[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-February-18, 15:19, said:

One problem we have is that people who do things wrong often get our sympathy, when we should just follow the Law. The attempted change of play of a card was an infraction and the TD should have been called. Now when the defender played a diamond he did something wrong, but instinctively we do not want to apply the Law. However, we should just apply it, and then consider an adjustment under Law 23.

Declarer's RHO did not call TD. This is not a violation of any law.

If RHO was ignorant of the fact that the play of ♦K was illegal and could not be accepted (unlike most other illegal plays) then his play of ♦3 (before attention was called to declarer's illegal play of the ♦K) should be considered a legal play to that trick and definitely not a play to the lead of ♣4. (There could even be a possibility that he had not noticed the lead of ♣4 before it was withdrawn!)

The way I see the facts of this case ♦K was led (illegally), Law 47B requires that this lead is withdrawn and replaced by the originally led ♣4, and Law 47D allows RHO to withdraw his ♦3 without further rectification.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2011-February-18, 08:15, said:

That doesn't answer the question though. Is dummy allowed to leave the table in the middle of a hand?

Certainly, why not? Oh, there's a prohibition against any player leaving the table needlessly before the round is called (Law 74C8), but I wouldn't call going to the bathroom "needless". Going to the kitchen for a snack, maybe.

[blackshoe]

If declarer touches a card from dummy, or picks it up, it must be played, but has it in fact been played at that point, or is it played when he places it in the played position? Certainly declarer's card taken from his own hand, or a defender's card taken from his hand, is not played until it is so placed.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-18, 16:40, said:

If declarer touches a card from dummy, or picks it up, it must be played, but has it in fact been played at that point, or is it played when he places it in the played position? Certainly declarer's card taken from his own hand, or a defender's card taken from his hand, is not played until it is so placed.

I have no problem with the ♣4 actually having been played (according to OP description). But the fact is that after the ♣4 was played it was withdrawn (before any player had followed suit) and the ♦K was played instead. And then RHO followed suit to the ♦K with his ♦3.

The discussion is about how we shall handle this play of the ♦3. Is it a violation of any law (and in case which)?

My opinion now is that if the ♦K is ordered withdrawn (as it probably should be) then Law 47D must apply to the ♦3.

[blackshoe]

Yeah. I said that already.

I agree with Mr. Christiansen, who is reportedly of the opinion that the ♣4 must be played, but has not yet been played (at the point where the question arose at the table) because it was not placed in the played position. I am of the opinion, though, that it does not matter whether it has been played, or just must be played, because in either case the subsequent play of the ♦K is illegal. I gave my ruling in an earlier post; I stand by that in its entirety. I do wonder whether anyone read it.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-19, 07:21, said:

Yeah. I said that already.

I agree with Mr. Christiansen, who is reportedly of the opinion that the ♣4 must be played, but has not yet been played (at the point where the question arose at the table) because it was not placed in the played position. I am of the opinion, though, that it does not matter whether it has been played, or just must be played, because in either case the subsequent play of the ♦K is illegal. I gave my ruling in an earlier post; I stand by that in its entirety. I do wonder whether anyone read it.

Of course: I have read it and disagreed with it. It is a fact that I neither quoted it nor disagreed with it in the next post: you should not infer I have not read it from that.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-19, 07:21, said:

Yeah. I said that already.

I agree with Mr. Christiansen, who is reportedly of the opinion that the ♣4 must be played, but has not yet been played (at the point where the question arose at the table) because it was not placed in the played position. I am of the opinion, though, that it does not matter whether it has been played, or just must be played, because in either case the subsequent play of the ♦K is illegal. I gave my ruling in an earlier post; I stand by that in its entirety. I do wonder whether anyone read it.

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 07:40, said:

Of course: I have read it and disagreed with it. It is a fact that I neither quoted it nor disagreed with it in the next post: you should not infer I have not read it from that.

And pray: Please specify precisely what law was violated by the play of ♦3 after the ♦K was placed in a played position but before attention was called to any irregularity? I must admit it has escaped my attention if you have already done so, I hope this will not deter you from specifying the law now?

[bluejak]

44C.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 07:40, said:

Of course: I have read it and disagreed with it.

Fair enough.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 11:31, said:

44C.

