[iviehoff]

Duplicate posting deleted.

[gordontd]

dburn, on 2011-February-20, 20:19, said:

I am not at all sure I agree with you. After all, in playing a card from one's own hand one first detaches the card, but it isn't played until it is "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" (for declarer) or "held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face" (for a defender).

No, these are the requirements for when a card must be played, not for when it has been played.

L45A tells us:

Quote

Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him.

So, the requirement for when a card has been played is that it have been faced on the table immediately in front of the player.

The trouble with this is that there are players who don't ever put their cards on the table - they hold them steady above the table. Now, if you are going to insist on the distinction between a card that must be played and a card that has been played, this is going to get very messy indeed.

Would there be any problem if in future versions of the Laws they replaced "must be played" with "is considered to have been played"?

[pran]

From OP:

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

Dummy is to lead. Declarer takes ♣4, but changes his mind. and plays ♦K.

This clearly describes two distinct plays:
First the lead of the ♣4
and second the (illegal withdrawal of the ♣4 and) the lead of the ♦K

In the discussion Bluejak asserted:

bluejak, on 2011-February-18, 09:56, said:

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

At least here bluejak admitted that the ♦K was indeed a played card. Sure it was another card played, what on earth is the significance? Do the laws relevant to played cards apply only to played cards, not to another played cards?

iviehoff, on 2011-February-21, 04:05, said:

I find this a rather fine distinction, ♦K is not "played", it is "another card played".
.....(snip)
Declarer's LHO objected to what declarer did immediately after RHO played. Now what would happen if LHO had delayed his objection, for example to the end of the hand? Or at least until after both himself and declarer have played as though the diamond was led. Is the ♣4 still played to that trick? Has RHO (and everyone else no doubt) still revoked? Is it a defective trick with 5 cards in it? I think in that situation the ♣4 was no longer played and the ♦K was, and the answers to the other questions are all "no". But is this merely a private arrangement among the players, or is it a matter of law. Fortunately, I think it is a matter of law.

The legal foundation for this is Law 60, headed "Play after an illegal play", and it starts:

Quote

A. Play of Card after Irregularity

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 when exactly is soon enough to say that it is ♦K and not the ♣4 that was played. I think actually that moment has already arrived. Once RHO has played over dummy's play, the director would be within his rights to say (L60A1) it is already too late, and by playing after it as though ♦K was the played card, it in fact is the legally played card (L60A2). Although ♣4 "must" be played, it would be a 5th card and must be put back.

I think this might be the simplest legal ruling, and gets us away from trying to decide whether RHO's card is a revoke or not.

The only objection against this is that law 60A1 applies explicitly to leads and plays out of turn or prematurely so it isn't immediately obvious that it applies in the present case.

However, whichever way we look at it once we agree that the ♦K was an illegally played card we have Law 47B: A played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal play ....., and once we applied this law we have Law 47D which allows RHO to withdraw his ♦3 without further rectification: 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.)

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2011-February-21, 05:17, said:

The only objection against this is that law 60A1 applies explicitly to leads and plays out of turn or prematurely so it isn't immediately obvious that it applies in the present case.

(Edited to add this comment) It seems to me that the play of the ♦ is premature since it should not have been played at that moment, so it seems to me as if it does apply.

But leaving that aside, then we have to agree that if play proceeded for long enough as if the ♦ is the played card, then the ♦ is the played card, and the ♣ isn't. Which leads to the question of how much needs to have happened after the irregularity before it becomes untangle-able. Perhaps I was wrong, perhaps this isn't a matter of law, it is simply a private arrangement among the players that becomes sufficiently established that the director no longer attempts to untangle it. I suppose that with just one card played after the irregularity it is obvious that it still can be untangled, because we are used to revokes being untangled at that point. But at least with revokes we have a law that tells us precisely when we can no longer untangle it.

