BBO Discussion Forums: Call for a card not in dummy and next hand follows - BBO Discussion Forums

pran, on 2015-March-11, 10:40, said:

Although Bud's recommended wording is clear, it is not consistent. It is a recommended change -- not a clarification.

Currently the playing of a card from Dummy entails naming it. If the card is actually in dummy, it is the played card. Whatever happens thereafter, according to current wording, might be an irregularity..but it doesn't change the fact that the named card was a played card.

Bud's wording would require three things in order to establish the named card as a played card. That might or might not be a good thing, but it is a recommended change of the laws ---not a clarification.

aguahombre, on 2015-March-11, 11:21, said:

I think Bud's wording was based on the assumption that the interpretation in the ACBL response is correct. It says more clearly what ACBL claims was intended.

aguahombre, on 2015-March-11, 11:21, said:

Such things are putting the cart before the horse.

To be useful, things must be defined skillfully- such as the right to take a turn and when a turn [including the right] begins and ends.

I agree with Vampyr. This business about "dummy removing the card [...]" is not clear at all. The current wording is at least unambiguous (notwithstanding certain conflicts with other laws) in that what dummy does is not part of declarer playing the card. Bud's wording suggests -- nonsensically -- that declarer plays the card by dummy's action. A more sensible wording to what I presume to be the intended effect might be the following.

"Declarer designates which card is to be played from dummy. Dummy then picks up the designated card and faces it on the table, at which point it becomes played (see D following if dummy picks up the wrong card). Alternatively, if necessary, declarer may play from dummy's hand by picking up a card and facing it on the table."

campboy, on 2015-March-11, 12:40, said:

Well, about Dummy

Law 42A3 said:

and (unless I am much mistaken) when a person A does something in his capacity of being person B's agent then legally that action is taken at the moment A does it, not already when B instructed him to do it?

I understand from various comments that this appears to be the understanding of ACBL, it certainly is my own understanding, and I consider Bud's wording to be a good clarification to this effect. I really do not see any part of Law 45 as definitely being in conflict with this understanding.

Of course, if WBFLC (which in my opinion is superior to ACBL on questions of Law) has a different understanding we obviously need a corresponding clarification.

blackshoe, on 2015-March-06, 12:10, said:

Bud apparently asked someone he considers "ACBL" (unknown who) and for the purposes of this thread the answer has become the "ACBL interpretation" to some people.

Ed is correct on two points. Whoever is self-representing the ACBL has failed to read what they are interpreting; and it isn't official.

Law 45B said:

At risk of adding to what may seem to be pinhead-dancing, may I (seriously) point to the significance of the comma in this sentence.

It clearly divides the first part of the sentence from the second, and supports blackshoe's contention that the "play" of a card from dummy by declarer is complete once it is (validly) named, and this completion does not depend on dummy's subsequent actions of picking up the card and facing it on the table.

The first part of the sentence defines and determines when the card is played; the second, as aguahombre said, is a protocol.

Thanks, Peter.

I think that one problem with the laws is that the command of first Edgar Kaplan and later Grattan Endicott of English grammar was/is far better than that of many people reading the laws as published.

Let me be clear - I thought, until two different individuals, including Dan Plato, from ACBL told me differently, that due to the ", after which" in Law 45B the card was immediately deemed played when verbally called by declarer. This also appears to be blackshoe's contention and also a post many years ago I saw from bluejak seems to indicate (at least back then) a similar viewpoint.

I simply want higher powers to make it clear to all of us the intent and interpretation on whether a card called verbally by declarer is deemed played then, or not until dummy has at least started to remove the card from dummy's remaining cards.

I don't have a strong opinion on this - only that I seek clarification.

campboy, on 2015-March-11, 12:40, said:

Quite. LOL thanks Campboy, for affirming my faith that at least a few people know how to read English!

blackshoe, on 2015-March-12, 09:09, said:

Well, no. Far too many examples of ambiguity and lack of clarity have been discussed on these forums, and in many cases a literal reading of a law turns out to be the opposite of what was presumably intended, or simply nonsense.

