[bluejak]

Gordon: that is legal, certainly, unlike some of the other suggestions. If you go back to my earlier ideas you will find a suggestion of using Law 23 which comes to much the same effect. The arguments here have been over the legalities, not the effect - well mine have, I assume people answering my posts have read them.

Ed: if 4 is after 1, then it is after 1, even if 2 and 3 came in-between.

Pran: of course there are other legal and irrelevant ways to withdraw cards. So what? Why talk about something that did not happen?

[dburn]

Is it considered that Law 45C4b does not apply to this case? As far as I can see, under that Law declarer may in fact change ♣4 to ♦K if he did not intend to designate (by picking it up) ♣4, and changes the designation without pause for thought. Otherwise, what does Law 45C4b actually mean?

[bluejak]

dburn, on 2011-February-20, 08:31, said:

Is it considered that Law 45C4b does not apply to this case? As far as I can see, under that Law declarer may in fact change ♣4 to ♦K if he did not intend to designate (by picking it up) ♣4, and changes the designation without pause for thought. Otherwise, what does Law 45C4b actually mean?

Designation is naming a card to be played. It never applies to physical methods of playing cards.

[dburn]

So if declarer says "four of clubs - no, sorry, king of diamonds", he has played the king of diamonds and not the four of clubs; but if he picks up the four of clubs and says "no, sorry", puts back the four of clubs and picks up the king of diamonds, he has played the four of clubs and not the king of diamonds? I find it difficult to believe that this is the Law (though not impossible - I have long since abandoned hope that the Laws will be consistent).

[gordontd]

dburn, on 2011-February-20, 08:31, said:

Is it considered that Law 45C4b does not apply to this case? As far as I can see, under that Law declarer may in fact change ♣4 to ♦K if he did not intend to designate (by picking it up) ♣4, and changes the designation without pause for thought. Otherwise, what does Law 45C4b actually mean?

Since the original post says that declarer changed his mind, L45C4b would not apply even if he had designated the card rather than playing it.

[gordontd]

dburn, on 2011-February-20, 10:03, said:

So if declarer says "four of clubs - no, sorry, king of diamonds", he has played the king of diamonds and not the four of clubs;

I think it might be difficult to convince the director that declarer was intending to say "king of diamonds" while the words "four of clubs" were coming out his mouth. Much more likely when the call is simply an incomplete designation of a suit, especially if the player is speaking an unfamiliar language.

[dburn]

gordontd, on 2011-February-20, 10:19, said:

Since the original post says that declarer changed his mind, L45C4b would not apply even if he had designated the card rather than playing it.

Certainly if declarer's original intention was to play ♣4, then he may not change that card under Law 45C4b or any other Law. And if the words "changed his mind" in the original post reflect the established fact that ♣4 was declarer's originally-intended card, then Law 45C4b does indeed not apply. My concern is to establish whether there is in fact a difference in Law between a declarer who picks up or touches a card he did not intend, then substitutes his intended card, and a declarer who calls for a card he did not intend, then calls for his intended card.

In the actual case, it seems to me that if declarer intentionally picked up ♣4, then he must play it even though he has not yet done so (he has put it back in dummy rather than placing it in the played position). Next, he has picked up ♦K and placed it in the played position, whereupon an opponent has followed with ♦3. Now, there appears some suggestion that the play of ♦3 should be considered a revoke, because the suit that has been led to the trick is clubs.

It isn't. Declarer has not yet made any legal play to this trick: ♦K is not a legally played card because declarer must play ♣4; and ♣4 is not a legally played card because declarer hasn't played it yet. In fact, declarer's attempt to play ♦K is a revoke per Law 61A; he is legally required to lead ♣4 from dummy, and he has led some other card instead. That revoke must be corrected [Law 62A]; ♣4 must be led from dummy [Law 62B]; and the opponent may withdraw ♦3 without further rectification and with the knowledge that he has ♦3 (and chose to play it under the king) authorised to his partner but not to declarer [Laws 62C1 and 16D].