This post has been edited by iviehoff: 2011-February-21, 06:07

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-20, 19:48, said:

I understand the argument is that the law says that declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it, and that when the card is named, it is played, and that alternatively declarer may pick up the card, and that the law says nothing about declarer then moving the card to the played position, and therefor the card is played when declarer picks it up, which is certainly different from the situation for the other three players, whose card is not played just because they pick it out of their hand. I also understand that there are places where the laws are deemed not to mean exactly what they say, for various reasons. I had expected this might be such a place, but apparently this is one where we are expected to read the law literally. Fine with me, but I sure wish there was something other than "because that's the way it is" behind this different way of reading certain laws. How the Hell is someone who is not privy to the Secret Handshake supposed to know which laws are to be taken literally, and which not?

The whole approach to learning the application of the Laws of bridge, like learning anything else, is a complicated mixture or reading, training, discussing and so forth. If we reach a convincing answer in this or any other thread we hope and trust that our readers, including th many who never post here, will have learnt something more and the game will benefit.

dburn, on 2011-February-20, 20:19, said:

I am not at all sure I agree with you. After all, in playing a card from one's own hand one first detaches the card, but it isn't played until it is "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" (for declarer) or "held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face" (for a defender). By the same token, a card isn't played from dummy until the card has been moved into whatever is considered the "played position" (at duplicate, behind dummy's remaining cards; at rubber bridge, the centre of the table).

That is: picking up a card is to my way of thinking "deliberately touching" it and you must play it, but you haven't played it until you've put it in the played position and let go of it. The process of playing a card from dummy when dummy isn't there is a two-stage process (just as is the process of playing a card from hand), and the card isn't played until both stages are complete. In support of this I quote the corresponding Law from rubber bridge:

"Each player except dummy should play a card by detaching it from his hand and placing it, face up, on the table where other players can easily reach and see it."

It is all very well saying that the Laws mean something different from what they say, but there is little support for this approach as a generality. Thew Laws make it quite clear that cards are played differently from dummy - they say so explicitly - so saying it must be so because it is so when cards are played otherwise than from dummy is totally unconvincing.

blackshoe, on 2011-February-20, 20:20, said:

Is this another of those "that's just the way it is" things?

No, it is a matter of the English language.

barmar, on 2011-February-20, 23:01, said:

45B says:


Bluejack seems to think that the second sentence is an alternative to the entire first sentence. I think (and I think dburn concurs) that it's an alternative only to the clause "dummy picks up the card". In other words, its simply stating that declarer can perform the physical action normally performed by dummy. But the required action (picking up the card and facing it on the table) is the same regardless of who does it; it doesn't become only "pick up the card" if declarer does it himself -- he still has to face it on the table to complete the process. He also has to name the card BEFORE picking it up.

If it said that, fine, but it does not.

[dburn]

bluejak, on 2011-February-21, 08:10, said:

It is all very well saying that the Laws mean something different from what they say, but there is little support for this approach as a generality. The Laws make it quite clear that cards are played differently from dummy - they say so explicitly - so saying it must be so because it is so when cards are played otherwise than from dummy is totally unconvincing.

That isn't what I said. But it might assist your comprehension to read Law 45B carefully:

Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge said:

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.

Now, dummy's card is already face up on the table, so what does it mean to say that dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table? Why, that dummy picks it up and puts it on the table in some other position than it currently occupies. The same process applies when declarer plays a card in dummy's absence: he picks it up (at which point it must be played), then places it in "the played position" (at which point it has been played).

bluejak, on 2011-February-21, 08:10, said:

No, it is a matter of the English language.

No, it isn't. There is no reason at all why the term "designate" cannot refer to a physical method of handling a card, other than in your imagination - no sense of the word "designate" in the English language is incompatible with this interpretation.

[pran]

pran, on 2011-February-21, 05:17, said:

The only objection against this is that law 60A1 applies explicitly to leads and plays out of turn or prematurely so it isn't immediately obvious that it applies in the present case.

iviehoff, on 2011-February-21, 06:00, said:

(Edited to add this comment) It seems to me that the play of the ♦ is premature since it should not have been played at that moment, so it seems to me as if it does apply.

I agree, this could be a possible approach although I do not for a second believe that declarer played the ♦K prematurely (to the next trick). He could not possibly expect to have the lead in dummy for the trick after the trick to which he led the ♣4.

But that approach will not in any way change the fact that the ♦K is the currently led card as RHO has played to the trick with his ♦3 before attention was called to the irregularity.

