[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-July-28, 08:57, said:

Do me the favour of quoting correctly. I never referred to Law 45D.

I know you did not refer to Law 45B, but since you were talking about a card being played from dummy, Law 45B applies.

Why not L45D?

[bluejak]

Because I have posed a question and offered no answer of any sort.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2011-July-28, 08:53, said:

Do me the favour of quoting correctly. I never referred to Law 45B.

Now please tell me (and the audience) why Law 45D is not the relevant law (and in fact the only relevant law)

As ivie hints at, I think 45F might come into play later if dummy's suggestion of a card to be played has caused damage. I am also wondering where David is heading with this; you just know it is going to be good...

[shyams]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-28, 07:34, said:

shyams, on 2011-July-28, 06:10, said:

IMHO, the ♠A should be deemed a played card (played out of turn?). So, declarer should ask dummy to put all his 13 cards down and then can choose to play any spade but the ♠A is deemed to be played.IMHO, Law 45D does not apply because the card put down by dummy was not a played card (maybe dummy thought he was participating in a game where all 4 players play their own cards). In any case, after dummy has put 1 of his 13 cards down, if the 3rd player plays, he/she does so in haste. Whether dummy deserves a PP for what happened is another matter. I will leave that part of the discussion to the TDs

Your reading of the laws is flawed. 45D speaks not of "played" cards, but of cards "placed in the played position".

OK.

If the situation is as I described (dummy puts down only the ♠K) AND
a. ...in a "played" position (i.e. longer edge facing dummy) which led to the 3rd player playing the ♠A, it seems reasonable that 45D will apply. BUT
a. ... in a "normal" position (i.e. shorter edge facing dummy) followed by the 3rd player playing the ♠A, do you think 45D still applies?

IMHO, Law 45F also cannot apply because this can apply "After dummy's hand is faced" which appears not to have happened in the situation described in the OP.

At the risk of derailing the discussion, say opening lead was ♠2, followed by dummy putting down his cards in this order:
place ♠K, pause 0.2 sec, then place 5 trumps, pause 0.2 sec, then place 4 card minor, pause 0.2 sec, then place singleton in other minor, then place two more ♠ cards on top of ♠K. And while this jokey display is underway and declarer has said nothing, the third hand assumes ♠K as singleton and follows with the ♠A, would you rule 45D as well?

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-July-27, 05:58, said:

Opening lead, ♠2, dummy sleepily furnishes ♠K, next player furnishes the ♠A, declarer says "Where's the dummy?"

Even with a sloppy description, I feel it's reasonable that posters make common-sense assumptions. when commenting on a case. Here, for example: playing Bridge, after a legal opening lead, dummy and the next player, in turn, take cards from their hands and place them in the played position. On that premiss, the citation of law 25 D & F by Zelandakh, axman, blackshoe, iviehoff, pran and company seems appropriate. Presumably, if something else happened, the director could have found out what, and included that in his report.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-July-28, 11:43, said:

Because I have posed a question and offered no answer of any sort.

You remind me of a professor in Math who always started his first lesson with a new class by walking up to the blackboard without a word, writing:

2 2 ? (Note that there are spaces between the characters)

and turning towards the class, still without saying anything.

Then one pupil after the other raised his hand, and on a nod from the professor suggested: "four" - a headshake, "zero" - a headshake, "one" - a headshake, "twenty-two" - a headshake, and so on until nobody could think of any further alternative.

What was the correct answer? - "What is the problem?"

I believe we all have trusted you to post the description of a situation where the implied question is: "How should we rule?"

Apparently that is not what you have done, so what is the problem?

(If you have posed a question it was too well disguised, there is no explicit question in your OP.)

[pran]

shyams, on 2011-July-28, 12:31, said:

If the situation is as I described (dummy puts down only the ♠K) AND
a. ...in a "played" position (i.e. longer edge facing dummy) which led to the 3rd player playing the ♠A, it seems reasonable that 45D will apply. BUT
a. ... in a "normal" position (i.e. shorter edge facing dummy) followed by the 3rd player playing the ♠A, do you think 45D still applies?

