Declarer's play out of turn

[VixTD]

In the middle of a hand in a county match yesterday, I led a low card, and declarer (on my left) called "small". Dummy reminded her that she should play from her own hand first, so she played a low card, my partner played a higher card, and she now called for a winning card from dummy.

 

I would not dream of asking for a ruling here, but I couldn't help wondering what I would do if someone had called me to deal with this irregularity. Applying the strict letter of the law, should declarer be forced to play the low card she originally called for from the dummy?

 

Would it make any difference if declarer claimed that when she said "small" she was absent-mindedly calling the card she was playing from her own hand, rather than trying to call for a card from dummy?

 

Which laws would you apply?

[steve2005]

deleted misread

[blackshoe]

Surprisingly, I can find nothing specific about a play out of turn by the declaring side.

 

In ruling, the first thing I would address is dummy's reminder. This is a violation of Law 43A1{b}: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play and Law 43A1{c}: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. Since the prohibitions here are very strong ("must not" is the strongest, "may not" is the second strongest) and considering Law 43B1: Dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 for any violation of the limitations listed in A1 and A2, I would issue a procedural penalty. This might be a warning for a first offense, although I strongly suspect that a dummy who does this will have done it before and is continuing to do it because he got away with it previously (not intentionally, it's just human nature).

 

Law 45B applies to play of a card from dummy. It says 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. What declarer said was "small". Law 46B1{c} applies: If he calls ‘low’, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit led. So per 46B1{c} and 45B, the lowest card in dummy in the suit led is played from dummy. Note: the fact that dummy has not moved the card into the played position is irrelevant — the card was played when declarer said "small".

 

Declarer's play from dummy when he should be playing from his hand violates Law 44B: After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick. No rectification is provided in the laws for this. Can declarer withdraw the card played from dummy? For this we look to Law 47. 47B applies: A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal play (for defenders, except as this Law provides, see Law 49 - penalty card). For simultaneous play see Law 58. So it appears that declarer can withdraw the small card, and the trick is played out normally. Is there another provision of law that would change this? I can't find one.

 

Added: But Gordon did: Law 57C3: A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and if legal may not be withdrawn.

 

Given this law, Law 47B does not apply, and the card from dummy cannot be changed.

 

Would it make any difference if declarer claimed that when she said "small" she was absent-mindedly calling the card she was playing from her own hand, rather than trying to call for a card from dummy?

No.

 

tl;dr: go back and read it. :-) The bottom line is that the declaring side should get a PP, but the declarer can withdraw the small card he played from dummy, play correctly from his hand, and later win the trick in dummy.

Edited September 10, 2018 by blackshoe
Gordon found a law I missed. :-)

[gordontd]

In the middle of a hand in a county match yesterday, I led a low card, and declarer (on my left) called "small". Dummy reminded her that she should play from her own hand first, so she played a low card, my partner played a higher card, and she now called for a winning card from dummy.

 

I would not dream of asking for a ruling here, but I couldn't help wondering what I would do if someone had called me to deal with this irregularity. Applying the strict letter of the law, should declarer be forced to play the low card she originally called for from the dummy?

 

Would it make any difference if declarer claimed that when she said "small" she was absent-mindedly calling the card she was playing from her own hand, rather than trying to call for a card from dummy?

 

Which laws would you apply?

57C3 combined with 45B?

[gordontd]

Would it make any difference if declarer claimed that when she said "small" she was absent-mindedly calling the card she was playing from her own hand, rather than trying to call for a card from dummy?

No.

 

I think it would make a difference if you were satisfied that this is what had happened, to the extent of considering it "incontrovertible".

[blackshoe]

I think it would make a difference if you were satisfied that this is what had happened, to the extent of considering it "incontrovertible".

Probably, but I can't think of anything that would convince me to that extent.

[barmar]

Probably, but I can't think of anything that would convince me to that extent.

Aren't you usually a proponent of asking the player what was in their mind, like when we have to distinguish between mispull and brain fart? Or is that only good enough for something like "likely", but not "incontrovertible"?

