[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-November-16, 14:21, said:

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.

You might convince me that RHO has played out of turn, but you're right that you will not convince me that he has led out of turn.

On review of the laws, I suppose the distinction doesn't make much difference.

[Aardv]

It's an absurd fiction to pretend that RHO has attempted to lead out of turn when plainly he has merely been trying to follow suit.

I've been persuaded that what has happened is a change of call by declarer, but not a change of play, because his first call was automatically voided without becoming a play. Therefore 47D does not quite apply, and we are left to our own directorial devices. However, 47D does provide the best guidance as to what the lawmakers might have written had they considered such an event.

I am going to rule that declarer can lead what he wants, RHO can play what he wants, and, since both sides have committed infractions, RHO's possession of the queen of clubs is UI to his partner and declarer both.

[nige1]

Aardv, on 2014-November-16, 19:36, said:

I am going to rule that declarer can lead what he wants, RHO can play what he wants, and, since both sides have committed infractions, RHO's possession of the queen of clubs is UI to his partner and declarer both.

Judgement of Solomon Surely in conflict with the law?

[blackshoe]

Aardv, on 2014-November-16, 19:36, said:

I've been persuaded that what has happened is a change of call by declarer, but not a change of play, because his first call was automatically voided without becoming a play.

I have a small problem with this. The way I read Law 45B, when declarer calls for a card in dummy, that is a play, whatever happens later. I would accept "the play of a card not in dummy is void," but it's still a play.

[pran]

Aardv, on 2014-November-16, 19:36, said:

It's an absurd fiction to pretend that RHO has attempted to lead out of turn when plainly he has merely been trying to follow suit.

I've been persuaded that what has happened is a change of call by declarer, but not a change of play, because his first call was automatically voided without becoming a play. Therefore 47D does not quite apply, and we are left to our own directorial devices. However, 47D does provide the best guidance as to what the lawmakers might have written had they considered such an event.

I am going to rule that declarer can lead what he wants, RHO can play what he wants, and, since both sides have committed infractions, RHO's possession of the queen of clubs is UI to his partner and declarer both.

I have never indicated that RHO attempted to lead out of turn. What he did was indeed leading out of turn. Whether we consider this irregularity accidental or deliberate depends on our judgement of his lack of attention to what was really happening.

[campboy]

I think pran is right. The laws define "lead" as "the first card played to a trick". No other card has been played to this trick. So the play out of turn (and we all seem to agree it was played) was a lead, even though the player did not intend it to be. I don't like it, but that is what the laws say.

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-November-17, 04:53, said:

I think pran is right. The laws define "lead" as "the first card played to a trick". No other card has been played to this trick. So the play out of turn (and we all seem to agree it was played) was a lead, even though the player did not intend it to be. I don't like it, but that is what the laws say.

The moral of all this is of course:

Pay attention, do not act on what declarer says he wants to do but wait till it is actually done.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-November-17, 04:53, said:

The laws define "lead" as "the first card played to a trick". No other card has been played to this trick.

You could argue that it does not become a trick until other cards are played to it, as "trick" is defined as "consisting unless flawed of four cards". And I do not buy the argument that this is a flawed trick of one card! There never will be a trick beginning with the lead of the QC in this example. I think that the QC is a penalty card unless the TD designates otherwise. It was played prematurely before dummy had placed a card in the played position. And I think jallerton's (dissewogified) solution is probably the correct one.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-November-17, 07:23, said:

You could argue that it does not become a trick until other cards are played to it, as "trick" is defined as "consisting unless flawed of four cards". And I do not buy the argument that this is a flawed trick of one card! There never will be a trick beginning with the lead of the QC in this example. I think that the QC is a penalty card unless the TD designates otherwise. It was played prematurely before dummy had placed a card in the played position. And I think jallerton's (dissewogified) solution is probably the correct one.

You could, but by that argument it would be impossible to lead out of turn in any situation.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2014-November-17, 07:46, said:

You could, but by that argument it would be impossible to lead out of turn in any situation.

It seems to me that for a card to be considered led, there must have been an intention to lead it.

[blackshoe]

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.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-November-17, 07:46, said:

You could, but by that argument it would be impossible to lead out of turn in any situation.

No, it would just show that there was an inaccurate definition of "lead" in the Laws. It should read "the first card played to a trick or a single card placed on the table with the intention of commencing a trick."

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-November-17, 08:17, said:

No, it would just show that there was an inaccurate definition of "lead" in the Laws. It should read "the first card played to a trick or a single card placed on the table with the intention of commencing a trick."

We have to work with the definition that is actually in the laws, not the one that we would like to be there. I agree that your definition would be a great improvement.

[Aardv]

I am ruling under Law 84. 84B tells us what to do "If the case is clearly covered by a Law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity". Well this one isn't clearly covered. So I go to 84D "He seeks to restore equity".

[blackshoe]

Aardv, I don't think that's enough. In particular, how do you "restore equity" in the middle of the play?

[pran]

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.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-November-17, 08:43, said:

We have to work with the definition that is actually in the laws, not the one that we would like to be there. I agree that your definition would be a great improvement.

Well, under the definition in the Laws, there can never be a lead unless there is a trick. Therefore, the QC is just an exposed card. So are all LOOTs!

[barmar]

Don't the laws already require us to distinguish a lead to the next trick from a fifth card played to the previous trick? If we can tell that difference, can't we similarly tell the difference between "following" to the voided lead and leading?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-November-17, 09:35, said:

This play is therefore a first play (AKA "lead") out of turn

Per which law?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 09:06, said:

Aardv, I don't think that's enough. In particular, how do you "restore equity" in the middle of the play?

By doing what Aardv advocates...and using the Law he cites. It might be "Solomonic", but I don't think following an available path (Law 84) can be against the Laws.

We might prefer to follow the letters of different laws to punish the guy who held the Club Queen for a transgression he shouldn't have had to contend with in the first place. Or, we might go with Aardv and get on with our lives.