[RMB1]

South is declarer, the lead is in dummy and South calls for "the two of clubs".
There is no ♣2 in dummy, and dummy does nothing, but East play ♣Q.
Declarer calls the TD and says he has called for a card not in dummy, and East has played.
The only two in dummy is ♠2. Declarer will call for ♠2 if/when declarer is asked to designate a legal card.
East has a spade, so cannot play ♣Q to ♠2 from dummy.

Rule please:
Is ♠2 to be played from dummy?
Is ♣Q a penalty card?
Is possession of ♣Q and/or the fact the East would play ♣Q on a club from dummy, authorised or unauthorised for declarer?
Is possession of ♣Q and/or the fact the East would play ♣Q on a club from dummy, authorised or unauthorised for West?

[Bbradley62]

Yes, declarer has called a card not in dummy (Law 46B4), but since that call is void, why isn't this simply a defensive lead out of turn?

[blackshoe]

We aren't at "that call is void" yet.

Quote

Law 45B: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table.

The emphasis is mine. When declarer called for the ♣2, he has played a card. It is now East's turn to play. He follows suit with the ♣Q (Law 44B, Law 44C). Now attention is called to declarer's irregularity and the director is called. Declarer now withdraws the ♣2 (Law 46B4), and East withdraws his ♣Q and puts it back in his hand (Law 47D). That East has the ♣Q is UI to South, and AI to West (Law 16D). Declarer now plays the ♠2 from dummy, and the play proceeds normally.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 21:04, said:

We aren't at "that call is void" yet.

The emphasis is mine. When declarer called for the ♣2, he has played a card. It is now East's turn to play. He follows suit with the ♣Q (Law 44B, Law 44C). Now attention is called to declarer's irregularity and the director is called. Declarer now withdraws the ♣2 (Law 46B4), and East withdraws his ♣Q and puts it back in his hand (Law 47D). That East has the ♣Q is UI to South, and AI to West (Law 16D). Declarer now plays the ♠2 from dummy, and the play proceeds normally.

Oh yes, we are:

Law 46B4 said:

If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

so Declarer's call is void (i.e. no call to this trick has yet been made by declarer), and East has led out of turn.

(Being more specific Law 46B4 takes precedence over Law 45B)

[Aardv]

pran, on 2014-November-15, 00:30, said:

Oh yes, we are:

so Declarer's call is void (i.e. no call to this trick has yet been made by declarer), and East has led out of turn.

(Being more specific Law 46B4 takes precedence over Law 45B)

Law 47D said:

After an opponent’s change of play a played card may be withdrawn and
returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be
substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.)

Law 16D said:

When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide:
1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action
is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’.
2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action
and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized.
A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical
alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested
over another by the unauthorized information.)

Declarer has committed an infraction by naming a card not in dummy - his is the offending side.

I don't believe that by deeming the original call to be void the lawmakers intended his subsequent designation not to be a change of play for the purposes of 47D.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-November-15, 00:30, said:

Oh yes, we are:

so Declarer's call is void (i.e. no call to this trick has yet been made by declarer), and East has led out of turn.

(Being more specific Law 46B4 takes precedence over Law 45B)

Not instantly when it is made, it's not. Declarer's call is void when the director says it's void, which can't happen until he arrives at the table.

You will note that in my description of what happens, I did refer to Law 46B4. On the rest of the ruling, see below.

Aardv, on 2014-November-15, 05:51, said:

Declarer has committed an infraction by naming a card not in dummy - his is the offending side.

I don't believe that by deeming the original call to be void the lawmakers intended his subsequent designation not to be a change of play for the purposes of 47D.

I'm with Aardv on this point.

[lamford]

pran, on 2014-November-15, 00:30, said:

Oh yes, we are:

so Declarer's call is void (i.e. no call to this trick has yet been made by declarer), and East has led out of turn.

(Being more specific Law 46B4 takes precedence over Law 45B)

I disagree, and think that blackshoe is right. However, if you are right, then Law 23 kicks in as declarer could have been aware that his infraction would work to his advantage, and we award an adjusted score. We must prevent a coup whereby declarer names a slightly different rank of a suit that a defender will expect him to play, and the defender does not notice that the lowest card of that suit is not, say, the two. It does seem more logical, however, to adopt blackshoe's approach.

[Bbradley62]

lamford, on 2014-November-15, 07:05, said:

However, if you are right, then Law 23 kicks in as declarer could have been aware that his infraction would work to his advantage...

It seems clear from this wording of Law 23 that it applies to actions taken deliberately by declarer; if we think he deliberately called for a card not in dummy (maybe he does this habitually), then and only then should this Law apply. If he thought he was making a legitimate call, he couldn't possibly have known that it might result in opponent committing an infraction.