[pescetom]

Added: But Gordon did: Law 57C3: A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and if legal may not be withdrawn.

What sense does that law make in this case, where opponent has lead and now it is declarer's turn to play from his hand but he accidentally calls a play from the dummy?

Does his naming a card in the dummy that he would have played in some brain fart version of the circumstances somehow damage the opponents?

How does this reconcile with the statement that the laws "are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged."?

[pran]

What sense does that law make in this case, where opponent has lead and now it is declarer's turn to play from his hand but he accidentally calls a play from the dummy?

Does his naming a card in the dummy that he would have played in some brain fart version of the circumstances somehow damage the opponents?

How does this reconcile with the statement that the laws "are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged."?

 

Law 57C3: A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and if legal may not be withdrawn. is indeed the correct law in this case.

 

Let me repeat the sequence of events from OP:

1: RHO was on the lead and led a small card

2: Declarer called "small" from Dummy, an action that in fact was a play (according to Laws 45B and 46B1c). Nothing in OP sustains any suggestion that this action was unintended.

 

Although this play was indeed out of turn but not led Law 57C3 should have been applied.

 

Declarer should not be allowed to change this play from dummy but he should certainly be allowed any legal play thereafter from his own hand to the trick, after which LHO finally should select his play to complete the trick.

[blackshoe]

Aren't you usually a proponent of asking the player what was in their mind, like when we have to distinguish between mispull and brain fart? Or is that only good enough for something like "likely", but not "incontrovertible"?

Yes, I'm usually a proponent of that. I did not say that I wouldn't investigate, I said that in my estimation I'm not likely to be convinced that he blurted out his play from his hand rather than intending to call for a card from dummy. Do you have a problem with that? If so, what exactly is the problem?

[blackshoe]

What sense does that law make in this case, where opponent has lead and now it is declarer's turn to play from his hand but he accidentally calls a play from the dummy?

Does his naming a card in the dummy that he would have played in some brain fart version of the circumstances somehow damage the opponents?

How does this reconcile with the statement that the laws "are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged."?

Don't know, don't care. Dura lex, sed lex.

[gordontd]

What sense does that law make in this case, where opponent has lead and now it is declarer's turn to play from his hand but he accidentally calls a play from the dummy?

Does his naming a card in the dummy that he would have played in some brain fart version of the circumstances somehow damage the opponents?

How does this reconcile with the statement that the laws "are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged."?

It encourages people to play cards in order, clockwise, which is one of the most basic requirements of the game. Failure to do this may well upset or confuse opponents, so it shouldn't be encouraged. The law as it is is not even severe - if you called a card you intended to play, there's no punishment in being required to play it. If you didn't intend to play the card you called, you certainly shouldn't have named it.

[gordontd]

What sense does that law make in this case, where opponent has lead and now it is declarer's turn to play from his hand but he accidentally calls a play from the dummy?

Does his naming a card in the dummy that he would have played in some brain fart version of the circumstances somehow damage the opponents?

How does this reconcile with the statement that the laws "are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged."?

A further thought about this: the law covers the general situation when declarer plays from dummy out of turn, which will sometimes (perhaps most commonly) be by moving or touching the card in dummy. Surely you don't want declarer not to be held to playing this card either?

[sanst]

I would not dream of asking for a ruling here,

Why not? Would you have called the TD if SB was one of your opponents?

[VixTD]

57C3 combined with 45B?

I completely missed 57C, which seems to address the matter directly. When this topic came up years ago the best I could do was read out law 47 and show that it wasn't covered by any of the conditions listed there.

[VixTD]

Why not? Would you have called the TD if SB was one of your opponents?

I just thought (like pescatom) that no harm was caused by the irregularity. I'm pretty sure she wasn't intending to play a card from dummy, and certain she wasn't doing it to confuse the opponents. I'm not convinced she really was calling out the card she was playing from her own hand, but that was what she claimed in explanation. I can't really say why she called "small" when she did.

