[Lanor Fow]

Awarding 60/40 or 55/45 via 12c1{c} I think would be a Reverly ruling. A play where there is UI can't be partly legal.

[pran]

I have been following this discussion with some surprise.

Dummy has clearly violated Law 45F and (technically) suggested a card. Law 57C is very clear that East is not subject to any rectification or penalty in this situation. Consequently any information available from the card played by East is authorized to West.

There has been some arguments that dummy did not suggest any play. This is irrelevant: Law 45F uses the words: dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement), and the clause of arrangement only protects him if this purpose is clear, for instance from his announcement.

[campboy]

 blackshoe, on 2013-December-10, 23:07, said:

I reread the OP, and laws 45B, 45D and 57, and I think the proper interpretation is that dummy does not "play" cards, he puts them in the played position, on instruction from declarer. If he puts a card in the played position absent such instruction, he has illegally suggested a play, and Law 57 is invoked. The rectification referenced in 57C1 is the one specified in 57A, which would otherwise make the declarer's RHO's play a major penalty card. So in this case it's not a major penalty card.

The laws are a bit confused on this, but dummy does "play" cards: law 42A3. What should happen is that cards from dummy are each played twice, first by declarer designating them, and secondly by dummy physically moving them.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2013-December-11, 09:14, said:

The laws are a bit confused on this, but dummy does "play" cards: law 42A3. What should happen is that cards from dummy are each played twice, first by declarer designating them, and secondly by dummy physically moving them.

Cards from dummy are played by declarer naming them. Dummy just fulfils the play by physically moving the called cards to a played position. When the laws use the words "dummy plays" they refer to the physical action taken by dummy, not to the legal action.

Whenever dummy touches any of his cards during the play period he violates Law 45F (unless it is clear to everybody at the table that he was just rearranging his cards). If RHO then plays a card, effectively out of turn, Law 57C1 is the only applicable Law.

[blackshoe]

Can't I?

Law 23 adjustments are not automatic.

[blackshoe]

 Lanor Fow, on 2013-December-11, 06:11, said:

Awarding 60/40 or 55/45 via 12c1{c} I think would be a Reverly ruling. A play where there is UI can't be partly legal.

My thinking was that absent the UI West might or might not discard the ♦K. I don't see how that's a Revely ruling.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-December-11, 07:41, said:

Dummy has clearly violated Law 45F and (technically) suggested a card. Law 57C is very clear that East is not subject to any rectification or penalty in this situation. Consequently any information available from the card played by East is authorized to West.

The conclusion in your last sentence does not follow from the premise in your second, which is wrong anyway. I maintain that the rectification concerned is that specified in 57A. AFAIK since that rectification exists (even if it does not apply) you can't substitute another rectification, such as adjusting on the grounds there's no rectification (part of Law 12, I don't feel like looking up the specifics). So in effect "no rectification" period. But 57C doesn't say a thing about penalties, so "or penalty" in your second sentence is wrong. Not that it matters — we're talking about rectification, not penalties. Also, the provisions of Law 16A are not changed by Law 57C - what is and is not authorized is still as defined by that law. If you want to argue that West's knowledge of East's ♦K is not unauthorized according to 16A, have at it.

[mink]

Bridge is played clockwise. This is so basic that the Laws fail to state it explicitly for the play of the cards. If some Law might declare that some play out of rotation is considered to be a legal play under certain circumstances, I would expect the Law to state this explicitly, maybe like "The card played out of rotation becomes a legally played card, and the play out of rotation is a legal action and not an irregularity." In contrast to that, if a law says "A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner ..." (btw. Pran, there is no "any"), the play out of rotation is still an infraction and not legal.

If a Law says "The penalty for driving across a junction while traffic light was red is not executed if the traffic light was red for less than a second in the moment the car passed it.", this does not mean that it is legal or advisable to do so. Consequently, if an accident occurs, the driver who ignored the red light is considered guilty.