[Bbradley62]

Aardv, on 2014-November-15, 05:51, said:

Declarer has committed an infraction by naming a card not in dummy - his is the offending side.

I don't believe that by deeming the original call to be void the lawmakers intended his subsequent designation not to be a change of play for the purposes of 47D.

I do believe that the lawmakers intended that it is not the turn of the defender to the left of dummy until dummy has positioned the called card in the "played" position, and that failing to play in turn is an infraction by that defender.

[lamford]

Bbradley62, on 2014-November-15, 08:01, said:

It seems clear from this wording of Law 23 that it applies to actions taken deliberately by declarer

Not at all. The whole purpose of the phrase "could have been aware" in Law 23 is that no suspicion of sharp practice is needed. We carefully avoid describing someone as a "chancer" or anything else beginning with "ch"; unless they cough too often.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-15, 06:46, said:

Not instantly when it is made, it's not. Declarer's call is void when the director says it's void, which can't happen until he arrives at the table.

You will note that in my description of what happens, I did refer to Law 46B4. On the rest of the ruling, see below.


I'm with Aardv on this point.

The wording of the law [468B4] is that the 'voiding' is automatic. The law might do well to admonish players to not act until after RHO has put his card in a played position- and thus avoid being in the awkward position of POOT [as happened in this case].

[blackshoe]

Bbradley62, on 2014-November-15, 08:15, said:

I do believe that the lawmakers intended that it is not the turn of the defender to the left of dummy until dummy has positioned the called card in the "played" position, and that failing to play in turn is an infraction by that defender.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But what they said is that the card is played when declarer calls for it.

axman, on 2014-November-15, 13:50, said:

The wording of the law [48B4] is that the 'voiding' is automatic. The law might do well to admonish players to not act until after RHO has put his card in a played position- and thus avoid being in the awkward position of POOT [as happened in this case].

It might, but it doesn't.

As for 'automatic' I don't think the TD should condone players doing anything other than calling the director when someone has called attention to an irregularity. So it might be automatic, but only as part of the director's ruling.

[jallerton]

RMB1, on 2014-November-14, 17:20, said:

South is declarer, the lead is in dummy and South calls for "the two of clubs".
There is no ♣2 in dummy, and dummy does nothing, but East play ♣Q.
Declarer calls the TD and says he has called for a card not in dummy, and East has played.
The only two in dummy is ♠2. Declarer will call for ♠2 if/when declarer is asked to designate a legal card.
East has a spade, so cannot play ♣Q to ♠2 from dummy.

Rule please:
Is ♠2 to be played from dummy?
Is ♣Q a penalty card?
Is possession of ♣Q and/or the fact the East would play ♣Q on a club from dummy, authorised or unauthorised for declarer?
Is possession of ♣Q and/or the fact the East would play ♣Q on a club from dummy, authorised or unauthorised for West?

There are two two infractions. In the first instance, we have to deal with each of them through the designated book rulings.

Is ♠2 to be played from dummy? No. Declarer has called for a specific card not in dummy. Law 46B4 applies. The call is void and declarer may designate any legal card to play instead,
Is ♣Q a penalty card? Yes, "unless the TD designates otherwise" (this phrase is used in the start of Law 50, but I can't see any specific guidance on when the TD should decide otherwise!)
Is possession of ♣Q and/or the fact the East would play ♣Q on a club from dummy, authorised or unauthorised for declarer? Authorised, as this arises from East's infraction
Is possession of ♣Q and/or the fact the East would play ♣Q on a club from dummy, authorised or unauthorised for West? Unauthorised, as this arises from East's infraction.

The TD should instruct the players to continue the play of the hand on this basis.

However, at the end of the hand, the TD should consider whether declarer has gained by the knowledge that East would have played ♣Q on a low club lead and/or West's restrictions from the fact that ♣Q was a penalty card. If the TD judges that declarer might have gained in this way, he should adjust the score for the declaring side via Law 23 and Law 12C. This could be a weighted score.

Finally, the TD needs to consider the position of E/W, who were the non-offending side in respect of the first infraction. Was the act of "following" with ♣Q a "wild or gambling action"? If the TD decides that it was a "wild or gambling action" (this seems a bit harsh to me, but I can see the logic for such an argument), the damage is deemed to be self-inflicted and E/W keep their table score. If not, then E/W receive an assigned score to mirror that assigned to N/S.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2014-November-16, 03:32, said:

Finally, the TD needs to consider the position of E/W, who were the non-offending side in respect of the first infraction. Was the act of "following" with ♣Q a "wild or gambling action"? If the TD decides that it was a "wild or gambling action" (this seems a bit harsh to me, but I can see the logic for such an argument), the damage is deemed to be self-inflicted and E/W keep their table score. If not, then E/W receive an assigned score to mirror that assigned to N/S.