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-February-20, 08:08, said:

Pran: of course there are other legal and irrelevant ways to withdraw cards. So what? Why talk about something that did not happen?

I think you need to be a bit more specific:
Where have I talked about something that did not happen (except when commenting on some of your issues)?

[dburn]

gordontd, on 2011-February-20, 10:23, said:

I think it might be difficult to convince the director that declarer was intending to say "king of diamonds" while the words "four of clubs" were coming out his mouth. Much more likely when the call is simply an incomplete designation of a suit, especially if the player is speaking an unfamiliar language.

I agree with you - it would be difficult, but not impossible. Suppose a declarer in the habit of verbalizing his thoughts internally thinks "king of diamonds, four of clubs to the ace, low spade to the jack..." and instead of calling for the king of diamonds calls for the four of clubs. I've done this kind of thing more than once, so I know only too well that it can happen; in the vernacular it is referred to as "getting a trick ahead of yourself".

A declarer in such a confused state of mind might equally well pick up the four of clubs rather than the king of diamonds - I've done that also, since my partners have rightly developed a habit (by now almost an instinct) of leaving the table rather than watching me play the dummy. I don't mind, as long as they come back with the drinks.

My position is that I do not think the cases should be regarded differently under the Law; but if the interpretation is that physically picking up a card is not a "designation" but something else, then they will be so regarded. Cases of the kind are admittedly rare at duplicate, but where I play rubber bridge a declarer who picks up a card, then says "no, sorry" and puts it down again, is permitted to play some other card if it is considered that his first action was a "mechanical error".

[gordontd]

dburn, on 2011-February-20, 10:40, said:

My concern is to establish whether there is in fact a difference in Law between a declarer who picks up or touches a card he did not intend, then substitutes his intended card, and a declarer who calls for a card he did not intend, then calls for his intended card.

My understanding is that there is indeed a difference between these two situations in Law.

Note however that a card in dummy must have been "deliberately touched" before it is required to be played.

[dburn]

gordontd, on 2011-February-20, 11:13, said:

My understanding is that there is indeed a difference between these two situations in Law.

Note however that a card in dummy must have been "deliberately touched" before it is required to be played.

Well, perhaps some time before 2017 we can point out the dichotomy to the WBFLC and see if it has anything to say on the matter.

Meanwhile, it still appears to me that there is a difference between the status of a card that must be played and the status of a card that has been played (indeed, the ruling that I have given above depends entirely on this distinction). Rather to my surprise, the Laws do not appear to specify any explicit procedure, which gives rise to the following questions:

East, a defender on lead, has ♠Q as a major penalty card. Without indicating that he intends to play subsequently to East's compulsory lead of ♠Q, but in fact intending to do so, South (declarer) ruffs it with ♥2. West, thinking that declarer has led a heart, follows suit to the heart "lead" even though he has a spade.

Has South led out of turn? Has West revoked?

My answers to these questions would be "yes" and "no", but if it is considered that East's ♠Q has been played because it must be played, I would of course give different answers. I base this tenuously on Law 45C5: "A penalty card, major or minor, may have to be played" which, or so it seems to me, does not mean that the card has been played until the fact has been established by reference to the Director or by South's saying "you have to play ♠Q now, and..."

By the same token, that ♣4 in the original case has not been played until declarer has moved it to the played position, even though it must be played. But these are deep waters, and it is possible that we may need to go to a higher authority in search of a boat.

[pran]

dburn, on 2011-February-20, 11:42, said:

Well, perhaps some time before 2017 we can point out the dichotomy to the WBFLC and see if it has anything to say on the matter.

Meanwhile, it still appears to me that there is a difference between the status of a card that must be played and the status of a card that has been played (indeed, the ruling that I have given above depends entirely on this distinction). Rather to my surprise, the Laws do not appear to specify any explicit procedure, which gives rise to the following questions:

East, a defender on lead, has ♠Q as a major penalty card. Without indicating that he intends to play subsequently to East's compulsory lead of ♠Q, but in fact intending to do so, South (declarer) ruffs it with ♥2. West, thinking that declarer has led a heart, follows suit to the heart "lead" even though he has a spade.

