[kenrexford]

First question. Declarer calls for a club from dummy. No one really hears what Declarer says other than to hear the word "club" because of muttering. When dummy grabs a small club, nothing is said. So, Declarer's RHO follows suit small. Declarer also plays small. This causes Declarer's LHO to look down in shock, ad his 8 will win the trick, which makes no sense. He makes some comment like, "The highest one is the 7?!?!?" Declarer says, "No -- I called for the Queen." Declarer says this with a lot of credibility, seeming extremely genuine (although unnecessarily nasty about my partner "acting like she messed up or something).

What's the ruling?

Second question. Declarer has an obvious line to make the contract. He plays one more high card in a side suit, removing the one remaining card in that suit in dummy, ruffs one next, and then claims. However, for reasons known only to Declarer, he grabs onto his one loser in that suit, waves it in front of him, and says "trump this." Nothing more, nothing less. Now what?

[karlson]

I'm sure someone who knows the laws better than i do will comment on the first one, but I would guess that when dummy plays a card and rho follows, the card is played.

The second one seems more subjective. I would definitely give declarer the rest of the tricks, I don't see how he can mean anything other than the normal line.

[badderzboy]

1st Ruling


Relevant Laws are :-

Law 46b2
2. Designates Suit but Not Rank
If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to have called
the lowest card of the suit indicated.

Law 45D Card Misplayed by Dummy
If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the
card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played
to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw (without penalty) a card played
after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer’s RHO changes
his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that
trick (see Law 16C2).

So as long as Director is happy that this was the case and the testimony suggests it then we correct the trick and continue.

2nd Ruling :-

Laws 69,70 & 71 apply and simply the claim statement is restated and then the director asks why the claim is disputed - we then apply if “normal” play which includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational could cost declarer any tricks.

Steve

[skjaeran]

The first one is easy. If the TD conclude that declarer did ask for the queen of clubs from dummy, that card is played. What happened after his call has no consequence. He is allowed to change the card in dummy from a low club to the queen. If this affects the play from the other players to the trick, they're also allowed to change their cards without penalty.

The second one is impossible to judge from what you tell us Ken. I have no clue to what cards are remaining. Please give us the hands at the time of the claim. From what you tell I get the impression that he's waiving the card he already ruffed. In general, I'll never adjudicate a disputed claim without seeing all hands.

[JoAnneM]

I certainly agree with the laws as stated. However, I cannot remember EVER sitting at a table where both defenders and dummy misheard what declarer said. The defenders are sitting closer to declarer, surely one of them heard what was actually called.

But, it seems that if only a club was heard by all three players, then perhaps that is what should be what is played, and declarer should stop muttering. Sometimes we need a good lesson.

[kenrexford]

The first ruling was to correct the card. It was the obvious ruling in practice because of the 75+ factor, but I was curious. LOL

The second was to allow the claim as "obvious" that he meant to play a top card and then ruff his loser. A friend of mine did the weird wave thing. The other pair committee'd the thing, ruling upheld. I found this quite humorous and wondered what a strange wave of a card and "trump this" means.

[jtfanclub]

JoAnneM, on Jun 8 2008, 11:09 AM, said:

I certainly agree with the laws as stated. However, I cannot remember EVER sitting at a table where both defenders and dummy misheard what declarer said. The defenders are sitting closer to declarer, surely one of them heard what was actually called.

I have. I really wish that the ACBL would require rank then suit, so that we could never again have somebody call for the 'Clubuh'.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL has a hand in writing the laws, true, but they're not the final say - the WBF is.

Be that as it may, failure by declarer to clearly state both the rank and suit of the card he wishes to play from dummy is an irregularity, notwithstanding the fact that it is extremely common not to do so, and then to, in effect, make one's own ruling, without calling the TD. After all, "everybody knows" what the TD will rule, right?

I was taught to rule, as a TD, on the preponderance of the evidence. Here, we have three players who say they heard only "club", and one (declarer) who claims, after seeing what everyone played to the trick, that he said "queen of clubs". On top of that he was nasty to his opponent after he expressed surprise.

