[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-25, 08:07, said:

Sorry, Sven, but that's just nonsense. The fact that it's too late to correct dummy's mistake does not change the fact that the card played to the trick was a heart.

OH?

So how do you rule if events happened exactly as described in OP except that declarer did not ask about any missing club until end of the play?

Therefore the irregularity was detected and TD called only just before cards were to be returned to the board. Let us further assume for a fact that Declarer indeed at the time had called for a heart from Dummy while both Dummy and RHO had understood this as a call for a club.

And please do not avoid interpreting precisely the clause in Law 45D: "the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick", and what should be the consequences when it is too late for withdrawing the card.

Law 45D is silent on the consequences if attention to the misplay is called too late for such correction, but I should like to see some rational reasoning leading to the result that the card actually called by Declarer is the card played from Dummy even in that situation.

One insane result of this would be that the card actually called becomes played twice: First when a different card was placed in the played position by Dummy (correction of this "play" no longer permitted) and second when eventually the card is physically played.

[pran]

Cascade, on 2011-December-25, 05:19, said:

Law 45D doesn't mention revokes.

No need for that.

If TD rules that a heart was indeed played from Dummy then RHO has revoked.

If TD rules that a club was played from Dummy then Declarer (and possibly LHO) has revoked.

Law 45D specifies that the incorrect play from Dummy must be corrected, and in a way that results in no rectification whatsoever, if attention to the misplay is called before each side has played to the next trick.

[bluejak]

I am trying to find out how people think a specific situation should be ruled. Sadly, too many people seem to think it is a different situation.

Declarer called for a heart from dummy. When the TD was called, he established without any doubt that a heart was called for.

The defenders were not listening, and reacted to the card that dummy put in the played position.

So, perhaps I should reword the OP:



Declarer called for a heart, as the TD later established. Dummy played a club, RHO played a club [not having listened to what declarer said], declarer played a heart, LHO ruffed with a spade [not having listened to what declarer said]. Declarer had not noticed that the wrong card was played from dummy, and was not surprised to lose the trick when LHO ruffed, so play continued, LHO leading, declarer playing from dummy and then ...

"Where has dummy's club gone?" asked declarer, and all was revealed.

It is now too late to change dummy's card. Declarer had a club as well as a heart: LHO had a heart but no club.

"You revoked," said LHO, "you did not play a club."

"Don't be ridiculous," said declarer, "I asked for a heart, I played a heart, that cannot be a revoke! Anyway, you had a heart, you ruffed, so you revoked."

"Bog off," said LHO, unpleasantly, "a club was played from dummy and I did not have any." Of course the TD gave LHO a DP for the comment.

Did anyone revoke?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-December-25, 09:31, said:

So how do you rule if events happened exactly as described in OP except that declarer did not ask about any missing club until end of the play?

Same way I rule in the instant case.

pran, on 2011-December-25, 09:31, said:

And please do not avoid interpreting precisely the clause in Law 45D: "the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick", and what should be the consequences when it is too late for withdrawing the card.

45D is, as you say, silent on what happens if it's too late to withdraw the card. So nothing happens. Dummy's card stays where it is. The fact remains that declarer played a heart from dummy - see Law 45B. Dummy does not play cards from his hand, declarer does.

pran, on 2011-December-25, 09:31, said:

Law 45D is silent on the consequences if attention to the misplay is called too late for such correction, but I should like to see some rational reasoning leading to the result that the card actually called by Declarer is the card played from Dummy even in that situation.

I've already given my reasoning. Several times.

pran, on 2011-December-25, 09:31, said:

One insane result of this would be that the card actually called becomes played twice: First when a different card was placed in the played position by Dummy (correction of this "play" no longer permitted) and second when eventually the card is physically played.

Hardly insane. Unusual, perhaps even surprising, but not insane.

While I think I understand what you mean by "physically played", the phrase is nonsense. Declarer plays cards from dummy by naming the card. The movement of the card by dummy is subsequent to the play, not part of it. (c.f. "after which" in law 45B).

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-25, 10:23, said:

45D is, as you say, silent on what happens if it's too late to withdraw the card. So nothing happens. Dummy's card stays where it is. The fact remains that declarer played a heart from dummy - see Law 45B. Dummy does not play cards from his hand, declarer does.

pran said:

One insane result of this would be that the card actually called becomes played twice: First when a different card was placed in the played position by Dummy (correction of this "play" no longer permitted) and second when eventually the card is physically played.

Hardly insane. Unusual, perhaps even surprising, but not insane.

Whatever the actual answer there is no way this can be correct. Allowing any rectification which allows a card to be played more than once or which has a different set of cards among the played cards than were actually played to those tricks is definitely wrong and contravenes a large number of other laws. Whatever the wording of any of the laws, there is no way that we can have this as the result.