So the ♦K was in your opinion never played, not even illegally?

Do you deny that declarer played the ♦K from dummy when he picked up that card and placed it in a played position on the table?

Quote

From Law 45B: In playing from dummy’s hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself.

There is nothing in Law 45 to indicate that a card illegally played is not played. On the contrary we have places in the laws where for instance the distinction between a deliberately (but illegal) play and an accidental exposure of a card is important.

At the time the ♦3 was played the only card from dummy placed in a played position was the ♦K and it appears obvious that the ♦3 was a play following suit to the ♦K.

I cannot agree that Law 44C is applicable on the play of the ♦3.

[axman]

pran, on 2011-February-18, 14:50, said:

My point is that the ♦3 was not played to the ♣4, it was played to the ♦K.

I consider it a fact from OP that declarer did indeed play two cards from Dummy: First the ♣4 and then (illegally, for whatever reason) the ♦K. This second play was definitely illegal, but it was still a play.

On second thoughts I am convinced that Law 47B must apply to the illegal play of ♦K, and thereafter Law 47D clearly applies to the play of ♦3.

prior to the play of the D3 which thereby made the plays [of the C4 and DK] to be in turn**, what was the ruling that required the cancelling of the C4?

**forfeiting the right to rectification

or; to which card was the DK changed <so as to invoke the provision of 47D>?

[bluejak]

Ok, let us try something different. I believe the club was played: others do not. I believe that once you start a procedure which is not allowed to be stopped that is good enough.

What does the Law say?

Quote

Law 45
A. Play of Card from a Hand
Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him.
B. 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.

So A is irrelevant. The first sentence of B is also irrelevant since the two sentences actually work as alternatives. So we are left with the second sentence. According to that the card is played by declarer picking it up - and that is what happened. So the club was played.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 15:08, said:

According to that the card is played by declarer picking it up - and that is what happened. So the club was played.

Then so was the diamond.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 15:08, said:

So the club was played.

Vampyr, on 2011-February-19, 15:55, said:

Then so was the diamond.

Precisely! (Thanks)

[pran]

axman, on 2011-February-19, 13:32, said:

prior to the play of the D3 which thereby made the plays [of the C4 and DK] to be in turn**, what was the ruling that required the cancelling of the C4?

**forfeiting the right to rectification

or; to which card was the DK changed <so as to invoke the provision of 47D>?

First the ♣4 was played (this is not disputed)
Then (before RHO played) the ♣4 was withdrawn and restored to dummy, and the ♦K was played instead.
This activity by declarer was a violation of Law 45C3, eventually the ♦K must be restored to dummy and the ♣4 that was first played must be ruled as the card played.
The problem is that in the meantime (before attention was called to the irregularity) RHO has followed suit to the ♦K with his ♦3 and the discussion is all about what law shall apply to this card.

I understand David to be of the opinion that the ♦3 has been played to the trick to which the ♣4 was led and therefore constitutes a revoke if RHO possesses at least one club in his hand.

I (for one) is of the opinion that the ♦K has also been played (illegally) and that the restoration of this card to dummy is a consequence of Law 47B. If this is accepted then Law 47D applies undisputably to the ♦3.

[bluejak]

How do you "withdraw" a played card? You cannot.

Compare bidding: you place the 5♦ card on the table. You then decide 4♦ would be a better bid. Now, assuming this is not a mechanical error, you cannot withdraw the 5♦ bid: it is the bid you have made and remains the bid you have made even if you put it back in the box. Either you can withdraw it, or you cannot. Law 25A allows a call to be withdrawn [and other Laws in certain circumstances, eg after MI] but if it is not allowed to be withdrawn, physically putting it back in the box does not mean it is withdrawn.

So, declarer played a card, and it cannot be withdrawn. Putting it back and pickling out another does not work.

Another comparison. Declarer takes a card out of his hand, puts it on the table, and then changes his mind. It does not matter whether he puts it back in his hand, he cannot withdraw it because it has been played.

So, if the club has been played from dummy it cannot be withdrawn. If RHO now plays a card it is because the club has been played from dummy.

Sure, declarer then committed an irregularity, but the rule is simple: after an irregularity you call the TD, and if you don't, you proceed at your own risk [Laws 9 to 11].

