[knyblad]

Dummy went to the toilet. Dummy is to lead. Declarer takes ♣4, but changes his mind. and plays ♦K. The next defender plays ♦3, before the other defender stops the play and asks declarer shouldn't play ♣4.

We have not been capable of finding the right law to apply, and in this includes some of Denmark's best TDs.

The decision would be easy if had the next defender not played ♦3. In that case the we can simply apply §45C3, and change the lead to ♣4, but have the next defender accepted the lead of ♦K by playing ♦3?

In case you suggest that the lead should be changed to ♣4, what happens to ♦3. Can the next defender take it back? Will it been a penalty card or can it simply be taken back and §16D making UI to declarer and AI to the other defender? Further, in case the lead is changed back, what is the last chance for changing the lead?

Please write which laws you are using in your decision.

[bluejak]

Quote

A card in the dummy must be played if it has been deliberately touched by declarer except for the purpose either of arranging dummy’s cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched.

So the ♣4 is played and may not be changed.

Quote

A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E).

So the ♦3 is played and may not be changed. If it is a revoke then the normal penalties apply, ie it must be corrected and it becomes a major penalty card.

Is this fair? Well, maybe not! But it is the Law.

Anything else? Well, declarer attempted to change a card illegally, so now:

Quote

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

This is a matter of judgement, so whether to adjust depends somewhat on such things as whether the TD feels the next defender was talked into it, and so on. My instinct is to adjust it back to the position if the ♦3 were not played.

So, what do my friends Jesper Dybdal and Jens Brix Christiansen think?

[blackshoe]

David's references are, respectively, to Laws 45C3, 45C1, and 23.

[Vampyr]

But what about 47D?

After an opponent’s change of play a played card may be withdrawn and
returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be
substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.)

Hasn't declarer changed his play from the diamond to the club?

[bluejak]

Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn. You know, this nice pretty new forum does have several problems. Naturally I put the references in in the way that works on every other forum - and did not notice they did not come through. Damn.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-17, 11:07, said:

But what about 47D?

After an opponent’s change of play a played card may be withdrawn and
returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be
substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.)

Hasn't declarer changed his play from the diamond to the club?

No. Unless you can tell me how you can change a played card.

[mrdct]

knyblad, on 2011-February-17, 09:19, said:

Dummy went to the toilet.

Is dummy allowed to leave the table in the middle of a hand to go to the toilet?

How is dummy able to comply with Law 74B1 while he or she is on a toilet break?

How does dummy get around Law 74C8?

Being somewhat security conscious, my personal policy is that if one of my opponents wants to go to the toilet during a match either myself or my partner goes with them, so such breaks will only occur between hands or else everything stops with the hand in progress until dummy and the accompanying defender return to the table.

[knyblad]

Thank you, Bluejak for your answer. However, there are a number of points, I do not quite understand.

bluejak, on 2011-February-17, 09:53, said:

So the ♣4 is played and may not be changed.

As far as I can see, ♣4 is a card that must be played. It is not a card that has been played. The law makers went through the trouble of distinguishing between cards that must be played and cards that are played. They did it to handle situations like declarer asking for card A, and RHO hearing card B and plays a card before dummy places card A as played.

Back to this problem. I think, declarer has played ♦K. He went through the process described in law 45B, and dummy has not previously played a card to this trick.

bluejak, on 2011-February-17, 09:53, said:

So the ♦3 is played and may not be changed. If it is a revoke then the normal penalties apply, ie it must be corrected and it becomes a major penalty card.

Why can't we use law 47E2a and let LHO take back the card? Placing ♦K as played can clearly be called misinforming RHO. I do not know of any law that states that a player has to be informed using words in order 47E2a.

bluejak, on 2011-February-17, 09:53, said:

So, what do my friends Jesper Dybdal and Jens Brix Christiansen think?

Jesper is not that interested in tournament direction any more and is not active in the Danish forums. Jens Brix is the original poster of the problem. He has been shouting down the solutions other have suggested, e.g., he is the one that pointed out that ♣4 was a card that must be played, not a card that is played.

[gordontd]

knyblad, on 2011-February-18, 01:55, said:

Why can't we use law 47E2a and let LHO take back the card? Placing ♦K as played can clearly be called misinforming RHO. I do not know of any law that states that a player has to be informed using words in order 47E2a.

I have on one occasion ruled that a player was misinformed by his opponent leaving a bidding card from the previous hand on the table, and the WBF Chief TD agreed with me, but the wording of 47E2a is rather more specific than just "misinformation", and I don't think you could apply it in that way to this situation.