IMO these are the options:

• The club was led, declarer revoked
  
• The club was led, restore equity from before that trick, treating one, both or neither side as offending.
  
• The heart was led and is placed among the played tricks, restoring the club to dummy, Oppo revoked
  
• The heart was led and is placed among the played tricks, restoring the club to dummy, restore equity from before that trick, treating one, both or neither side as offending.

The time limit on 45D suggests we can't do 3 or 4. Or maybe it just prevents us from allowing oppo to change their card. On balance I think I'd rule 2, treating just the declaring side as offending - and then advise both sides to appeal to the national authority on a point of law, since I can't come up with a sensible legal basis for any ruling.

[blackshoe]

No way, huh?

I disagree.

[mjj29]

On further consideration, perhaps we should treat this as a defective trick under L67B? Attention was drawn to it by the "where's dummy's club" comment. Dummy failed to play a heart to it (a card of the suit led), so puts one there and now has played more than one card, so we restore it to dummy, without changing ownership. This doesn't deal with any revokes, so I think we're back to LHO having revoked, which I don't like, I might use L12A1 treating the defence as non-offending in order to fix this.

Now, I know that I'm conflating some of the 'card played' and 'put into the played position' issues with this ruling - still haven't come up with a really good solution.

[pran]

OK.
I take the following events as established facts:
1: Declarer calls a heart from Dummy but Dummy places a club in the played position.
2: RHO "follows suit" with a club of his.
3: Declarer plays a heart to this trick although he has (at least?) one club in his hand.
4: LHO being void in clubs wins the trick with a trump and leads to the next trick.
5: Declarer calls a card from Dummy to this next trick.
6: Declarer notices that a club is missing from Dummy and asks where it has gone.

We have a clear Law 45D situation, and if any of the players had called attention to the misplay by Dummy before Declarer played a card to the next trick then this misplay should have been corrected with a heart being led from Dummy. (In that case the rest of the trick would of course also be appripriately corrected.)

At the very moment Declarer played a card from Dummy by calling it to the next trick Law 45D no longer allows any correction of the last trick, so that trick must now stand as virtually played. The fact that Declarer had indeed called for a heart is no longer relevant as it is overridden by the fact that Dummy instead placed a club in the played position and nobody called attention to this irregularity in time for correction.

I believe the main question in this thread was: "Did anybody revoke?", and the answer must be decided using Law 61a on the fact that a club was led from Dummy (although incorrectly) and that Law 45D prohibits any correction of this lead.

Within this group (Laws and Rulings) I cannot see any other way of handling the situation.

[blackshoe]

No. No, no, no, no!

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-25, 15:04, said:

No. No, no, no, no!

Do your five "no"s apply to my summary of facts (made from bluejak's rewording and clarification of OP) or what?

Would you please for the purpose of ruling a result on the board specify exactly which cards you consider played by each of the four players to the trick in which Declarer called a heart from Dummy?

I do hope we agree that if Declarer had called attention to the incorrect lead by Dummy instead of just playing a card from dummy to the next trick then the trick in question would have been corrected as specified in Law 45D, and I expect a very good reason for why you in case consider such correction legal even after each side has played to the next trick.

[BunnyGo]

I think this discussion has left out the interesting possibility that it is DUMMY who has revoked.

Quote

LAW 61 FAILURE TO FOLLOW SUIT - INQUIRIES CONCERNING A REVOKE
A. Definition of Revoke
Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent in accordance with an agreed penalty, constitutes a revoke (but see Law 59 when unable to comply).

Since the heart is the card required by law that he play, and he didn't play it, then by definition dummy has revoked. Just another twist to add to the argument.

[mjj29]

BunnyGo, on 2011-December-25, 15:53, said:

I think this discussion has left out the interesting possibility that it is DUMMY who has revoked.

Since the heart is the card required by law that he play, and he didn't play it, then by definition dummy has revoked. Just another twist to add to the argument.

I think if you're going down that route, I'd treat it as a defective trick short one card (the heart) and containing one extra card (the club) instead.

[BunnyGo]

mjj29, on 2011-December-25, 17:07, said:

I think if you're going down that route, I'd treat it as a defective trick short one card (the heart) and containing one extra card (the club) instead.

I dunno. It seems pretty clear that:

a) Dummy was required by law 45 to play the heart.

b) Dummy placed the club instead

c) Per law 45D "card misplayed by dummy" the card was misplayed and is too late to be withdrawn (technically it is only past the "mandatory" stage of withdrawing it based on the wording of the rule "must be withdrawn if..." and it doesn't directly say that it's too late to rectify the play...perhaps this is what should be done even though it no longer is required--another aside)

d) Per law 61 failure to play a required card is a revoke

Combining a, b, c, and d, we have by definition that dummy has revoked. This seems to be straight out of a basic logic/legal class.

