[blackshoe]

I don't think it matters, legally, how the hard of hearing defender "interpreted" the dummy's actions. What matters is what the dummy actually did. I also think that if I was hard of hearing, and did not clearly hear what declarer said, I would not be in any hurry to play my card, particularly in a position like this. I would wait until it is clear that dummy is through moving his cards, and even then I might ask declarer if the card now in the played position is the one he intended to play — for example, if I thought I'd heard him call for the other one.

Bottom line: if dummy placed the J in the played position, Law 45D applies. If dummy did not do that, Law 47F2 applies. Player frailties, noisy distractions, or other extraneous matters are irrelevant.

[schulken]

I recall being excoriated by members of this forum several months ago when I started a similar thread and suggested taking it out on dummy for being too lazy to place a card in the played position, and continuing to take it out on declarer for not paying attention to the card dummy played. My, how times (as well as slight twists in facts and circumstances) change things. As one contributor noted, these fora help you in your declarer and dummy play to hopefully avoid similar avoidable and embarrassing situations. I can recall a hand where I was sitting behind dummy with AQ, dummy holding KJ. After an agonizing wait twice, I carefully won both tricks. Regardless of the ruling at the table, which I believe should have gone to RHO, I'll bet he/she learned a valuable lesson in ensuring there is no doubt as to which card was played.