions".

 

If East hears declarer call for the two of clubs from the table, this will "inform" East's decision to play ♣Q from his hand. Law 47E1 could then be invoked; indeed, even pran seems to suggest that this Law is appropriate if East is "genuinely misled".

 

I like this. East has been informed, falsely, by an opponent that the ♣2 has been played from dummy and that thus it is his turn to play.

[BudH]

LAW 45B

 

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, AFTER WHICH dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's hand, declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself.

 

LAW 45C4(a)

 

A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.

 

QUESTION - WHEN DECLARER VERBALLY CALLS A CARD FROM DUMMY, WHEN IS IT OFFICIALLY PLAYED?

 

Due to the words "AFTER WHICH" (my capitalized emphasis), I had always thought the card was officially played as soon as it is verbally named, and thereafter dummy picks up the card.

 

However, after asking ACBL about this, I was informed "after which" simply states part of the process of being a played card and the card is not officially played until removed from dummy and placed in a played position. This interpretation would make it clearly easier to rule on declarer's RHO mishearing which card is called from dummy ("eight"/"ace" OR "king"/"ten" OR "heart"/"club" are often misheard) as dummy's card is not played until after it is removed from dummy so the player should wait until that occurs.

 

The response I received from the ACBL was confirmed by a second individual who I asked for confirmation/clarification about the phrase "after which" in Law 45B and part of it is quoted below:

 

"If it was as you want to argue, I believe the Law would stop after the phrase 'after naming the card'. There would be no need to describe the physical action of the Dummy placing the card in a played position as it would be irrelevant. It is not irrelevant--the descriptor of placing it in a played position is a part of the whole step required."

 

So it appears the ACBL's position is when declarer verbally calls a card in dummy, Law 45C4(a) COMMITS declarer to play that card but that Law 45B says it is not an officially played card until it is both removed from dummy AND placed face up near dummy in a played position. That also means declarer's RHO should wait for dummy's card to be both removed from dummy and placed face up near dummy in a played position.

----------

If you are from outside ACBL, does your organization agree with the ACBL's interpretation that declarer verbally calling a card from dummy commits declarer to play that card but it is not officially played until physically removed from dummy?

 

And do you agree with that interpretation? And should Law 45B be re-worded to avoid the ambiguity?

 

Bud H

[blackshoe]

IMO the ACBL interpretation is flat wrong. Also, IMO as a director, it ain't official unless it comes from the LC.

[pran]

IMO the ACBL interpretation is flat wrong. Also, IMO as a director, it ain't official unless it comes from the LC.

There is no problem here unless declarer names a card that is not in dummy.

In all other cases it makes little difference whether the card is legally played when declarer names it or when the card is physically placed in the played position because the card must anyway be played once it has been named.

 

However:

If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

in which case no card is played just by being called by Declarer unless the called card is in dummy.

 

Consequently the action of playing a card from dummy is not completed until "AFTER WHICH" it has been placed in the played position.

[barmar]

Consequently the action of playing a card from dummy is not completed until "AFTER WHICH" it has been placed in the played position.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion from the argument you made.

 

If the named card isn't in dummy, he couldn't possibly move it into the played position. So how is that clause even relevant?

 

If the named card IS in dummy, it doesn't matter whether you wait for it to be moved into the played position, because it MUST be so moved.

 

Unless you think we can't tell whether the card was in dummy except by seeing whether he moves it into the played position? That would only be the case if dummy's cards weren't visible to all the players.

[pran]

I don't see how you come to that conclusion from the argument you made.

 

If the named card isn't in dummy, he couldn't possibly move it into the played position. So how is that clause even relevant?

 

If the named card IS in dummy, it doesn't matter whether you wait for it to be moved into the played position, because it MUST be so moved.

 

Unless you think we can't tell whether the card was in dummy except by seeing whether he moves it into the played position? That would only be the case if dummy's cards weren't visible to all the players.

The relevance is that declarer can never play a card from dummy by naming it unless the card actually is in dummy.