Going back to law 45D. It only states that the card "must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick" it says nothing about it being to late to withdraw the card if attention is drawn to it after each side as played to the next trick. While I personally think this specificity implies that it is too late, one should probably amend the law to make that clear.

[pran]

BunnyGo, on 2011-December-25, 15:53, said:

I think this discussion has left out the interesting possibility that it is DUMMY who has revoked.

Since the heart is the card required by law that he play, and he didn't play it, then by definition dummy has revoked. Just another twist to add to the argument.

I don't buy the logic, but if you examine it further you will discover that the "revoke" by Dummy became established by the play by declaring side to the next trick. Therefore the "revoke" trick stands as played. This means that Declarer played a heart to a trick in which the lead was a club and thus revoked as well!

[BunnyGo]

pran, on 2011-December-25, 17:25, said:

I don't buy the logic

Ok, fair enough. But could you please elaborate on this? I spelled it out pretty clearly and in detail. Which step do you not buy?

Quote

if you examine it further you will discover that the "revoke" by Dummy became established by the play by declaring side to the next trick. Therefore the "revoke" trick stands as played. This means that Declarer played a heart to a trick in which the lead was a club and thus revoked as well!

That's a nice continuation of this route. Seems like it starts an interesting chain reaction.

[pran]

BunnyGo, on 2011-December-25, 17:30, said:

Ok, fair enough. But could you please elaborate on this? I spelled it out pretty clearly and in detail. Which step do you not buy?

Dummy does not actually "play" his cards, he acts as an agent for declarer.

The situation we discuss is specifically handled by Law 45D, we cannot avoid applying this law by invoking more general laws.

So far I have only seen one argument that has some weight against my logic: Law 45D requires a correction of dummy's mis-play if attention to it is drawn before each side has played to the next trick, it does not explicitly prohibit such correction after this time limit has expired.

I do not accept that argument either, but I have passed it on to Grattan for consideration. (That discussion should in case be moved to the "Changing Laws & Regulations" section)

[BunnyGo]

pran, on 2011-December-25, 17:56, said:

Dummy does not actually "play" his cards, he acts as an agent for declarer.

If dummy does not actually "play" his cards, why is Law 45D specifically titled "Card misplayed by dummy"?

I understand that declarer "plays" and dummy "places" but based on law 45D clearly dummy "plays" as well. Yes?

I definitely agree that when there is a specific law dealing with a situation one does not seek more specific laws, but law 45D does not deal with this situation. It only states what is done up until both sides play to the next trick. I think that after that point that law 61 is the only law that applies as these laws are currently stated.

P.S. Thanks for the reply, I am merely attempting to flush out this line of logic. No offense is taken nor intended in case my wording is harsh.

[mjj29]

BunnyGo, on 2011-December-25, 15:53, said:

I think this discussion has left out the interesting possibility that it is DUMMY who has revoked.

Since the heart is the card required by law that he play, and he didn't play it, then by definition dummy has revoked. Just another twist to add to the argument.

Even better, if you say that the trick was hearts and dummy revoked, then the defenders also revoked, so there's no L64A penalty (per L64B7) and you just restore equity under L64C. This seems like the most equitable (hah) outcome - and you might even manage to justify it as being legal. (certainly better than all the solutions that apply revoke penalties to the defenders for dummy's misplay)

[c_corgi]

I agree with BunnyGo, it sounds like dummy has revoked. The revoke is established and cannot be unwound. But surely the suit to follow for the trick is determined by the card played (called) by declarer, not the revoke by dummy, i.e. dummy and a defender both revoked, so there is no rectification (L64B7). Play continues.

If law 45 is interpreted so that the card deemed to have been 'contributed' by dummy is the card called by declarer, and it is deedmed to take precedence over law 61, then it will inevitably lead to the same card being played to more than one trick, thereby invoking L12A2 as suggested by Xiaolongnu.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-December-25, 15:47, said:

Do your five "no"s apply to my summary of facts (made from bluejak's rewording and clarification of OP) or what?

Would you please for the purpose of ruling a result on the board specify exactly which cards you consider played by each of the four players to the trick in which Declarer called a heart from Dummy?

I do hope we agree that if Declarer had called attention to the incorrect lead by Dummy instead of just playing a card from dummy to the next trick then the trick in question would have been corrected as specified in Law 45D, and I expect a very good reason for why you in case consider such correction legal even after each side has played to the next trick.

Heart from dummy (his lowest), club from declarer's RHO, heart from declarer, trump from declarer's LHO.

Yes, if attention had been called in time, the dummy's error should have been corrected. I never said it should be corrected once it is too late per Law 45D to do so.