Karl

[mycroft]

it's an infraction. But it's an infraction without rectification, and I don't see how "there's no penalty, but there's a penalty" works. I definitely think that if the OS (and by that I mean dummy) gains by doing this, then there's something fundamentally wrong with the way the Law is being interpreted. I believe strongly that the play is not UI, it's simply accepting a play out of turn; and that any potential bad score the defenders could have got had play run completely to form that is no longer available after the infraction is a really nice incentive to 'shut up and be dummy next time'.

If told to rule otherwise, I will. But I really hope I won't be.

[nige1]

 pran, on 2013-December-11, 07:41, said:

I have been following this discussion with some surprise.

Yes. Surprising, in the light of the laws that RMB1 and Pran quote:

TFLB L45D said:

After dummy's hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested.

TFLB L57C1 said:

A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands, nor if dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played. A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit, is not considered to be played until declarer has instructed (or indicated¹⁸) the play.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-December-11, 13:18, said:

The conclusion in your last sentence does not follow from the premise in your second, which is wrong anyway. I maintain that the rectification concerned is that specified in 57A. AFAIK since that rectification exists (even if it does not apply) you can't substitute another rectification, such as adjusting on the grounds there's no rectification (part of Law 12, I don't feel like looking up the specifics). So in effect "no rectification" period. But 57C doesn't say a thing about penalties, so "or penalty" in your second sentence is wrong. Not that it matters — we're talking about rectification, not penalties. Also, the provisions of Law 16A are not changed by Law 57C - what is and is not authorized is still as defined by that law. If you want to argue that West's knowledge of East's ♦K is not unauthorized according to 16A, have at it.

I included the reference to penalty so that an unqualified director should not be tempted to use Law 90A and give East a procedure penalty.

And I think Nige1 summed it up perfectly, no need for me to elaborate any further. Yes, there is absolutely no reason for any rectificatgion against East.

[barmar]

I agree with the people who say that "no rectification" means that existence of East's ♦Q is AI to West, UI to South. But I sure hope no one thinks that the adjusted clause criteria of 45D is met -- the cards in dummy are equivalent, so the suggested play can't help declarer. The only thing that happened wrong is that the premature play from dummy induced East to play prematurely, it didn't have any effect on the cards.

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2013-December-11, 15:16, said:

Yes, there is absolutely no reason for any rectificatgion against East.

Quite. I find the suggestion astonishing.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-December-11, 16:09, said:

I agree with the people who say that "no rectification" means that existence of East's ♦Q is AI to West, UI to South.

Okay. What is your legal reasoning for this position?

[iviehoff]

 blackshoe, on 2013-December-11, 13:18, said:

If you want to argue that West's knowledge of East's ♦K is not unauthorized according to 16A, have at it.

If you look in the wrong place, you won't find it. But for me it's implicit in 16D if nothing else. 45D gives E the right to withdraw the card for reason of innocence, and play it again at the proper time, and West's knowledge is not UI via 16D.

If declarer had explicitly played the card from dummy out of rotation we wouldn't be arguing about this. Dummy playing it for him is really no different.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2013-December-11, 16:09, said:

I agree with the people who say that "no rectification" means that existence of East's ♦Q is AI to West, UI to South.

 blackshoe, on 2013-December-11, 18:30, said:

Okay. What is your legal reasoning for this position?

If the Director rules that East may withdraw his ♦Q and East does so then all inferences from seeing the ♦Q is UI to South until that card is again played by East. (Law 16D2)

All inferences from seeing the ♦Q is AI to West all the time. (Laws 57C1 and 16D1).

If the ♦Q remains exposed (played) all the time then there is of course no question about UI related to this card.

[pran]

 iviehoff, on 2013-December-12, 04:19, said:

If you look in the wrong place, you won't find it. But for me it's implicit in 16D if nothing else. 45D gives E the right to withdraw the card for reason of innocence, and play it again at the proper time, and West's knowledge is not UI via 16D.

If declarer had explicitly played the card from dummy out of rotation we wouldn't be arguing about this. Dummy playing it for him is really no different.