Whether this solution is acceptable (or reasonable) is a different question, personally I don't think it is.

[blackshoe]

dburn, on 2011-February-21, 08:42, said:

That isn't what I said. But it might assist your comprehension to read Law 45B carefully:

Law 45B said:

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.

Now, dummy's card is already face up on the table, so what does it mean to say that dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table? Why, that dummy picks it up and puts it on the table in some other position than it currently occupies. The same process applies when declarer plays a card in dummy's absence: he picks it up (at which point it must be played), then places it in "the played position" (at which point it has been played).

Apparently it doesn't assist my comprehension, because as I see it, the first clause of the first sentence in that law says that dummy's card is played when declarer designates it, not when dummy places it.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-21, 11:49, said:

Apparently it doesn't assist my comprehension, because as I see it, the first clause of the first sentence in that law says that dummy's card is played when declarer designates it, not when dummy places it.

When declarer plays the card himself, though, no one actually "designates" or as per the law "names" it.

[blackshoe]

I wasn't talking about that, Stefanie, but only about the normal way in which cards are played from dummy.

At this point I have four questions for the forum, and in particular for dburn:

1. If declarer names a card in dummy, has that card been played?
2. If declarer points at a card in dummy, has that card been played?
3. If declarer picks up a card from dummy, has that card been played?
4. If declarer touches a card from dummy, but does not pick it up, has that card been played?

Please explain your reasoning.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-21, 14:56, said:

I wasn't talking about that, Stefanie, but only about the normal way in which cards are played from dummy.

At this point I have four questions for the forum, and in particular for dburn:

1. If declarer names a card in dummy, has that card played?
2. If declarer points at a card in dummy, has that card played?
3. If declarer picks up a card from dummy, has that card played?
4. If declarer touches a card from dummy, but does not pick it up, has that card played?

Please explain your reasoning.

I take the liberty to give my answers just before I go to bed:

Quote

Law 45B: Play of Card from Dummy
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

1. Obviously yes
2. IMHO No, not until dummy has picked it up and faced it on the table.
3. IMHO No, not until declarer faces the card on the table.
4, IMHO No.

Quote

Law 45C3: 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.

Common to items 2-4 is that the card must be played unless declarer says (for instance):
2: "that is not the card I pointed to"
3: "I wanted the card beyond that one"
4: "I was about to arrange the cards more properly"

[dburn]

It occurs to me that Law45C3 may (and probably does) intend that in playing a card from dummy, declarer should still name the card even if he is going to pick it up himself.

My answers to blackshoe's questions are the same as pran's. The objective is that everyone still at the table should know when a card has been played and when it has not, so that everyone shall be clear whose turn it is to play the next card. Thus:

1. If declarer names a card in dummy, that card has been played (but if declarer without pause for thought names some other card, and the Director is satisfied that the original utterance was unintentional, Law 45C4b applies).

2. If declarer points at a card in dummy, and it is clear which card has been so indicated, that card must be played, but it has not been played until either dummy or declarer has faced it in the played position.

3. If declarer picks up a card from dummy, and does not stipulate or otherwise indicate that he is doing so for the purpose of arranging the dummy or reaching some other card, that card must be played, but it has not been played until declarer has moved it to the played position.

4. If declarer deliberately touches a card in dummy, and does not stipulate or otherwise indicate that he is doing so for the purpose of arranging the dummy or of dislodging the fly that has settled on the card, that card must be played, but it has not been played until declarer has moved it to the played position.

Note that the term "played position" is somewhat vague; when dummy is at the table, the "played position" usually occupies some portion of the table between the rest of dummy's cards and dummy; but when dummy is absent, the "played position" may be between dummy's cards and dummy or between dummy's cards and declarer.

Note also that rigorous enforcement of Law 45A is for practical purposes impossible: very often the fourth card played to a trick will not be faced on the table, but will be shown to the assembled company at some height above the table before being turned face down among the player's quitted cards. Moreover, as gordontd says, not everyone "plays" a card by facing it on the table even when it is not the fourth card played to the trick. There is not much I or anyone else can do about this.

