blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 08:13, said:
Upthread, I went through the entire process of ruling, specifying at each step which law I was applying. Would you please do that, Sven, for your interpretation? All this vague hand-wavy "everybody knows what the law is" stuff is giving me heartburn.

The sequence of irregularities and corresponding application of laws is:
1: Declarer calls from dummy a card that is not in dummy.
Both Laws 45B and 46B4 appears applicable, but as L46B4 is clearly the more spcific of the two it takes precedence.
Ruling: The (spoken) call is void and no card has been played from dummy.
2: East plays his
♣Q intending to "follow suit". However, as no card has been played from dummy he is not following suit to anything, he is playing the first card to the trick. This play is therefore a first play (AKA "lead") out of turn, and Law 56 applies. This Law directs us to Law 54D, and from thereon the ruling should be straight forward.
Law 23 could be applicable on either, or even both irregularities, but as the situation has been described I find this very unlikely.