Card Played by Dummy

[Sky Red]

Declarer leads towards dummy and not looking at LHO’s card says “sm……..”.This is assumed to be the start of the word”small”.

At the same time dummy, without any complete instruction, plays a card higher than the one played by LHO.

Declarer now designates the card to be played as the same one selected by dummy.

In dummy there is a card smaller than that played by LHO.

 

The Director is called and the issues are:1) how should the director deal with the situation? and 2) what should the ruling be?

[campboy]

Play continues with the larger card having been played, but the TD may award an adjusted score if he feels that dummy's (illegal) suggestion damaged the other side (law 45F). IMO he should adjust the score based on what would have happened if declarer had played small (assuming that is worse for declarer), since it seems clear he would have done so without dummy's intervention. You might give dummy a procedural penalty as well, particularly if you thought he did it deliberately.

[weejonnie]

Law 45C and F is a good starting point:-

 

"C4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it

as the card he proposes to play."

 

"F. Dummy Indicates Card

After dummys 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."

 

(If it is agreed that "sm..." designates a card then it is usually the smallest - it is in the EBU, if it does not then there has been no instruction)

[gordontd]

There are those (not me, but including a former secretary of the WBFLC) who would argue that once he has begun to designate a card he cannot change his mind.

[weejonnie]

As a follow up - suppose that Declarer leads towards dummy and says 'win'. Dummy is a pro and knows that, by counting, for instance, RHO is now void - however there is a good chance that the client doesn't know this.

 

Law 46b states:

 

"(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called

the lowest card that it is known will win the trick."

 

Can the pro play the lowest card that he knows will win the trick? - since 'it is known' albeit not by declarer!

[pran]

As a follow up - suppose that Declarer leads towards dummy and says 'win'. Dummy is a pro and knows that, by counting, for instance, RHO is now void - however there is a good chance that the client doesn't know this.

 

Law 46b states:

 

"(b) If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick he is deemed to have called

the lowest card that it is known will win the trick."

 

Can the pro play the lowest card that he knows will win the trick? - since 'it is known' albeit not by declarer!

As a director I would rule no unless RHO has actually shown out in the suit in an earlier trick.

See also the analogical

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made .......

[blackshoe]

Declarer leads towards dummy and not looking at LHO’s card says “sm……..”.This is assumed to be the start of the word”small”.

Assumed by whom, and on what basis?

 

At the same time dummy, without any complete instruction, plays a card higher than the one played by LHO.

Declarer now designates the card to be played as the same one selected by dummy.

In dummy there is a card smaller than that played by LHO.

 

The Director is called and the issues are:1) how should the director deal with the situation? and 2) what should the ruling be?

1) The director should ascertain the facts. If the facts are agreed by both sides, he applies the appropriate rectification, if there is one. If there isn't one, he instructs the players to proceed with the play. See Law 84. So, what are the facts?

 

1. Declarer said "sm…"

2. Dummy played (placed in the played position*) a card higher than the smallest card in the suit, and higher then LHO's played card.

3. Declarer designates (how did he do this?) the card dummy "played".

3. The director was called at this point in the play.

 

Now let's look at the relevant laws.

 

"sm…" is not a designation. It may be the start of a designation. See Law 46B.

 

Law 46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

Calling "small", if declarer had done that, is an infraction of this law, albeit one which is "not often penalized" (Introduction to the Laws).

 

Law 46B1{c}: 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:

1. {c} If he calls “low”, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card.

So "small" should be deemed to call for the lowest card. This is law, not regulation or custom, and not just in the EBU. B-)

 

Law 45C4{a}: A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.

However, declarer didn't say "small", he said "sm…" and was interrupted by dummy's play of a high card.

 

Law 45D: 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 declarer’s RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16D).

 

Law 42A3: Dummy plays the cards of the dummy as declarer’s agent as directed (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play).

 

Law 43A1{c}: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

 

Law 45F: 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.

 

This gets a little thorny. If declarer had called "small", 45D clearly applies. If declarer had said nothing, Law 45F clearly applies. Declarer started to say something, but did not finish, so neither law is clear. However, note the phrase "that declarer did not name". 45D does not require that declarer has named a card, only that the card put forth by dummy was not named by declarer. So on balance, I think 45D applies here.