I think that "serious error" is a more likely classification for playing before dummy has placed the card, in which case it is "related to the infraction" and therefore does not deny E/W redress. Anyway, in comparison with the serious errors in the White Book (things like ducking the setting trick in a grand slam, revoking, etc), this infraction seems mild and should not be treated this way. In addition, wild or gambling actions are normally applied to the auction, although I recall a hesitation Blackwood sequence when declarer went on to six with no justification. A defender led a small trump, fatally from Kx, allowing the contract to make, and the TD ruled that this was "wild".

[gordontd]

jallerton, on 2014-November-16, 03:32, said:

"unless the TD designates otherwise" (this phrase is used in the start of Law 50, but I can't see any specific guidance on when the TD should decide otherwise!)

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.

[jallerton]

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.

Fair enough: if there is no official guidance on the matter, then it's completely up to the TD when he decides otherwise! It would be reasonable for the TD to utlise this option in this particular case, but the TD does not appear to have any discretion on when knowledge of such unplayed cards can become authorised or unauthorised.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2014-November-16, 03:32, said:

There are two two infractions. In the first instance, we have to deal with each of them through the designated book rulings.

Is ♠2 to be played from dummy? No. Declarer has called for a specific card not in dummy. Law 46B4 applies. The call is void and declarer may designate any legal card to play instead,
Is ♣Q a penalty card? Yes, "unless the TD designates otherwise" (this phrase is used in the start of Law 50, but I can't see any specific guidance on when the TD should decide otherwise!)
Is possession of ♣Q and/or the fact the East would play ♣Q on a club from dummy, authorised or unauthorised for declarer? Authorised, as this arises from East's infraction
Is possession of ♣Q and/or the fact the East would play ♣Q on a club from dummy, authorised or unauthorised for West? Unauthorised, as this arises from East's infraction.

The TD should instruct the players to continue the play of the hand on this basis.

However, at the end of the hand, the TD should consider whether declarer has gained by the knowledge that East would have played ♣Q on a low club lead and/or West's restrictions from the fact that ♣Q was a penalty card. If the TD judges that declarer might have gained in this way, he should adjust the score for the declaring side via Law 23 and Law 12C. This could be a weighted score.

Finally, the TD needs to consider the position of E/W, who were the non-offending side in respect of the first infraction. Was the act of "following" with ♣Q a "wild or gambling action"? If the TD decides that it was a "wild or gambling action" (this seems a bit harsh to me, but I can see the logic for such an argument), the damage is deemed to be self-inflicted and E/W keep their table score. If not, then E/W receive an assigned score to mirror that assigned to N/S.

This is almost correct, but there is one detail that must not be overlooked: The ♣Q is not automatically a penalty card, it is a card led out of turn by a defender (RHO). As such the lead out of turn may be accepted by declarer in which case there is no further rectification, or the card can become a penalty card (only) if declarer does not accept the lead out of turn.

{As others have pointed out: Law 23 may kick in if either irregularity (calling a non-existing card from dummy or subsequently leading out of turn) is found to have caused damage to a side that was non-offending in the specific irregularity.}

[blackshoe]

The ♣Q was not led out of turn it was played in following suit to the card designated (and thus played, whether in dummy or not) by declarer. Ruling as jeffrey suggests is basically giving declarer an advantage from his irregularity. Merry Christmas, declarer!

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-16, 11:55, said:

The ♣Q was not led out of turn it was played in following suit to the card designated (and thus played, whether in dummy or not) by declarer. Ruling as jeffrey suggests is basically giving declarer an advantage from his irregularity. Merry Christmas, declarer!

I know we disagree and that I can probably never convince you.

But in their definitions of the adjective "Void" my "Oxford Guide to the English Language" says: Empty; not valid, and my "Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language" says: Containing nothing; empty; having no effect or result; ineffective; useless, of no legal force; not binding; invalid; null.

Now while Law 45B states that declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it Law 46B4 explicitly states that such a call is void when the designated card is not in dummy.

So as Law 46B4 is more specific than Law 45B and therefore takes precedence when both appear applicable, I consider myself on very solid ground when assuming that no card shall be considered played whenever declarer calls a card that is not in dummy. (Note that unlike the other provisions in L46B this Law contains no "default" understanding of such calls by declarer.)

Consequently when RHO "follows suit" to such a call (and dummy has not placed any card in the played position) then RHO has effectively led out of turn to the trick.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2014-November-16, 09:19, said:

<snip> but the TD does not appear to have any discretion on when knowledge of such unplayed cards can become authorised or unauthorised.

81C2 gives him the power to administer and interpret the Laws, so it could be argued that when he designates a card as not a penalty card he decides on associated matters.