I'm ruling that a low club is played. If ZT is in effect, I'm hitting declarer with a 25% DP (as required by the ZT policy). If ZT is not in effect, I'll make it a DP (violation of Law 74A2 and Law 46A), and suggest she make sure she speaks clearly in future.

I'm tired of players getting away with nastiness at the table.

[NickRW]

blackshoe, on Jun 8 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

Here, we have three players who say they heard only "club", and one (declarer) who claims, after seeing what everyone played to the trick, that he said "queen of clubs".

Well, that isn't exactly 100% correct. What the players heard was apparently:

Quote

Declarer calls for a club from dummy. No one really hears what Declarer says other than to hear the word "club" because of muttering.

I try, as dummy, to make sure this sort of thing can't happen by saying, "I didn't quite hear you partner", thus making declarer restate what they wanted louder/more clearly.

Agree with you about unnecessary nastiness though - it can really spoil things.

Nick

[kenrexford]

Yeah. I'm fairly certain in retrospect that she probably did call for the Queen. I and my partner both heard nothing and just looked at the card instead.

[blackshoe]

Well if the only evidence as to what was said is the declarer's, then the preponderance of the evidence is in her favor. But if I let the Queen be played to the trick, either defender who played after that can change his card. So can the declarer, after her RHO changes his play (if he does). Knowledge of defender's withdrawn card(s) is UI to declarer. Knowledge of declarer's (and partner's) withdrawn card(s) is AI to defenders. (Law 45D, Law 16C2).

I'm still inclined to issue a penalty.

[barmar]

kenrexford, on Jun 8 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

The second was to allow the claim as "obvious" that he meant to play a top card and then ruff his loser. A friend of mine did the weird wave thing. The other pair committee'd the thing, ruling upheld. I found this quite humorous and wondered what a strange wave of a card and "trump this" means.

It could either mean "I'm going to trump this" or "I dare you to trump this", and the difference can generally be determined from the way it's said and whether the opponents have any more trumps.

I'm not sure what makes a wave "weird" in this context.

[kenrexford]

barmar, on Jun 9 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

I'm not sure what makes a wave "weird" in ... context.

Hang out at the park sometime. LOL

[JoAnneM]

This is a really good discussion of something that can happen frequently at the club level - one player trying to take advantage through intimidation. I have certainly seen it happen at my club and it's why I encourage immediate director calls.

I agree with the poster who said that if, at the end of questioning, it is established declarer probably said the queen but the others didn't actually hear it then I would allow the opponent to change their card also, if they had played.

And I would warn declarer about making rulings at the table. I have probably warned that player before.

[blackshoe]

JoAnneM, on Jun 9 2008, 11:34 PM, said:

And I would warn declarer about making rulings at the table. I have probably warned that player before.

There doesn't seem to me to be much point to repeated warnings. If they were going to heed a warning, they wouldn't have done it a second time. So it seems to me that if you've warned him before, you should penalize him now.

[kenrexford]

JoAnneM, on Jun 9 2008, 11:34 PM, said:

This is a really good discussion of something that can happen frequently at the club level - one player trying to take advantage through intimidation. I have certainly seen it happen at my club and it's why I encourage immediate director calls.

I agree with the poster who said that if, at the end of questioning, it is established declarer probably said the queen but the others didn't actually hear it then I would allow the opponent to change their card also, if they had played.

And I would warn declarer about making rulings at the table. I have probably warned that player before.

I don't think that is what happened. An older lady who aqs somewhat clueless about how anything she did could possibly be construed as requiring a TD call muttered. She then thought, as so many do, that a TD call was an accusation of wrongdoing and sin. The TD call ensures that the rules are followed, primarily, and to solve the problem of second seat changing his card based on the change of dummy's card and to protect against the problem of two cards now being seen.

Strangely, the TD and declarer acted as if the non-offending side was the party who used the TD call to intimidate. If you follow the rules, when it matters and is critical, but the offending side is 75, then ZT kicks in and you get a scowling attitude.