[blackshoe]

Whether the ♣4 was played depends on what actually happened at the table, and we aren't exactly told that. In your OP you said "Declarer takes 4♣, but then changes his mind". So it seems declarer picked up the card (and "Law 45B: in playing from dummy, declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself"), but it's not clear whether he placed it in the played position. From what you now say, apparently he did not. So the ♣4 must be played, but has not yet been played*. Now declarer puts (presumably) the ♣4 back in the dummy, picks up the ♦K, and puts it in the played position. This is an illegal play and Law 47B tells us this card is withdrawn and put back in the dummy. Now the ♣4 is played, as it must be. Now Law 47D applies to declarer's RHO's ♦3 - it is withdrawn, put back in the defender's hand, and there is no further rectification. Law 16D applies to this card: knowledge of it is AI to the defending side, and UI to declarer.

I don't see how 47E would apply to this situation. The applicable Laws seem to me to be 45B, 47B, 47D, and 16D. Sorry, David.

*I note that this is a bit different from the normal situation: when declarer designates a card from dummy, the card is played when he designates it (Law 45B, first clause of the first sentence), and dummy's placing it in the played position is merely administrative.

If the ♣4 had been placed in the played position, however briefly, then I would agree with David.

As for dummy being allowed to go to the toilet, if he's not I, for one, am going to have to give up bridge.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-18, 07:56, said:

As for dummy being allowed to go to the toilet, if he's not I, for one, am going to have to give up bridge.

That doesn't answer the question though. Is dummy allowed to leave the table in the middle of a hand?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-18, 07:56, said:

As for dummy being allowed to go to the toilet, if he's not I, for one, am going to have to give up bridge.

I am more concerned with who goes to the bar.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-February-17, 11:10, said:

No. Unless you can tell me how you can change a played card.

Pretty much the way declarer did in this case.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-February-17, 17:46, said:

Is dummy allowed to leave the table in the middle of a hand to go to the toilet?

How is dummy able to comply with Law 74B1 while he or she is on a toilet break?

How does dummy get around Law 74C8?

Being somewhat security conscious, my personal policy is that if one of my opponents wants to go to the toilet during a match either myself or my partner goes with them, so such breaks will only occur between hands or else everything stops with the hand in progress until dummy and the accompanying defender return to the table.

In the events I have played in from clubs to international trials I have only once in about several hundred events [or several thousand if you include normal club evenings] played in an event where I could not go to the toilet. It is true that I have also directed a few. It is considered normal enough in most jurisdictions.

Law 74B1 is ridiculous: no-one would consider that a dummy who needs to be absent is paying insufficient attention: his attention is sufficient for what he is doing [we hope ].

Law 74C8 is ridiculous: the need is obvious.

You must be a very very suspicious person.

[bluejak]

bluejak, on 2011-February-17, 11:10, said:

No. Unless you can tell me how you can change a played card.

Vampyr, on 2011-February-18, 08:59, said:

Pretty much the way declarer did in this case.

Ok, what I mean is how can he change a played card legally and with any effect. You could, for example, at trick eight, take a small club out of your hand and change it for the opening lead: that is a change, but it is obviously illegal and has no force. Once a card is played the player may not change it because he changes his mind.

[bluejak]

For some things MultiQuote works quite well. But it is a pain for this type of interspersed [is that the word?] comments.

knyblad, on 2011-February-18, 01:55, said:

Thank you, Bluejak for your answer. However, there are a number of points, I do not quite understand.

bluejak, on 2011-February-17, 09:53, said:

So the ♣4 is played and may not be changed.

knyblad, on 2011-February-18, 01:55, said:

As far as I can see, ♣4 is a card that must be played. It is not a card that has been played. The law makers went through the trouble of distinguishing between cards that must be played and cards that are played. They did it to handle situations like declarer asking for card A, and RHO hearing card B and plays a card before dummy places card A as played.

Yes, I over-simplified. It is true that the ♣4 must be played. But that is a distinction without a difference: it just means that now the actual motions of playing the card must be followed, and the effect is that it is played.

Incidentally I disagree with you totally as to the reason for the distinction. They did it because there is a correct way to play a card, and other things with the same effect must be covered.

knyblad, on 2011-February-18, 01:55, said:

Back to this problem. I think, declarer has played ♦K. He went through the process described in law 45B, and dummy has not previously played a card to this trick.

No, it is not played: the ♣4 must be played, so a later attempt to play another card is merely another card played.

knyblad, on 2011-February-18, 01:55, said:

Why can't we use law 47E2a and let LHO take back the card? Placing ♦K as played can clearly be called misinforming RHO. I do not know of any law that states that a player has to be informed using words in order 47E2a.

What "explanation"?

knyblad, on 2011-February-18, 01:55, said:

Jesper is not that interested in tournament direction any more and is not active in the Danish forums. Jens Brix is the original poster of the problem. He has been shouting down the solutions other have suggested, e.g., he is the one that pointed out that ♣4 was a card that must be played, not a card that is played.