Kaplan and Endicott presumably had/has a good command of the English language, but lacked/lack either the skill or the desire to write a document in clear and unambiguous language, which is easy to understand and use. I think that the feeling now is that a Lawbook written in plain English, with short sentences and without eg convoluted constructions and vague wording, would seem less "grand" or "important".

For example, I don't think that the wording of the law in question would occur to most people. It is much more normal and clear to write: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card. Dummy then places the card in a position to indicate it has been played.

Or something like that. It's not too hard, so it is probably the desire and not the ability that is lacking.

barmar, on 2015-March-09, 08:48, said:

Law42A3 said:

It's no more than the issue of distinguishing between when "play" is being used as a term of art and when it isn't. Essentially, throughout Law 45 it is. In its second use (the noun) in Law 42A3 it is as well. But that doesn't mean that its first use there (the verb) is so, and there's no reason to take this as either determinative or particularly indicative of the construction to be placed on Law 45B, which is a clear enough statement in itself.

None of this is to say that Law 45B couldn't be made clearer, and I agree with Vampyr on this (and about the earlier proposed alternative).

BudH, on 2015-March-12, 10:23, said:

What you received was not from higher powers. It was a misinterpretation of the words. In real life, appellate courts get to do that and thus create their own legislation. In the ACBL, there only is a committee which gets to do that.

Vampyr, on 2015-March-12, 10:28, said:

Indeed that would have been much clearer. It would still establish that the card is "played" when named, and help those who might not understand "after which".

Believe it or not, the following question is absolutely relevant here:

Declarer won the last trick in his own hand and then asks for a specific card from dummy (and the card is indeed in dummy).

Dummy now says "the lead is from your own hand partner (or words to that effect).

How do you rule?

Have you ever yourself as dummy made any statement to that effect? (I must admit I have more than once.)

I hope everybody is aware that if a card is played from dummy at the moment declarer names it then the above action by dummy is a severe violation of Law 43A1{b} ("may not") which should always result in a PP?


edited: Sorry a line dropped off in my original post.

pran, on 2015-March-12, 14:46, said:

Yes, the card is played. Yes, Dummy has violated the rules; he is only allowed to prevent Declarer leading from the wrong hand and that ship has passed when Declarer named thus played the card.

The opponents could accept the lead or insist Declarer lead from his own hand.

If Dummy gets a PP for doing what he did, in your world, fine. If he gets a warning, fine.

BudH, on 2015-March-12, 10:23, said:

Yeah, well, my experience with ACBL is that's not going to happen. The higher power who should make this clear is the LC, and frankly I have no idea how to get them to do so.

aguahombre, on 2015-March-12, 15:21, said:

I don't know about anyone else, but in my world, a warning is a PP — and next time it happens the PP will be in MPs or IMPs. If that doesn't happen, then warnings are a waste of breath.

blackshoe, on 2015-March-12, 16:50, said:

I find it hard to accept the idea that a warning is a penalty. When I am penalized I lose something. When I am warned I gain something.

aguahombre, on 2015-March-12, 16:53, said:

Well, if you insist, then I guess we stop issuing warnings and go directly to penalties in MPs or IMPs.

blackshoe, on 2015-March-12, 16:57, said:

That does not follow from what I said. I gain from a warning by being educated for next time and not being penalized. That is a good thing. I guess what you are saying is that if I won't feel bad about being warned you have to penalize.

blackshoe, on 2015-March-12, 16:46, said:

Perhaps contact should be made with some members of the ACBL Laws Commission on this subject:

Mr. Howard Weinstein
Mr. Robb Gordon
Mr. Allan Falk
Mr. Aaron Silverstein
Mr. Ron Gerard
Mr. Chip Martel, Chairman
Mr. Peter Boyd
Mr. Matt Koltnow
Mr. Chris Compton
Mr. Eric Rodwell
Mr. Matt Smith
Ms. Rebecca Rogers
Mr. Roger Stern
Mr. Alvin Levy
Mr. Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chairman