Is there any reason for this distinction (between "played" and "normal" positions)?
I have never seen any Dummy consistently placing his played cards in what you here designate the "played" position; in fact most of the time I have seen Dummy placing his played card in what you designate the "normal" position (except when he just grabs the called card and holds it until it is to be turned face down among his quitted cards.

shyams, on 2011-July-28, 12:31, said:

At the risk of derailing the discussion, say opening lead was ♠2, followed by dummy putting down his cards in this order:
place ♠K, pause 0.2 sec, then place 5 trumps, pause 0.2 sec, then place 4 card minor, pause 0.2 sec, then place singleton in other minor, then place two more ♠ cards on top of ♠K. And while this jokey display is underway and declarer has said nothing, the third hand assumes ♠K as singleton and follows with the ♠A, would you rule 45D as well?

Your question is certainly relevant and I did wonder if that could really be what had happened. But if so the description of the case is lousy to say the least. And OP didn't in any way indicate that Dummy was within a process of facing his hand.

[jallerton]

Sven, if I understand the opening post correctly, the player who was supposed to be dummy, put ♠K in the played position but kept the other 12 cards in his hand. The next player then "played" ♠A as if it were a game of Whist.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2011-July-28, 15:46, said:

Sven, if I understand the opening post correctly, the player who was supposed to be dummy, put ♠K in the played position but kept the other 12 cards in his hand. The next player then "played" ♠A as if it were a game of Whist.

That is precisely the way I read OP.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2011-July-28, 08:52, said:

So far we have only been looking at the easy bit of this little problem. It is after L45D has been applied that the difficult problem comes, assuming there is a plausible choice of plays from dummy. Declarer has two bits of UI, (1) that partner is suggesting he should play the K and (2) that the A is sitting over the K (L16D). So what can he legally choose to avoid the risk of an adjustment? Probably neither. Probably both playing the K and not playing the K are suggested by the UI, so any successful play by declarer at trick 1 is probably adjustable against if after the fact the defence don't like it. I can even imagine scenarios for an adjustment even when declarer chooses an inferior option at trick 1: if the defence manages to mess it up badly enough that they can say that they actually they have been damaged relative to the expected result if declarer had chosen the other option, since then they wouldn't have been placed in the position of the possiblity of making that error.

I find this very hard to swallow. For one thing, what the defence like or don't like is irrelevant. For another, I cannot believe there is any UI situation in which there is no acceptable alternative. Not to mention there is the small matter of whether the NOS are damaged - if they aren't they're not getting a score adjustment. The argument you suggest does not seem likely to convince me the NOS are due an adjustment. It sound more like "we committed a SEWoG, but we want redress anyway".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-28, 16:05, said:

iviehoff, on 2011-July-28, 08:52, said:

So far we have only been looking at the easy bit of this little problem. It is after L45D has been applied that the difficult problem comes, assuming there is a plausible choice of plays from dummy. Declarer has two bits of UI, (1) that partner is suggesting he should play the K and (2) that the A is sitting over the K (L16D). So what can he legally choose to avoid the risk of an adjustment? Probably neither. Probably both playing the K and not playing the K are suggested by the UI, so any successful play by declarer at trick 1 is probably adjustable against if after the fact the defence don't like it. I can even imagine scenarios for an adjustment even when declarer chooses an inferior option at trick 1: if the defence manages to mess it up badly enough that they can say that they actually they have been damaged relative to the expected result if declarer had chosen the other option, since then they wouldn't have been placed in the position of the possiblity of making that error.

I find this very hard to swallow. For one thing, what the defence like or don't like is irrelevant. For another, I cannot believe there is any UI situation in which there is no acceptable alternative. Not to mention there is the small matter of whether the NOS are damaged - if they aren't they're not getting a score adjustment. The argument you suggest does not seem likely to convince me the NOS are due an adjustment. It sound more like "we committed a SEWoG, but we want redress anyway".

I agree with blackshoe:
Law 45D states that the ♠K must be withdrawn and that East may withdraw his ♠A and return it to his hand. As declaring side is the offending side the ♠A is AI for West and UI for Declarer.