Quite so. Law 57C1 (together with Law 45F) does not distinguish between declarer actually playing out of rotation from dummy and dummy touching i.e. suggesting a play.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2013-December-12, 04:27, said:

If the Director rules that East may withdraw his ♦Q and East does so then all inferences from seeing the ♦Q is UI to South until that card is again played by East. (Law 16D2)

All inferences from seeing the ♦Q is AI to West all the time. (Laws 57C1 and 16D1).

That was what I was thinking of, but I didn't look up the specific laws at the time I posted.

[mink]

It appears to me that there are some misconceptions about the Laws that are revealed in this thread.


1. People think that it is possible to accept a card played out of rotation. But this is only true for cards led - see Law 53. A Law that says something like this for cards played out of rotoation subsequently to a trick does not exist. A card played out of rotation to a trick after the lead cannot be accepted by an opponent, and if the LHO of a player who played out of rotation plays a card, this one is out of rotation, too, no matter if the dummy suggested a play or a card was really played out of rotation.


2. People think that Law 45D is applicable in our case. This is not true. When Law 45D refers to a card "played" by the dummy, it is assumed that it is the dummy's turn to lead or play a subsequent card. Only then a defender can reasonably assume that the card was played, because he just overheard what the declarer said or did not see the gesture by which the declarer instructed the dummy to play. If something happens with the dummy when it is not his turn, then usually defenders are aware that this is not a legal action. There is no Law that enables them to do something illegal themselves after that. If some defender accidentally plays out of rotation after an out-of-rotation action by the dummy, this defender is protected by Law 57C, but not by Law 45D. (It would also be very inconsistent if both Laws applied.) Please note that there is no real penalty for an out-of-rotation subsequent play by the dummy or the declarer himself, therefore this is an irregularity but not an infraction. The same is true for a defender who plays out of rotation after his partner has played to the trick. But an action that invokes Law 57 is always an infraction.

The fact that the provisions of Law 45D do not apply if the declarer leads from his hand and then really plays the dummy before any opponent does something also indicates that only Law 57C is applicable. Declarer playing from both hands is only mentioned there and nowhere else.


3. People think that Law 57C disables any rectification for which a connection to play out of turn by a defender can be found. This is not true. Rather, only a rectification that aims at the act of playing before his partner is prohibited. That means, in our case, that if East had played the ♣2 prematurely, really no rectification at all would have been necessary. But playing the ♦Q is evil. It gives UI to partner, and East could have known that his side will benefit. If this has been done deliberately, which seems likely for me, it is unethically.

Karl

[axman]

 mink, on 2013-December-12, 17:51, said:

It appears to me that there are some misconceptions about the Laws that are revealed in this thread.


2. People think that Law 45D is applicable in our case. This is not true. When Law 45D refers to a card "played" by the dummy, it is assumed that it is the dummy's turn to lead or play a subsequent card. Only then a defender can reasonably assume that the card was played, because he just overheard what the declarer said or did not see the gesture by which the declarer instructed the dummy to play. If something happens with the dummy when it is not his turn, then usually defenders are aware that this is not a legal action. There is no Law that enables them to do something illegal themselves after that. If some defender accidentally plays out of rotation after an out-of-rotation action by the dummy, this defender is protected by Law 57C, but not by Law 45D. (It would also be very inconsistent if both Laws applied.) Please note that there is no real penalty for an out-of-rotation subsequent play by the dummy or the declarer himself, therefore this is an irregularity but not an infraction. The same is true for a defender who plays out of rotation after his partner has played to the trick. But an action that invokes Law 57 is always an infraction.

The fact that the provisions of Law 45D do not apply if the declarer leads from his hand and then really plays the dummy before any opponent does something also indicates that only Law 57C is applicable. Declarer playing from both hands is only mentioned there and nowhere else.



Karl

Some care is due here. The passage provides no such qualification; and is in fact rather unilateral.


It perhaps is worth ruminating over what effect L45C4a has; and L16D provides its own obfuscation.