 

2) My ruling:

 

If dummy is known to make a habit of suggesting plays to declarer, and has been warned before, I issue a PP (25% of a top in the ACBL, 10% in the EBU). If he has not previously been warned, I warn him now — and make sure he knows that the next time, he will get a PP. Laws 42A3 and 43A1{c} are relevant to this part of the ruling. Note that 43A1{c} is a "must" law, violation of which "is a serious matter indeed" and should thus almost always result in a PP. However, particularly in a club game or low level tournament, I think it's prudent to warn first.

 

I would tell declarer that he would do well to comply with Law 46A, but I'm not ordinarily going to give a PP for infractions of this law.

 

I instruct dummy to retract the higher card, and declarer to now designate the card he originally intended to play, (Law 45D). I will tell the declarer that while I do not consider "sm…" to be a designation, I do consider it to be evidence that he intended to play a small card. Declarer's RHO has not played a card to this trick yet, so that part of the law is not relevant. Then I instruct the table to play out the hand. Law 45F is not relevant to the ruling, unless declarer now designates the card suggested by dummy, because the rectification is specified in Law 45D. So if declarer plays small, that's the end of it. If declarer insists on playing the card dummy suggested, I will inform the table that I'm going to look at the hand after the scores are reported, and if I judge that the defenders are damaged, I will adjust the score. In this situation, I do not need to be called back to the table. I will inform both sides whether I adjust the score or not. Note that I need make no judgement as to whether declarer originally intended to play the high card; the fact that dummy suggested that play is enough to invoke Law 45F.

 

*Dummy does not play cards; he picks them up and faces them on the table on instruction from declarer (Law 45B). The card is played when declarer designates it. Unfortunately, the laws use "play" or "played" loosely when speaking of what dummy does.

[weejonnie]

As a director I would rule no unless RHO has actually shown out in the suit in an earlier trick.

See also the analogical

 

Well it may be a moral answer - but is it a legal one. (There is no claim being made so I fail to see how that would apply.) Maybe SB can give us an answer.

 

"If that is the law, then the law is an ass."

[weejonnie]

"So "small" should be deemed to call for the lowest card. This is law, not regulation or custom, and not just in the EBU. B-) "

 

I was trying to remember whether the rule was in the EBU white book or the law book when I was writing that B-) - I subsequently checked (however left the error in).

[barmar]

Assumed by whom, and on what basis?

What other designation it could be the beginning of? "Smace"?

"sm…" is not a designation. It may be the start of a designation. See Law 46B.

One could reason that it's a "words of like meaning".

[blackshoe]

As a director I would rule no unless RHO has actually shown out in the suit in an earlier trick.

See also the analogical

 

Well it may be a moral answer - but is it a legal one. (There is no claim being made so I fail to see how that would apply.) Maybe SB can give us an answer.

 

"If that is the law, then the law is an ass."

It's an analogy, not a statement that the claim laws apply.

 

The interpretation of "it is known" in Law 46B1{c} depends, it seems to me, on the information available to declarer. Presumably that's the same information available to dummy, plus the knowledge of the cards in declarer's hand. I suppose it's possible to judge that client declarer is not capable of counting the hand, but I don't think the laws allow that kind of judgement in this case. If RHO has shown out, then I think even a declarer incompetent at counting will be aware. So I would rule that if dummy knows that a certain card will win the trick, he can play it, even if dummy, calling "win it", might have expected a higher card from dummy. If declarer gives evidence, even accidentally, that he did expect a higher card, I would consider a PP for violation of Law 46A, but absence such evidence, I don't see doing anything.

[blackshoe]

What other designation it could be the beginning of? "Smace"?

That may answer one question. It doesn't answer the other.

 

One could reason that it's a "words of like meaning".

"Sm…" is not a word.

[barmar]

"Sm…" is not a word.

My dictionary says "a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing". If we can understand the intended meaning, it can be considered a word.

[Vampyr]

There are those (not me, but including a former secretary of the WBFLC) who would argue that once he has begun to designate a card he cannot change his mind.

 

I would, because a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I prefer where not to be arbitrary.

 

Some time ago I was instructed by partner to ruff. Unfortunately I had to under ruff RHO. If partner had "continued" his incomplete designation (ruff..high, ruff..with the 9), then he would have had an advantage over a player who correctly named a card from dummy (three of spades). I think that incomplete designations should be handled pretty strictly, and would rather not have to determine just how mich of a word has to be said to make it a designation. And I do not think that how to do do is covered in the EBU regulations.

 

We have recently seen cases where players have gained through incomplete designations, and there was really no way around it. I find it unfortunate and would like to see as few such cases as possible.