As with playing cards from hand, the idea is that a card must be played if it has been detached from the rest of the cards in the hand that contains it, without a prior stipulation or other clear indication to the effect that declarer does not intend to play the card. Also, because dummy is a special case, when declarer names a card in the dummy and gives no indication that he does not intend to play the card, it has been played

[Vampyr]

Though the ♦K lead was not legal, if RHO didn't see the gesture with the club, and/or didn't know that it meant the card was played, RHO has not committed an irregularity. How can he be penalised? I really don't think that penalising him and then turning to L23 as a last resort can be right. Yes, declarer "could have known" that tempting RHO into creating a penalty card might be to his advantage, but it still smacks of the old Edgar Kaplan approach of deciding you don't like it and finding a Law to apply.

I once had an experience a little like this. Declarer won a trick with ♦A. After the trick was quitted, declarer began to think, which he did for quite some time, and I began, as usual, to stare vacantly into space. When I eventually looked down at the table to see if there had been any developments, the ♦A was on the table, face up, in front of declarer. So I followed suit...

What happened was that while declarer was thinking, he was playing with his card, flipping it and moving it about. When I looked, he happened to be holding it face up, in the played position. The director (was it you, Gordon?) ruled not that I had led out of turn, but that I (perhaps not being aware of the number of ♦Aces in the average deck) had been fooled into following suit. (I don't mean to imply that declarer did anything on purpose.)

When it looks for all the world as if a card has been led, and from the correct hand, it is normal for the next player to play to the trick. It is not normal for the next player to wonder whether the card has "really" been led.

By the way, perhaps there is a bit of confusion, with some people thinking that the change of card is from ♣4 to ♦K. That change is irrelevant; it is the change from ♦K to ♣4 that matters for ruling purposes.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-24, 11:09, said:

Though the ♦K lead was not legal, if RHO didn't see the gesture with the club, and/or didn't know that it meant the card was played, RHO has not committed an irregularity. How can he be penalised? I really don't think that penalising him and then turning to L23 as a last resort can be right. Yes, declarer "could have known" that tempting RHO into creating a penalty card might be to his advantage, but it still smacks of the old Edgar Kaplan approach of deciding you don't like it and finding a Law to apply.

I once had an experience a little like this. Declarer won a trick with ♦A. After the trick was quitted, declarer began to think, which he did for quite some time, and I began, as usual, to stare vacantly into space. When I eventually looked down at the table to see if there had been any developments, the ♦A was on the table, face up, in front of declarer. So I followed suit...

What happened was that while declarer was thinking, he was playing with his card, flipping it and moving it about. When I looked, he happened to be holding it face up, in the played position. The director (was it you, Gordon?) ruled not that I had led out of turn, but that I (perhaps not being aware of the number of ♦Aces in the average deck) had been fooled into following suit. (I don't mean to imply that declarer did anything on purpose.)

When it looks for all the world as if a card has been led, and from the correct hand, it is normal for the next player to play to the trick. It is not normal for the next player to wonder whether the card has "really" been led.

By the way, perhaps there is a bit of confusion, with some people thinking that the change of card is from ♣4 to ♦K. That change is irrelevant; it is the change from ♦K to ♣4 that matters for ruling purposes.

Much of this thread has been caused by bluejak's statements (at least the way I have understood them) to the effect that the ♦K was never played (apparently because such play would be illegal and against law 45C3).

I would greatly appreciate his clarification whether he still considers that the ♣4 was the only card played from dummy to the trick in question, and if so what description should be given to declarer's action of picking up the ♦K and place it in what apparently looked like a played position after putting the ♣4 back among dummy's cards?

Notice that once we accept that the ♦K was illegally played then we have a very simple ruling by applying in sequence: Law 47B (ordering the illegal play of ♦K to be withdrawn and replaced with the originally led ♣4), and then Law 47D (allowing the subsequent play of ♦3 to be withdrawn).

Remember the description in OP:

Quote

Dummy is to lead. Declarer takes ♣4, but changes his mind. and plays ♦K.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-February-24, 16:18, said:

Notice that once we accept that the ♦K was illegally played then we have a very simple ruling by applying in sequence: Law 47B (ordering the illegal play of ♦K to be withdrawn and replaced with the originally led ♣4), and then Law 47D (allowing the subsequent play of ♦3 to be withdrawn).

