[schulken]

At a unit game last night, I was called to the table by declarer who said he had called for the K♦ from dummy's K43 holding. His partner dutifully "played" the 3, followed by the 5, declarer's 2 and the 7. When declarer called for the next card from dummy, LHO informed him she had won the trick with the 7. Declarer told me that he had clearly called for the K, although his partner did not play that card from the board. I should point out that dummy casually removed the 3♦ from the stack and pushed it about an inch out onto the table, rather than picking the card up and placing it in front of him. LHO said she did not hear the call of K, and RHO is hearing-impaired. Declarer held AQxxx, so five tricks in the suit were virtually assured. The three directors all came up with different answers, so I'd like to get some other input.

Since the "immediately before him" language of law 45A doesn't apply to dummy and the "picks up the card and faces it on the table" language in law 45B doesn't help much, I was inclined to let LHO win the trick with the 7, mostly to punish declarer for not paying attention and dummy for being lazy (or not asking declarer which card he had called if there was any question in his mind). Another director said she would allow the K♦ to be played since declarer said that's what he called for. The DIC ultimately ruled that the lead of the 3♦ would stand, but allowed declarer to substitute a high card from his hand and win the trick.

Thoughts?

[iviehoff]

You need to read Law 45D and 45C4(b)

D. Card Misplayed by Dummy
If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but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.)

(b) Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If
an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16D1).

If you think declarer actually called for the K, then it is in time to change it under 45D.

If you think declarer made an unintended designation for the D3, then it is too late to chage it under 45C4b.

There is no provision in law for the ruling DIC actually made.

[aguahombre]

I wait for the reg cite under which the TD allowed Declarer to change the card he had played as 3rd hand. The card was intended because he thought the King was played from dummy.

Seems as if Ivehoff addressed that, while I was typing.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-December-02, 09:57

[billw55]

It is clear that declarer did intend the king, since he called for another card from dummy, and since low from both hands is obviously irrational. I would allow the change and tell both of them to be more careful.

edit: hmm, I suppose if there is no side entry to hand and declarer wants to play safe for 4 tricks, he might duck the first. So in such a case it would not be irrational after all.

[axman]

schulken, on 2011-December-02, 09:45, said:

At a unit game last night, I was called to the table by declarer who said he had called for the K♦ from dummy's K43 holding. His partner dutifully "played" the 3, followed by the 5, declarer's 2 and the 7. When declarer called for the next card from dummy, LHO informed him she had won the trick with the 7. Declarer told me that he had clearly called for the K, although his partner did not play that card from the board. I should point out that dummy casually removed the 3♦ from the stack and pushed it about an inch out onto the table, rather than picking the card up and placing it in front of him. LHO said she did not hear the call of K, and RHO is hearing-impaired. Declarer held AQxxx, so five tricks in the suit were virtually assured. The three directors all came up with different answers, so I'd like to get some other input.

Since the "immediately before him" language of law 45A doesn't apply to dummy and the "picks up the card and faces it on the table" language in law 45B doesn't help much, I was inclined to let LHO win the trick with the 7, mostly to punish declarer for not paying attention and dummy for being lazy (or not asking declarer which card he had called if there was any question in his mind). Another director said she would allow the K♦ to be played since declarer said that's what he called for. The DIC ultimately ruled that the lead of the 3♦ would stand, but allowed declarer to substitute a high card from his hand and win the trick.

Thoughts?

I would anticipate a finding that declarer called for the DK and dummy misplayed the D3, declarer eventually losing the trick to the D7. Then declarer played OOT by calling for a card from dummy [which one?].

If the defender had accepted the LOOT by playing a card prior to drawing attention to the fact that his side won the previous trick the previous trick stands. However L45D provides for the case where both sides did not play to a subsequent trick prior to drawing attention to dummy’s incorrect play, whence dummy’s play is corrected and the other side is permitted to alter their plays, and if so declarer can change his plays[?] with L16D implications

My other thoughts are unsuitable for XXX rated audiences.

45D. Card Misplayed by Dummy

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.)

[schulken]

Thanks for all the thoughts. I should have continued through my logic chain in my original post. While perhaps not apparent, I did consider 45D but I discounted it since there was not agreement at the table as to which card was called for. Had either defender or dummy agreed that the K♦ had been called for, I agree that rolling back the trick under 45D would be the right answer. (I must note, editorially, that the logic of this law escapes me. It assumes that all four players at the table are allowed to simultaneously take a nap and not wake up until after one player has played to the next trick.)

As to the other question raised about what was called for from dummy on the subsequent trick, LHO reported that declarer said, "♦", whereupon prior to RHO playing to the subsequent trick, LHO informed him that she had won the previous trick with the 7♦. Since the card was from dummy, we let that card be returned to the board under 53A not accepted.

[blackshoe]

Rule 493 1/2: Watch Center Hand Opponent like a hawk during the play.

[bluejak]

Agreement from the players is not required for rulings, which is a Good Thing, as otherwise we would have no rulings!

As with all judgement rulings it is the job of the TD to decide what happened in his view, and leave the players to appeal if they do not like his decision. He listens to what everyone says, and uses any other evidence available, and then rules [hopefully] from the Law book, and not from some arcane guesswork as to what is fair.

So, first the TD decides what card was called for from dummy. On balance it is quite likely but not certain that he called for the king. While to play small from both hands is irrational, mistakes are made, and irrational plays happen all the time, so while the lack of sense in playing a small one is part of the evidence it is not sufficient evidence. Anyway, he makes up his mind.

If the TD decides the small card was called for then the trick stands as played, and the card asked for next from dummy is a lead out of turn by dummy and treated as such.

If the TD decides the king was called for then under Law 45D the cards played thereafter by the defence maybe changed. Given the circumstances they probably will not be, and then declarer may not change his cards.

I do not understand the idea behind "I was inclined to let LHO win the trick with the 7, mostly to punish declarer for not paying attention and dummy for being lazy" which seems contrary to the Laws and spirit of the game. Just decide what happened and read it out of the Law book.

"She would allow the K♦ to be played since declarer said that's what he called for" is an overly simplistic approach to judgement rulings. Sure, what he said is part of the evidence, though self-serving, but all the evidence should be looked at.

As for "The DIC ultimately ruled that the lead of the 3♦ would stand, but allowed declarer to substitute a high card from his hand and win the trick", that is beyond belief. Someone needs to buy the DIC a Law book, which will not contain any Law that allows declarer’s card to be changed – surprise .

[barmar]

billw55, on 2011-December-02, 10:11, said:

edit: hmm, I suppose if there is no side entry to hand and declarer wants to play safe for 4 tricks, he might duck the first. So in such a case it would not be irrational after all.

But if that were his intent, why would he suddenly claim that he called for the King? Unless he suddenly noticed the other entry to his hand that he missed earlier.

This seems to come down to a "he said, they said" decision by the TD. One player (declarer) claims he called for the King, two (LHO and dummy) think he called for the 3, and one (RHO) is hard of hearing and based his play on the card that dummy played physically. So without much else to go on, it seems to be 2:1 against declarer.

While it's extremely likely that declarer intended to play the King, players do sometimes have brain farts and call for the wrong card. Two players hearing something other than King is credible evidence that this may have happened. And the player who makes this error might remember what was in his mind, not what came out of his mouth.

So while I might be sympathetic to declarer, it seems to me that the preponderance of the evidence points to result stands.