 

Note: Gordon, you said yourself, "change his mind". How can that be allowed?

 

Note: I am not being self-righteous here. Virtually all of my designations are incomplete.

[blackshoe]

My dictionary says "a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing". If we can understand the intended meaning, it can be considered a word.

Not by me.

[gordontd]

I would, because a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I prefer where not to be arbitrary.

 

Some time ago I was instructed by partner to ruff. Unfortunately I had to under ruff RHO. If partner had "continued" his incomplete designation (ruff..high, ruff..with the 9), then he would have had an advantage over a player who correctly named a card from dummy (three of spades). I think that incomplete designations should be handled pretty strictly, and would rather not have to determine just how mich of a word has to be said to make it a designation. And I do not think that how to do do is covered in the EBU regulations.

 

We have recently seen cases where players have gained through incomplete designations, and there was really no way around it. I find it unfortunate and would like to see as few such cases as possible.

 

Note: Gordon, you said yourself, "change his mind". How can that be allowed?

 

Note: I am not being self-righteous here. Virtually all of my designations are incomplete.

 

If it's not a change of mind, there's no issue - it can be changed if it's unintended.

 

The question is whether a card is designated when you start to speak, or when you finish speaking. Even if you don't designate completely, there's a point when you finish speaking. So, I'm not talking about incomplete designations so much as considering at what point a designation, of any sort, can be considered to have been made.

 

The problem with saying that you can't change your mind once you start speaking is that at an early point in your utterance no-one will yet know what you were about to say.

 

Imagine I start to say "C..." It won't be clear whether I was about to say "Club", "Queen" or "King". If I'm committed to what I started to say, you'll have to believe me when I tell you which it was.

[Vampyr]

If it's not a change of mind, there's no issue - it can be changed if it's unintended.

 

The question is whether a card is designated when you start to speak, or when you finish speaking. Even if you don't designate completely, there's a point when you finish speaking. So, I'm not talking about incomplete designations so much as considering at what point a designation, of any sort, can be considered to have been made.

 

Yes I know. I am extending incomplete designations to incomplete words.

 

 

The problem with saying that you can't change your mind once you start speaking is that at an early point in your utterance no-one will yet know what you were about to say.

 

Imagine I start to say "C..." It won't be clear whether I was about to say "Club", "Queen" or "King". If I'm committed to what I started to say, you'll have to believe me when I tell you which it was.

 

All very true. Maybe there is a difference when the word can be identified by its beginning?

 

If you said "C..." and meant something, what would you do if you wished to,change your mind? I know what a lot of people would do, but would you stick with what you began to say?

 

I do realise that incomplete (and even complete) words can be slips of the tongue; cludiamond etc. It's just that I think that when a play made sense before LHO's card appeared but didn't afterwards, any change from an incomplete designation, a word, or a phoneme is definitely a change of mind. Is there any reasonable way to be super strict in cases like this?

[Trinidad]

What other designation it could be the beginning of? "Smace"?

 

or

 

Smile?

 

:)

 

Rik

[pran]

Likely or not: Has anybody even thought of the possibility that "sm..." might be the start of "smallest card that will win the trick" or something along this line?

[blackshoe]

The only way to know what "sm…" might mean is to ask declarer what he meant.

[pran]

It's an analogy, not a statement that the claim laws apply.

Quite so, and I had no intention of involving the claim laws directly, but as some of you folks has already appreciated: There is an analogy between how outstanding cards may be considered known by a claiming declarer and a declarer who says "win the trick".

 

Unless Declarer specifically calls a particular card from Dummy he is not considered "knowing" that RHO is void unless he (RHO) has already shown out.

[blackshoe]

Unless Declarer specifically calls a particular card from Dummy he is not considered "knowing" that RHO is void unless he (RHO) has already shown out.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

[pran]

Unless Declarer specifically calls a particular card from Dummy he is not considered "knowing" that RHO is void unless he (RHO) has already shown out.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

It is a reasonable analogy from the WBFLC understanding expressed in Law 70E1.

[lamford]

If dummy is known to make a habit of suggesting plays to declarer, and has been warned before, I issue a PP (25% of a top in the ACBL, 10% in the EBU).

I thought the standard PP in North Korea the US was 13 months probation and 25% of career masterpoints.

[Vampyr]

Likely or not: Has anybody even thought of the possibility that "sm..." might be the start of "smallest card that will win the trick" or something along this line?

 

Has anybody imagined that a player would call for a card in that fashion? And also we don't know that RHO is void, do we?