Unless Declarer selects a line of play that could have been suggested by the knowledge that East holds the ♠A (and defending side is thereby damaged) I see no reason for any further rectification.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-28, 16:05, said:

For one thing, what the defence like or don't like is irrelevant.

I'm being colloquial. If the defence claim damage which is what I meant by "not liking it", that is relevant.

blackshoe, on 2011-July-28, 16:05, said:

For another, I cannot believe there is any UI situation in which there is no acceptable alternative.

In theory I suspect you are correct. In practice, if you have two bits of UI pointing in opposite directions, I suspect that you are at substantial risk of being damned whatever you do if you are successful.

I also made another shortcut. Actually there is one bit of UI and one bit of 45F info, and I took a shortcut calling them both UI, on the assumption that the assumption that an adjustment under 45F would in practice be like a UI adjustment. This probably increases the risk of being damned whatever you do, if you are successful.

I suspect that sight of the A is far more important than knowledge that partner suggested the K, though if playing the K is the successful play despite sight of the A suggesting otherwise on the face of it, someone will probably make an argument.

blackshoe, on 2011-July-28, 16:05, said:

Not to mention there is the small matter of whether the NOS are damaged - if they aren't they're not getting a score adjustment. The argument you suggest does not seem likely to convince me the NOS are due an adjustment. It sound more like "we committed a SEWoG, but we want redress anyway".

I was merely giving a scenario in which you can claim damage even when the opponents made a selection under the influence of UI which is ex ante expected to be the less succesful choice. There are many kinds of action far short of SeWOG which can results in the defence getting a worse result than they would have expected if declarer had chosen the ex ante superior line - a wrong 50/50 guess would often suffice, and that isn't even an error.

[bluejak]

In answer to why I posted it, I was asked a question, I gave an off-the-cuff answer, then looked in the Law book and found that my answer was probably wrong. So I thought I would check it here.

In answer to whether I meant something different happened from what I posted, no.

In answer to whether the card is played, it is not played per the Laws on playing cards from dummy. Yes, pran thinks this is irrelevant, but I am not convinced.

In answer to whether it was worth posting we are way down the second page of replies.

[blackshoe]

45F starts "after dummy's hand is faced…" Dummy's hand was not faced, so 45F does not apply.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-29, 09:14, said:

45F starts "after dummy's hand is faced…" Dummy's hand was not faced, so 45F does not apply.

But Law 45D can.

Just consider the situation where in the middle of the auction a player "furnishes" a single card below the rank of an honour (i.e. in exactly the same way as described for North in OP).

I suppose (and hope) that we all agree this is a card exposed during the auction and that law 24 applies?

Now who will apply Law 24A (the card was not led) and in case why? What is required for a card exposed during the auction to be considered led?

To me it is obviouos that a card deliberatly (although sleepishly) exposed in this fashion is led, not just accidentally exposed.

It is similarly obvious to me that the ♠K as described in OP was played, not just accidentally exposed.

That is why I maintain that Law 45D indeed applies.

And to bluejak: It is of course relevant to establish whether or not the card was played, I have never said or implied anything else.
But if you deny that the handling of the ♠K as described in your OP is a play of that card for the purposes of the laws I must beg you to tell exactly what it is and why.

I have provided logical chains all (in different ways) leading to the conclusion that the ♠K was a card played by Dummy so that Law 45D is the applicable law. Have you anywhere shown any error in my logic?

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-July-29, 08:40, said:

In answer to whether it was worth posting we are way down the second page of replies.

Yes, although you may regret your decision to classify this as a "Simple Ruling".

It seems to me that:

[1]. Dummy has breached Law 41D.

[2]. Declarer has not played a card from dummy (Law 45B)

[3]. Dummy's LHO has played a card, when it was not his turn to play.

[4]. Law 45D covers the situation where a defender could reasonably believe that declarer had asked dummy to play the card placed in the "played" position by dummy. It is not clear whether it applies here.

On the basis of [3] it could be argued that ♠A becomes a penalty card (Law 49) and has to be played to trick 1.
What if declarer plays a low spade from dummy, the ace "beats air" and the declaring side gain thereby? Now it could be argued that the TD might need to use Law 23 to ensure that Dummy has not gained from his breach of Law 41D.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-July-29, 10:45, said:

But Law 45D can.