[blackshoe]

It seems to me the sequence of events is important. As I read it, that sequence was [1] declarer played* the ♣4, [2] declarer put the ♣4 back amongst dummy's cards, [3] declarer placed the ♦K in the played position, [4] declarer's RHO played the 3. Now you say that [4] came after [1], and before [3] (it's not clear to me whether you think it came before or after, or simultaneously with [2]). What is your basis for this position?

*I'm not convinced that your argument is valid that a card from dummy is played when declarer picks it up, but now that you've actually explained the basis for it, I can see it at least is worth discussing.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 20:06, said:

So, if the club has been played from dummy it cannot be withdrawn. If RHO now plays a card it is because the club has been played from dummy.

Sure, declarer then committed an irregularity, but the rule is simple: after an irregularity you call the TD, and if you don't, you proceed at your own risk [Laws 9 to 11].

It seems obvious that declarer's RHO did not realise that an irregularity had taken place. It was this player's partner who queried whether the original club had been played. And, as another poster mentioned, there is always the possibility that RHO never saw the club picked up, but saw only the diamond in the played position.

But any arguments are simply met with bluejack's "you cannot withdraw a played card" in an endless loop. I do not plan to respond to the same comment again.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 20:06, said:

How do you "withdraw" a played card? You cannot.

Compare bidding: you place the 5♦ card on the table. You then decide 4♦ would be a better bid. Now, assuming this is not a mechanical error, you cannot withdraw the 5♦ bid: it is the bid you have made and remains the bid you have made even if you put it back in the box. Either you can withdraw it, or you cannot. Law 25A allows a call to be withdrawn [and other Laws in certain circumstances, eg after MI] but if it is not allowed to be withdrawn, physically putting it back in the box does not mean it is withdrawn.

So, declarer played a card, and it cannot be withdrawn. Putting it back and pickling out another does not work.

Another comparison. Declarer takes a card out of his hand, puts it on the table, and then changes his mind. It does not matter whether he puts it back in his hand, he cannot withdraw it because it has been played.

So, if the club has been played from dummy it cannot be withdrawn. If RHO now plays a card it is because the club has been played from dummy.

Sure, declarer then committed an irregularity, but the rule is simple: after an irregularity you call the TD, and if you don't, you proceed at your own risk [Laws 9 to 11].

Are you serious?
A quick count in Law 47 showed me seven occurrencies of the word "withdrawn" in connection with played cards. And you assert that a played card cannot be withdrawn?

There is no dispute that declarers action of taking back the ♣4 and instead place the ♦K in the played position was illegal, but the fact is that declarer did it.

How are we to describe declarer's action other than as an illegal withdrawal of the ♣4 followed by an illegal play of the ♦K? Do you assert that declarer didn't do anything with these two cards?

Declarer physically (and deliberately) withdrew the ♣4 in conflict with Law 47F2 and played the ♦K in conflict with Law 45C3.

So what do we do with the ♦K? We use Law 47B and order it to be withdrawn. And thereafter we have Law 47D for the ♦3.

And finally just one comment on your bidding example: You seem to completely overlook Law 25B which handles the situation where a player changes his intended call. The fact that a player physically puts back a bid card to the box and replaces it with another is fully recognized by Law 25B as an attempt to withdraw the first call and make a second call. Whether this change of call is accepted or not is up to the offender's LHO, but asserting that the second call was not made is just nonsense. If the change of call is not accepted the second call is cancelled with the consequences from Law 25B3.

To the extent that this example might have any relevance for the current discussion it appears to me that it corroborates the opinion that the ♦K was indeed played (illegally) and the use of Law 47B on this play.

[gordontd]

I'm coming to this discussion rather late, and apologise if what I say has already been mentioned in the various posts I've skipped over.

bluejak, on 2011-February-17, 09:53, said:

So the ♣4 is played and may not be changed.


So the ♦3 is played and may not be changed. If it is a revoke then the normal penalties apply, ie it must be corrected and it becomes a major penalty card.

Is this fair? Well, maybe not! But it is the Law.

Something that was pointed out to me some time ago by the WBF Chief TD is that Law 50, which contains the words "unless the Director designates otherwise..." places no limit on the TD's discretion to designate otherwise. So, one way to produce a fair result might be to designate that the ♦3 is not a penalty card.