 

For consistency the conclusion is that the card is legally played at the moment it is placed in the played position, not when it was called.

 

(And when the card called by declarer is in dummy this discussion is of course completely irrelevant.)

[blackshoe]

For consistency the conclusion is that the card is legally played at the moment it is placed in the played position, not when it was called.

Nonsense.

[BudH]

I would strongly suggest ACBL confirm their interpretation is correct with the appropriate law commissions. If confirmed, then change Law 45B to avoid any ambiguity from

 

"Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's hand, declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself."

 

to this revised version

 

"Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, dummy removing the card from dummy's remaining cards, and dummy facing the card on the table. In playing from dummy's hand, declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself."

 

This would make it clear dummy's card is not played until it is placed on the table outside of dummy's remaining cards, whether declarer verbally called for the card or if he removed the card from dummy himself.

 

In addition, it would help if LAW 45C4(a) ["A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play"] was changed to

 

"A card must be played (but is not yet deemed played) if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play."

[aguahombre]

It seems all we need to do is read. "After which" in the Law as it now reads makes it clear to me that the act of naming a card means playing the card....after which, dummy might pull the right card, the wrong card, or his ear ---the named card is the played card.

 

"dummy picks up the card and places it..." simply describes a protocol. It is not a must, shall, may or anything else.

[blackshoe]

You read it, I read it. It says what it says. ACBL reads it, and it says something different. <shrug>

[barmar]

ACBL seems to be interpreting 45B as if it had been written as:

 

A card is played from dummy by declarer naming it and dummy then picking up the card and facing it on the table.

 

(There's some ambiguity, but ACBL's interpretation would be a reasonable one.)

 

But IMHO, there's no way the actual wording can be interpreted that way. It's describing actions by two different people: first declarer plays the card by naming it, THEN dummy picks it up and faces it on the table. Consider a parallel construct:

 

A person shoots a gun by pressing the trigger, after which the bullet hits the target he was aiming at.

 

If the bullet misses the target, would anyone conclude that he didn't fire the gun? Of course not.

[blackshoe]

I suppose the SB (or at least Lamford's SB) might. B-)

[campboy]

But IMHO, there's no way the actual wording can be interpreted that way. It's describing actions by two different people: first declarer plays the card by naming it, THEN dummy picks it up and faces it on the table.

The problem with that view is that the laws also describe dummy's action of moving the card as playing it: Law 42A3 says that dummy "plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent".

[barmar]

The problem with that view is that the laws also describe dummy's action of moving the card as playing it: Law 42A3 says that dummy "plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent".

I think the problem there is that the word "play" is being used in two different ways: there's whatever action makes a card officially part of the trick, and there's the action that physically moves it into the played position. For declarer and defenders, these are basically equivalent, but dummy is different because there are two separate steps.

 

I think 42A3 is just describing the physical movement, the same as the "after which" clause in 45B.

[pran]

The problem with that view is that the laws also describe dummy's action of moving the card as playing it: Law 42A3 says that dummy "plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent as directed (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play).".

Incomplete quotations can lead to the most astonishing misunderstandings. I have added the missing part of Law 42A3 above.

[barmar]

Incomplete quotations can lead to the most astonishing misunderstandings. I have added the missing part of Law 42A3 above.

I'm not sure how that addition changes the point BudH was making. He's not claiming that dummy can play a card without declarer naming it first, the issue is whether his action is considered to be part of the process of playing it or subsequent. His interpretation of 42A3 is that it says that it's part of it, because it uses the word "play" to refer to what he does when acting as declarer's agent.

[blackshoe]

I disagree with that interpretation. "After which" is perfectly clear to me.

[campboy]

I disagree with that interpretation. "After which" is perfectly clear to me.

Of course Law 45B, when read on its own, makes it perfectly clear that declarer plays the card by naming it, and what dummy does afterwards is something separate. Equally Law 42A3, when read on its own, makes it perfectly clear that dummy plays the card, and what declarer does beforehand is something separate. What happens when we read both laws?

[blackshoe]

The world ends.