Sad about Jesper. But while I have disagreed with Jens Brix before, it is always worrying when he disagrees.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-February-18, 09:34, said:

Ok, what I mean is how can he change a played card legally and with any effect. You could, for example, at trick eight, take a small club out of your hand and change it for the opening lead: that is a change, but it is obviously illegal and has no force. Once a card is played the player may not change it because he changes his mind.

I don't think anybody here disputes (or has disputed) the fact that the ♣4 must be played and in fact has been played from dummy by declarer.
What bothers me is the fact that declarer has illegally changed his play from dummy and replaced it with the ♦K and what consequences that shall have if RHO now follows suit to the ♦K with his ♦3.

As far as I can see the laws are silent on this situation. If nobody reacts I assume the play of the diamonds will stand as played (simply because nobody reacts). So the question is: What law (or laws) shall apply in case LHO reacts after RHO has played his ♦3 to the trick?

To rule that the ♣4 is played seems fair enough, but then to rule that the ♦3 constitutes a revoke if RHO also has a club in his hand seems outrageous to me.

When there is no directly applicable law we must look for other laws that apply in similar situations to the extent that we might draw inferences on how to rule. One such law is L45D which allows RHO to withdraw a card played after the irregularity but before attention was called to it in a specific, but not too different situation.

There may be other useful laws as well (e.g. L47D), but I strongly resist any suggestion that RHO shall be "penalized" with a revoke and eventually a penalty card from following suit to an illegal play by declarer after this illegal play is corrected.

[axman]

pran, on 2011-February-18, 10:06, said:

I don't think anybody here disputes (or has disputed) the fact that the ♣4 must be played and in fact has been played from dummy by declarer.
What bothers me is the fact that declarer has illegally changed his play from dummy and replaced it with the ♦K and what consequences that shall have if RHO now follows suit to the ♦K with his ♦3.

As far as I can see the laws are silent on this situation. If nobody reacts I assume the play of the diamonds will stand as played (simply because nobody reacts). So the question is: What law (or laws) shall apply in case LHO reacts after RHO has played his ♦3 to the trick?

To rule that the ♣4 is played seems fair enough, but then to rule that the ♦3 constitutes a revoke if RHO also has a club in his hand seems outrageous to me.

When there is no directly applicable law we must look for other laws that apply in similar situations to the extent that we might draw inferences on how to rule. One such law is L45D which allows RHO to withdraw a card played after the irregularity but before attention was called to it in a specific, but not too different situation.

There may be other useful laws as well (e.g. L47D), but I strongly resist any suggestion that RHO shall be "penalized" with a revoke and eventually a penalty card from following suit to an illegal play by declarer after this illegal play is corrected.

I am inclined to believe that calling the DK a change of play is a mischaracterization. Declarer played the [dummy’s] C4, then the DK, and then dummy’s LHO played the D3. I find the law at best hazy as to just what the condition is of those two cards from dummy.

The D3 was a failure to follow suit to the card that was led**; whether it was a revoke has not been established. As such, should the D3 be in fact a revoke I do not find it outrageous to deal with it as the law prescribes. My personal view is that the way the law is worded is outrageous in its effects and is unsuitable as a code for sensible people.

I’ll suggest that the law is untenable and being a sensible person I leave to non sensible people to sort it out.

One last thing. From L53A1&2:
1. A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely, and before rectification has been assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of that offence.

2. Once the right to rectification has been forfeited, the illegal play is treated as though it were in turn (except when Law 53C applies).

So, both of dummy’s plays are treated as in turn.

The law, whatever its wisdom appears to place the sole burden for staying out of trouble upon dummy’s LHO. One should hope that as someone who pledges to rule in accordance with law that whatever resistance you have to doing so in the end would be overcome.

**ostensibly the first card played to a trick, which, by law is a card played from the hand that won the previous trick [the OL not withstanding]

[pran]

axman, on 2011-February-18, 12:50, said:

I am inclined to believe that calling the DK a change of play is a mischaracterization. Declarer played the [dummy’s] C4, then the DK, and then dummy’s LHO played the D3. I find the law at best hazy as to just what the condition is of those two cards from dummy.

The D3 was a failure to follow suit to the card that was led
.........
**ostensibly the first card played to a trick, which, by law is a card played from the hand that won the previous trick [the OL not withstanding]

My point is that the ♦3 was not played to the ♣4, it was played to the ♦K.

I consider it a fact from OP that declarer did indeed play two cards from Dummy: First the ♣4 and then (illegally, for whatever reason) the ♦K. This second play was definitely illegal, but it was still a play.

On second thoughts I am convinced that Law 47B must apply to the illegal play of ♦K, and thereafter Law 47D clearly applies to the play of ♦3.

[bluejak]

One problem we have is that people who do things wrong often get our sympathy, when we should just follow the Law. The attempted change of play of a card was an infraction and the TD should have been called. Now when the defender played a diamond he did something wrong, but instinctively we do not want to apply the Law. However, we should just apply it, and then consider an adjustment under Law 23.