Funny, that's the ruling (and basis) that I suggested about 65 posts ago.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-24, 17:22, said:

Funny, that's the ruling (and basis) that I suggested about 65 posts ago.

And a very fine suggestion it was. The same effect is of course achieved if we use the revoke Laws rather than Law 47 to rule that declarer cannot play ♦K to this trick because he is committed to playing ♣4 instead.

Sven thinks declarer has already played ♣4, so that ♦K must be withdrawn to correct the illegal play of ♦K under Law 47. I don't think declarer has already played ♣4, but since he is committed to playing it, ♦K must be withdrawn because it is a revoke under Law 61. For practical purposes this does not matter, because the ways in which Law 47 and the revoke Laws kick in to allow ♦3 to be withdrawn without further rectification are in effect identical.

Gordontd suggests that the Laws be amended so that a card that must be played is "considered to have been played". I think that this is less desirable than the alternative of drawing a distinction between a card that must be played and a card that has been played, because of the complications that might otherwise follow when a defender on lead has a major penalty card.

But those complications are no great matter; what is absolutely clear is that the chap who followed to ♦K with ♦3 [a] did not revoke; [b] can withdraw ♦3 without rectification; and [c] may be assumed by his partner but not by declarer to have chosen to play the three of diamonds under the king. That is: if declarer later has to guess diamonds for his contract, he may not "know" that his RHO does not have ♦A.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-24, 17:22, said:

Funny, that's the ruling (and basis) that I suggested about 65 posts ago.

Me too

dburn, on 2011-February-24, 18:23, said:

And a very fine suggestion it was. The same effect is of course achieved if we use the revoke Laws rather than Law 47 to rule that declarer cannot play ♦K to this trick because he is committed to playing ♣4 instead.

Sven thinks declarer has already played ♣4, so that ♦K must be withdrawn to correct the illegal play of ♦K under Law 47. I don't think declarer has already played ♣4, but since he is committed to playing it, ♦K must be withdrawn because it is a revoke under Law 61. For practical purposes this does not matter, because the ways in which Law 47 and the revoke Laws kick in to allow ♦3 to be withdrawn without further rectification are in effect identical.

Gordontd suggests that the Laws be amended so that a card that must be played is "considered to have been played". I think that this is less desirable than the alternative of drawing a distinction between a card that must be played and a card that has been played, because of the complications that might otherwise follow when a defender on lead has a major penalty card.

But those complications are no great matter; what is absolutely clear is that the chap who followed to ♦K with ♦3 {a} did not revoke; {b} can withdraw ♦3 without rectification; and {c} may be assumed by his partner but not by declarer to have chosen to play the three of diamonds under the king. That is: if declarer later has to guess diamonds for his contract, he may not "know" that his RHO does not have ♦A.

Very well summed up.
However, it doesn't really matter whether the ♣4 has been or must be played. In either case the subsequent lead of the ♦K is illegal, and once attention is called to this irregularity the ♦K must be withdrawn and the ♣4 must be led instead. Involving law 61A and designating the lead of the ♦K a revoke leads to the same result as directly applying Law 45C3 but seems an unneccessary complication. We will use Law 47B in either case.

The important fact is that the ♦K was indeed played and that this play was illegal.

Now, if we only could get bluejak to concede this fact so that every question of revoke rectification against RHO (playing the ♦3) disappears.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-24, 17:22, said:

Funny, that's the ruling (and basis) that I suggested about 65 posts ago.

And I suggested it about 6 posts before that... anyway, I think we will have to be satisfied with a near-consensus -- it does not seem that bluejak will change his mind and go with the mainstream.

[blackshoe]

I am not so much concerned with "mainstream" as I am with "correct", so it worries me that David disagrees.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-27, 20:24, said:

I am not so much concerned with "mainstream" as I am with "correct", so it worries me that David disagrees.

What surprises me is that when met with other (well founded) opinions he just seems to argue that he is right and others are wrong, and then simply goes silent without bothering even to answer specific relevant questions or explain why other opinions are wrong.

In this specific thread I have no idea whether he is silent because he eventually agreed with "mainstream", or if he is silent because of his supremacy?

But I can no longer care to be "worried".