 

I suppose if I really disliked my opponent and they were the sort of player who would try to get one over on me by exploiting any slip I made, I might give them a taste of their own medicine. For maximum effect, I'd wait until they'd played from their own hand and then call the director, in the hope that they'd end up playing small from hand as well, perhaps unaware that they'll be forced to play dummy's lowest card.

[RMB1]

I completely missed 57C, which seems to address the matter directly. When this topic came up years ago the best I could do was read out law 47 and show that it wasn't covered by any of the conditions listed there.

 

I read Law 57 and discovered that it almost all about defenders play out of turn. 57C 1/2 were about declarers playing after a defender play out of turn, and I did not get to 57C3.

[gordontd]

I read Law 57 and discovered that it almost all about defenders play out of turn. 57C 1/2 were about declarers playing after a defender play out of turn, and I did not get to 57C3.

The header to 57C is also misleading, but I don't see that as limiting the application of 57C3, notwithstanding that the note to that effect was removed from the Preface in the latest update to the Laws.

[pran]

The header to 57C is also misleading, but I don't see that as limiting the application of 57C3, notwithstanding that the note to that effect was removed from the Preface in the latest update to the Laws.

Law 57C3 is clear enough and the heading to Law 57C is not incorrect but could easily be misunderstood.

 

A better heading to (the entire) Law 57C would IMHO be: "Premature play from Declarer or Dummy".

[barmar]

A further thought about this: the law covers the general situation when declarer plays from dummy out of turn, which will sometimes (perhaps most commonly) be by moving or touching the card in dummy. Surely you don't want declarer not to be held to playing this card either?

45C3 addresses declarer touching a card in dummy for purposes other than playing it.

[gordontd]

45C3 addresses declarer touching a card in dummy for purposes other than playing it.

Indeed it does, but my post didn't!

[pescetom]

Don't know, don't care. Dura lex, sed lex.

Fair enough in itself. But laws should be hard when the lawmakers have thought things through and intend it.

 

 

It encourages people to play cards in order, clockwise, which is one of the most basic requirements of the game. Failure to do this may well upset or confuse opponents, so it shouldn't be encouraged.

Yes I agree with this, and I'm not even a great fan of the principle that one should not pay for irregularities which do not damage equity, come to that. But calling a play from the dummy when it is your turn to play after RHO has lead is clearly a mistake and cannot damage the opponents in terms of actual play. I still find it gratuitously severe that you are forced to play the named card after LHO has played to your lead, where of course it is now likely to cost a trick. By comparison, if you make the analogous (but perhaps less innocent) mistake of calling a play from the dummy when it is your turn to lead from hand, you are not (I think) forced to play the named card after LHO has played to your lead.

[gordontd]

Fair enough in itself. But laws should be hard when the lawmakers have thought things through and intend it.

 

 

 

Yes I agree with this, and I'm not even a great fan of the principle that one should not pay for irregularities which do not damage equity, come to that. But calling a play from the dummy when it is your turn to play after RHO has lead is clearly a mistake and cannot damage the opponents in terms of actual play. I still find it gratuitously severe that you are forced to play the named card after LHO has played to your lead, where of course it is now likely to cost a trick. By comparison, if you make the analogous (but perhaps less innocent) mistake of calling a play from the dummy when it is your turn to lead from hand, you are not (I think) forced to play the named card after LHO has played to your lead.

If you call for a card from dummy when you are on lead, the opponents have the option to accept it. Only if they decline that are you able to play a different card from dummy.

[barmar]

It does seem like this particular law serves little purpose, as long as the opponents are allowed to change their plays with no UI from their own plays when you retract your dummy play out of turn.

 

But the law is the law. Unless it's fixed, it seems like we're supposed to follow it.

[pescetom]

If you call for a card from dummy when you are on lead, the opponents have the option to accept it. Only if they decline that are you able to play a different card from dummy.

 

Yes, but here the opponents are unlikely to gain by accepting the call I wanted to make, whereas they would be likely to gain if I was gratuitously forced to play that same card after playing first from my own hand.

 

In any case, I think you get my point. It's a very minor problem compared to others that we have, agreed.