[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-17, 10:42, said:

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.

Whaddya mean "we", kemo sabe?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 10:35, said:

This play is therefore a first play (AKA "lead") out of turn
Per which law?

44A

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-November-17, 16:04, said:

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 10:35, said:

This play is therefore a first play (AKA "lead") out of turn
Per which law?

44A

Nope. 44A just says that when a player leads to a trick he may play any card in his hand. It doesn't say the ♣Q in this case is a lead.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-17, 23:47, said:

Nope. 44A just says that when a player leads to a trick he may play any card in his hand. It doesn't say the ♣Q in this case is a lead.

Sorry, I should have included

Definitions said:

Lead The first card played to a trick.

[GreenMan]

I think we would all be happy if the Laws carried some provision for a situation where someone plays a card because an opponent misled him or her. It's clear by now that they do not. Surely this is why L84 exists, because the Law writers did not anticipate every possible situation ahead of time? Why tie ourselves (and the FLB) in knots?

[pran]

 GreenMan, on 2014-November-18, 02:42, said:

I think we would all be happy if the Laws carried some provision for a situation where someone plays a card because an opponent misled him or her. It's clear by now that they do not. Surely this is why L84 exists, because the Law writers did not anticipate every possible situation ahead of time? Why tie ourselves (and the FLB) in knots?

They do if a player is genuinly misled:

Law 47E1 said:

A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.

and

Law 47E2 said:

a. A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent’s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card.

b. When it is too late to correct a play under (a) the Director may award an adjusted score.

[Bbradley62]

Then, does "no further rectification" mean there is no UI to anyone?

[pran]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-November-18, 07:16, said:

Then, does "no further rectification" mean there is no UI to anyone?

Literally yes, but Law47 of 1987 included the following section F:
If a card retracted under section C, D or E preceeding gave substantial information to the offending side, the Director may award an adjusted score.


I believe that this section has been deleted as being superfluous because the Director already has such powers. Clearly a side that has misled opponents to commit a play out of turn shall not gain from seeing the card incorrectly played and subsequently retracted.

[aguahombre]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-November-18, 07:16, said:

Then, does "no further rectification" mean there is no UI to anyone?

It would seem not to matter whether the information is called AI or UI if there is no further rectification.

(edit) Sven cross posted a different angle above; but I wonder if the TD really has powers to disregard "no rectification".

Hopefully, the side which caused the appearance of an opponent's card cannot gain from it...but, last time I checked, no meant no.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-18, 08:38, said:

It would seem not to matter whether the information is called AI or UI if there is no further rectification.

Presumed declarer or dummy mistakenly tells RHO that it is his turn to play. RHO plays a card which is then retracted and restored to RHO's closed hand.

Is knowledge of the fact that RHO has this card authorized or unauthorized information: a} to LHO, b} to Declarer?

My understanding is that the laws do not immediately bother, but expect the Director to award an adjusted score if he subsequently finds that this knowledge has had serious impact on the play.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-18, 08:38, said:

It would seem not to matter whether the information is called AI or UI if there is no further rectification.

(edit) Sven cross posted a different angle above; but I wonder if the TD really has powers to disregard "no rectification".

Hopefully, the side which caused the appearance of an opponent's card cannot gain from it...but, last time I checked, no meant no.

Law 12A1 said:

The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

I find nothing here preventing the Director from awarding an adjusted score when he judges damage, even when the relevant Law says "no rectification"?

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-November-18, 05:52, said:

They do if a player is genuinly misled:

The fact that the laws addresses the case where MI misleads an opponent does not imply that there can't be other things that may do so.

I think it would be a stretch to say that calling for a card not in dummy is "misinformation". Apparently MI is the only circumstance like this addressed in the laws. One might infer from this that if a player hears a card called from dummy, and assumes that it is played, he's played at his own risk, and if the card for which declarer called actually isn't in dummy, he's screwed. I think that's where Sven is coming from. But I think that a player who knows, rightly or wrongly, that he was following suit, will be rightly aggrieved if he's told 'no, you led out of turn'. So I don't think we should go there. That's why I came to the ruling I did.

Law 74B1 says that as a matter of courtesy, players should refrain from paying insufficient attention to the game. Has this player violated that law? Should we add a PP to the "you led out of turn" ruling? The player will view this as adding insult to injury, and perhaps rightly so, even though one could argue that he didn't pay sufficient attention, or he would have noticed there was no ♠2 in dummy. How far do we want to take this?