Has South led out of turn? Has West revoked?

My answers to these questions would be "yes" and "no", but if it is considered that East's ♠Q has been played because it must be played, I would of course give different answers. I base this tenuously on Law 45C5: "A penalty card, major or minor, may have to be played" which, or so it seems to me, does not mean that the card has been played until the fact has been established by reference to the Director or by South's saying "you have to play ♠Q now, and..."

By the same token, that ♣4 in the original case has not been played until declarer has moved it to the played position, even though it must be played. But these are deep waters, and it is possible that we may need to go to a higher authority in search of a boat.

Your answers are correct: A penalty card is not "played" until the player actually plays it; South's "ruff" with the ♥2 is actually a lead out of turn and West has accepted this Lead out of turn by subsequently playing to the trick.

We have some guidance in Law 57C1 which, although aimed at compulsory plays from Dummy, establishes as a main principle that a card is not played just because it must be played.

[dburn]

In that case, the Law regarding the original question appears to me to be clear. If ♣4 must be played from dummy, but has not yet been played, then the play of ♦K instead is a revoke, and the matter can be dealt with satisfactorily under Laws 61, 62 and 16.

Having read the thread in its entirety now (which I had not done before posting my original "ruling"), I see that several contributors arrived at the same outcome through a tentative application of Law 47. Even bluejak, who thought that ♣4 had been played simply because it must be played, and therefore that ♦3 was a revoke, didn't want to believe it because that would lead to some horrible inequity and sought to avoid this by reference to Law 23. And gordontd, who may or may not have thought that ♦3 was a revoke, was moved to allow the Director to declare that at any rate it wasn't a penalty card.

It's all right. Sometimes the Laws really do allow justice to prevail. But I am a bit surprised at Sven, who once posed as a kind of trick question "can a player revoke when playing the first card to a trick?" and didn't see how it applies to this case. Still, even Homer nods...

[gordontd]

dburn, on 2011-February-20, 15:34, said:

In that case, the Law regarding the original question appears to me to be clear. If ♣4 must be played from dummy, but has not yet been played, then the play of ♦K instead is a revoke, and the matter can be dealt with satisfactorily under Laws 61, 62 and 16.

I think, having read the original post and L45B, that ♣4 had been played.

Quote

In playing from dummy’s hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself.

He did pick up the desired card, so he has engaged in the process of playing from dummy's hand. If he had merely (deliberately) touched it, then it would be a card that had not yet been played but that must be played.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2011-February-20, 17:33, said:

He did pick up the desired card, so he has engaged in the process of playing from dummy's hand. If he had merely (deliberately) touched it, then it would be a card that had not yet been played but that must be played.

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?

[dburn]

gordontd, on 2011-February-20, 17:33, said:

I think, having read the original post and L45B, that ♣4 had been played.

He did pick up the desired card, so he has engaged in the process of playing from dummy's hand. If he had merely (deliberately) touched it, then it would be a card that had not yet been played but that must be played.

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."

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-February-20, 09:53, said:

Designation is naming a card to be played. It never applies to physical methods of playing cards.

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

[barmar]

45B says:

Quote

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.

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.

[gordontd]

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.

So, if he hasn't named it, he hasn't played it?

[iviehoff]

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

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

I find this a rather fine distinction, ♦K is not "played", it is "another card played". Interestingly the only law that seems to deal with declarer/dummy playing two cards from the same hand (neither of them a lead to the next trick - and I think we can be sure ♦K was not a lead to the next trick) is 45E2, which is headed "fifth card played to a trick", but in the body of the law rather coyly refers to the 5th card being "contributed" rather than "played". The law tells us to return the card to hand without rectification (in the case of declarer). It seems obvious that one of the excess cards must be returned to hand, but it is useful to have a law that tells us as much, as it had seemed that not all potential deviations from L44B ("After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick") were covered.

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

Law 60 PLAY AFTER AN ILLEGAL PLAY
A Play of Card After an 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.