[snip]

That is why I maintain that Law 45D indeed applies.

Of course. I believe I already agreed with this upthread somewhere. But this has nothing to do with whether 45F applies.

jallerton, on 2011-July-29, 11:21, said:

Yes, although you may regret your decision to classify this as a "Simple Ruling".

It seems to me that:

[1]. Dummy has breached Law 41D.

[2]. Declarer has not played a card from dummy (Law 45B)

[3]. Dummy's LHO has played a card, when it was not his turn to play.

[4]. Law 45D covers the situation where a defender could reasonably believe that declarer had asked dummy to play the card placed in the "played" position by dummy. It is not clear whether it applies here.

On the basis of [3] it could be argued that ♠A becomes a penalty card (Law 49) and has to be played to trick 1.
What if declarer plays a low spade from dummy, the ace "beats air" and the declaring side gain thereby? Now it could be argued that the TD might need to use Law 23 to ensure that Dummy has not gained from his breach of Law 41D.

[1]. Yes.
[2]. Yes.
[3]. This is debatable. See Law 44B.
[4]. Law 45D covers the situation where dummy places in the played position a card declarer did not name. There is no implication in this law such as you suggest.

The rectification in Law 45D allows withdrawal of the ♠A if declarer does not play the king. I do not think you can apply Law 49 in this situation.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-July-29, 10:45, said:

But Law 45D can.

Just consider the situation where in the middle of the auction a player "furnishes" a single card below the rank of an honour (i.e. in exactly the same way as described for North in OP).

I suppose (and hope) that we all agree this is a card exposed during the auction and that law 24 applies?

Correct.

pran, on 2011-July-29, 10:45, said:

Now who will apply Law 24A (the card was not led) and in case why? What is required for a card exposed during the auction to be considered led?

That it be led, not exposed in some other way.

pran, on 2011-July-29, 10:45, said:

To me it is obviouos that a card deliberatly (although sleepishly) exposed in this fashion is led, not just accidentally exposed.

But led and accidentally exposed are not the only possibilities. Cards that are exposed deliberately but not led are also a possibility.

pran, on 2011-July-29, 10:45, said:

It is similarly obvious to me that the ♠K as described in OP was played, not just accidentally exposed.

It may be obvious to you, but you have not explained why, and it is not obvious to me. It was put in the played position by dummy. Cards are not played from dummy by being put in the played position by dummy, but by being named by declarer, and then ….

pran, on 2011-July-29, 10:45, said:

That is why I maintain that Law 45D indeed applies.

And to bluejak: It is of course relevant to establish whether or not the card was played, I have never said or implied anything else.
But if you deny that the handling of the ♠K as described in your OP is a play of that card for the purposes of the laws I must beg you to tell exactly what it is and why.

Because the Law describes how a card is played form dummy and this is not what occurred.

pran, on 2011-July-29, 10:45, said:

I have provided logical chains all (in different ways) leading to the conclusion that the ♠K was a card played by Dummy so that Law 45D is the applicable law. Have you anywhere shown any error in my logic?

Sure: you have made complete presumptions with no backing which I believe to be faulty: primarily that if a card is not played as per the Laws you assume it is played.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-August-01, 06:36, said:

[...]
It may be obvious to you, but you have not explained why, and it is not obvious to me. It was put in the played position by dummy. Cards are not played from dummy by being put in the played position by dummy, but by being named by declarer, and then ….
[...]

From Law 45D:
If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name

I have emphasized one essential sentence from your post and one part of the first sentence in Law 45D.
Is it at all possible that Law 45D does not apply to the situation described by you? Sorry, I am completely unable to understand how that could be.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2011-August-01, 11:09, said:

From Law 45D:
If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name

I have emphasized one essential sentence from your post and one part of the first sentence in Law 45D.
Is it at all possible that Law 45D does not apply to the situation described by you? Sorry, I am completely unable to understand how that could be.

The point is that a card placed in the played position by dummy is not a played card if declarer did not name or otherwise designate it.