Really, my problem with Sven's approach is that it feels like we're letting declarer gain from his irregularity. After all, if he hadn't called for a card not in dummy, his RHO would not have followed suit to it. I suppose we could apply Law 23, but that doesn't feel right either.

[blackshoe]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-November-18, 07:16, said:

Then, does "no further rectification" mean there is no UI to anyone?

There is no rectification in any case for receiving (or providing) UI, because that is not an infraction. I would say then that the "no rectification" provision does not apply to UI. If there is UI (see Laws 16A and 16B1{a}) any infraction would be use of it, and would occur later in the hand. IOW, a separate offense, and still subject to rectification.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-18, 08:59, said:

There is no rectification in any case for receiving (or providing) UI, because that is not an infraction. I would say then that the "no rectification" provision does not apply to UI. If there is UI (see Laws 16A and 16B1{a}) any infraction would be use of it, and would occur later in the hand. IOW, a separate offense, and still subject to rectification.

An interesting approach. I would have thought "further" would include things arising later as a result. Using UI is a result of having it. But, again, I hope your interpretation is correct.

[dburn]

One could, I suppose, rely on an older meaning of "information" - "that which informs one's actions".

If East hears declarer call for the two of clubs from the table, this will "inform" East's decision to play ♣Q from his hand. Law 47E1 could then be invoked; indeed, even pran seems to suggest that this Law is appropriate if East is "genuinely misled".

[jallerton]

 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!

No it isn't. That's the whole point of using Law 23. (Sorry if my ruling was too long for you to get to the end!)

[GreenMan]

 dburn, on 2014-November-18, 12:46, said:

One could, I suppose, rely on an older meaning of "information" - "that which informs one's actions".

If East hears declarer call for the two of clubs from the table, this will "inform" East's decision to play ♣Q from his hand. Law 47E1 could then be invoked; indeed, even pran seems to suggest that this Law is appropriate if East is "genuinely misled".

I like this. East has been informed, falsely, by an opponent that the ♣2 has been played from dummy and that thus it is his turn to play.

[BudH]

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. In playing from dummy's hand, declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself.

LAW 45C4(a)

A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.

QUESTION - WHEN DECLARER VERBALLY CALLS A CARD FROM DUMMY, WHEN IS IT OFFICIALLY PLAYED?

Due to the words "AFTER WHICH" (my capitalized emphasis), I had always thought the card was officially played as soon as it is verbally named, and thereafter dummy picks up the card.

However, after asking ACBL about this, I was informed "after which" simply states part of the process of being a played card and the card is not officially played until removed from dummy and placed in a played position. This interpretation would make it clearly easier to rule on declarer's RHO mishearing which card is called from dummy ("eight"/"ace" OR "king"/"ten" OR "heart"/"club" are often misheard) as dummy's card is not played until after it is removed from dummy so the player should wait until that occurs.

The response I received from the ACBL was confirmed by a second individual who I asked for confirmation/clarification about the phrase "after which" in Law 45B and part of it is quoted below:

"If it was as you want to argue, I believe the Law would stop after the phrase 'after naming the card'. There would be no need to describe the physical action of the Dummy placing the card in a played position as it would be irrelevant. It is not irrelevant--the descriptor of placing it in a played position is a part of the whole step required."

So it appears the ACBL's position is when declarer verbally calls a card in dummy, Law 45C4(a) COMMITS declarer to play that card but that Law 45B says it is not an officially played card until it is both removed from dummy AND placed face up near dummy in a played position. That also means declarer's RHO should wait for dummy's card to be both removed from dummy and placed face up near dummy in a played position.
----------
If you are from outside ACBL, does your organization agree with the ACBL's interpretation that declarer verbally calling a card from dummy commits declarer to play that card but it is not officially played until physically removed from dummy?

And do you agree with that interpretation? And should Law 45B be re-worded to avoid the ambiguity?

Bud H

[blackshoe]

IMO the ACBL interpretation is flat wrong. Also, IMO as a director, it ain't official unless it comes from the LC.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-06, 12:10, said:

IMO the ACBL interpretation is flat wrong. Also, IMO as a director, it ain't official unless it comes from the LC.

There is no problem here unless declarer names a card that is not in dummy.
In all other cases it makes little difference whether the card is legally played when declarer names it or when the card is physically placed in the played position because the card must anyway be played once it has been named.

However:

Law 46B4 said:

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

in which case no card is played just by being called by Declarer unless the called card is in dummy.

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