[barmar]

pran, on 2015-March-06, 12:46, said:

Consequently the action of playing a card from dummy is not completed until "AFTER WHICH" it has been placed in the played position.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion from the argument you made.

If the named card isn't in dummy, he couldn't possibly move it into the played position. So how is that clause even relevant?

If the named card IS in dummy, it doesn't matter whether you wait for it to be moved into the played position, because it MUST be so moved.

Unless you think we can't tell whether the card was in dummy except by seeing whether he moves it into the played position? That would only be the case if dummy's cards weren't visible to all the players.

[pran]

barmar, on 2015-March-06, 14:28, said:

I don't see how you come to that conclusion from the argument you made.

If the named card isn't in dummy, he couldn't possibly move it into the played position. So how is that clause even relevant?

If the named card IS in dummy, it doesn't matter whether you wait for it to be moved into the played position, because it MUST be so moved.

Unless you think we can't tell whether the card was in dummy except by seeing whether he moves it into the played position? That would only be the case if dummy's cards weren't visible to all the players.

The relevance is that declarer can never play a card from dummy by naming it unless the card actually is in dummy.

For consistency the conclusion is that the card is legally played at the moment it is placed in the played position, not when it was called.

(And when the card called by declarer is in dummy this discussion is of course completely irrelevant.)

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-March-06, 16:23, said:

For consistency the conclusion is that the card is legally played at the moment it is placed in the played position, not when it was called.

Nonsense.

[BudH]

I would strongly suggest ACBL confirm their interpretation is correct with the appropriate law commissions. If confirmed, then change Law 45B to avoid any ambiguity from

"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."

to this revised version

"Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, dummy removing the card from dummy's remaining cards, and dummy facing the card on the table. In playing from dummy's hand, declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself."

This would make it clear dummy's card is not played until it is placed on the table outside of dummy's remaining cards, whether declarer verbally called for the card or if he removed the card from dummy himself.

In addition, it would help if LAW 45C4(a) ["A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play"] was changed to

"A card must be played (but is not yet deemed played) if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play."

[aguahombre]

It seems all we need to do is read. "After which" in the Law as it now reads makes it clear to me that the act of naming a card means playing the card....after which, dummy might pull the right card, the wrong card, or his ear ---the named card is the played card.

"dummy picks up the card and places it..." simply describes a protocol. It is not a must, shall, may or anything else.

[blackshoe]

You read it, I read it. It says what it says. ACBL reads it, and it says something different. <shrug>

[barmar]

ACBL seems to be interpreting 45B as if it had been written as:

A card is played from dummy by declarer naming it and dummy then picking up the card and facing it on the table.

(There's some ambiguity, but ACBL's interpretation would be a reasonable one.)

But IMHO, there's no way the actual wording can be interpreted that way. It's describing actions by two different people: first declarer plays the card by naming it, THEN dummy picks it up and faces it on the table. Consider a parallel construct:

A person shoots a gun by pressing the trigger, after which the bullet hits the target he was aiming at.

If the bullet misses the target, would anyone conclude that he didn't fire the gun? Of course not.

[blackshoe]

I suppose the SB (or at least Lamford's SB) might.

[campboy]

barmar, on 2015-March-08, 13:08, said:

But IMHO, there's no way the actual wording can be interpreted that way. It's describing actions by two different people: first declarer plays the card by naming it, THEN dummy picks it up and faces it on the table.

The problem with that view is that the laws also describe dummy's action of moving the card as playing it: Law 42A3 says that dummy "plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent".

[barmar]

campboy, on 2015-March-09, 03:23, said:

The problem with that view is that the laws also describe dummy's action of moving the card as playing it: Law 42A3 says that dummy "plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent".

I think the problem there is that the word "play" is being used in two different ways: there's whatever action makes a card officially part of the trick, and there's the action that physically moves it into the played position. For declarer and defenders, these are basically equivalent, but dummy is different because there are two separate steps.

I think 42A3 is just describing the physical movement, the same as the "after which" clause in 45B.

[pran]

campboy, on 2015-March-09, 03:23, said:

The problem with that view is that the laws also describe dummy's action of moving the card as playing it: Law 42A3 says that dummy "plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent as directed (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play).".

Incomplete quotations can lead to the most astonishing misunderstandings. I have added the missing part of Law 42A3 above.

[barmar]

pran, on 2015-March-09, 08:59, said:

Incomplete quotations can lead to the most astonishing misunderstandings. I have added the missing part of Law 42A3 above.

I'm not sure how that addition changes the point BudH was making. He's not claiming that dummy can play a card without declarer naming it first, the issue is whether his action is considered to be part of the process of playing it or subsequent. His interpretation of 42A3 is that it says that it's part of it, because it uses the word "play" to refer to what he does when acting as declarer's agent.

[blackshoe]

I disagree with that interpretation. "After which" is perfectly clear to me.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-09, 10:06, said:

I disagree with that interpretation. "After which" is perfectly clear to me.

Of course Law 45B, when read on its own, makes it perfectly clear that declarer plays the card by naming it, and what dummy does afterwards is something separate. Equally Law 42A3, when read on its own, makes it perfectly clear that dummy plays the card, and what declarer does beforehand is something separate. What happens when we read both laws?

[blackshoe]

The world ends.

[barmar]

campboy, on 2015-March-09, 10:32, said:

What happens when we read both laws?

Bridge ceases to exist in a puff of logic (apologies to Douglas Adams).

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2014-November-16, 07:24, said:

The guidance I've had on this, from Max Bavin, is that there is no limit in the laws on the ability of the TD to designate otherwise and that it can be applied whenever you think the other side has contibuted to the situation that has led the card to become a penalty card.

Max Bavin's interpretation seems fair and sensiible,

The WBF should Immediately incorporate it into TFLB.

Or -- to be realistic for a moment -- perhaps the EBU might consider including it in both the Blue and White books.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2015-March-11, 07:50, said:

Max Bavin's interpretation seems fair and sensiible,

The WBF should Immediately incorporate it into TFLB.

Or to be realistic for a moment -- perhaps the EBU might consider including it in both the Blue and White books.

Perhaps the editors of those books will take note of this and include it for consideration in the next update.

[Vampyr]

BudH, on 2015-March-07, 11:44, said:

"Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, dummy removing the card from dummy's remaining cards, and dummy facing the card on the table. In playing from dummy's hand, declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself."

This would make it clear dummy's card is not played until it is placed on the table outside of dummy's remaining cards, whether declarer verbally called for the card or if he removed the card from dummy himself.

It would make nothing clear. Your wording above is gibberish.

[pran]

BudH, on 2015-March-07, 11:44, said:

"Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, dummy removing the card from dummy's remaining cards, and dummy facing the card on the table. In playing from dummy's hand, declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself."

This would make it clear dummy's card is not played until it is placed on the table outside of dummy's remaining cards, whether declarer verbally called for the card or if he removed the card from dummy himself.

Vampyr, on 2015-March-11, 10:00, said:

It would make nothing clear. Your wording above is gibberish.

I couldn't disagree more - I find his wording both clear and consistent, and very much to the point.

Besides, it will not cause any conflict with laws that establish the obligation to play a card from dummy once it has been named by declarer, provided of course that the card is in dummy.