[pescetom]

Here's an unusual one from a face to face competition last night.

South, Declarer, holds AQ2 of spades (trumps), with 97 left in dummy and J83 outstanding.
South leads the A, West plays the 3, South calls for the 7, Dummy pushes it into a played position and goes back to studying the previous board on her phone, East shows out.
Dummy still immerged in her phone, South leads the 2 and calls "spades".
West looking up from her cards and seeing the 7 in played position plays the 8: South tells dummy "play spades, the 9".
West calls Director and says she would have played the J had the 7 been correctly quitted and had South not called "spades" out of turn.

Your decision?

[jillybean]

Laws 12 and 16
I think West has a valid claim of damage. It is difficult to understand how West did not realise that the 7 was played last time however all players are responsible for turning the card face down after a completed trick (65A) so yes, I allow the 8 to be retracted and the J played.

I can't find specific mention of this in TFLB

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-June-30, 12:23, said:

I can't find specific mention of this in TFLB

I can't either and am not in a hurry to allow West to change call, even though NS have committed multiple infractions.
North is certainly in line for a penalty which will at least make them reflect.
I was wondering if anyone would invoke 84D (not me).

[axman]

pescetom, on 2026-June-30, 14:28, said:

I can't either and am not in a hurry to allow West to change call, even though NS have committed multiple infractions.
North is certainly in line for a penalty which will at least make them reflect.
I was wondering if anyone would invoke 84D (not me).

I suspect trudging through L67 can murky things up.The trick did not have the cards played to it.

67B3. When the Director determines that the
offender did play a card to the trick, but
that card was not placed among the quitted
tricks, the Director finds the card and places it
correctly among the offender’s played cards.
The Director shall award an adjusted score if
the same card was played to a subsequent
trick and it is too late to correct the illegal play.

Here, the S7 was played to the trick but not quitted.
Then declarer plays the S7 to the next trick (designated spades) which L46 specifies to be the S7.

Remedy: quit the S7 in the correct trick.L67B3 But,but,but….

The S7 was played again. Is it too late to 'correct its second designation'?

L47A. In Course of Rectification
A card once played may be withdrawn when
required by rectification following an irregularity
(but a defender’s withdrawn card may become a
penalty card, see Law 49).

But, is a twice played card....

L47A specifies when rectification requires removing a played card (this card played a 2nd time) such card may be removed from a trick. Notably, L47F2 improvidently specifies that the only basis for ‘unplaying a card is L47F1 (aka L53B),,,in spite of the presence of L47A. Go figure.

But,but,but……

L47F. Other Retraction
1. A card may be withdrawn as Law 53B provides.
2. Except as this Law specifies (L47F), a card once played may not be withdrawn.

Catch 22 lives.

Reconciling the catch 22 L67B3 appears to imply that it can be too late to repair (specifying an adj score) given the presence of the restrictive L47F2. It is L47F2 that blocks the L67B3 correction of the initial trick.

[pescetom]

I imagine that South (a former senior Director) would have argued that "spades" called for the only legally remaining spades card, the 9.

But yes it's more law to consider.
Maybe this should not be in Simple Rulings after all.

[blackshoe]

Is a card in the played position still in dummy's hand?

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2026-July-01, 09:20, said:

Is a card in the played position still in dummy's hand?

A played card is no longer in the hand, be it Dummy or not. At the end of the trick it should have been quitted and correctly placed as per L65. But even if that fails to occur it is no longer in the hand and cannot be legally called for. IMO "Spades" should refer to the only remaining spade in the hand, the 9.

If Declarer had called "7 of spades" or reached over and (re)played the 7 then it would be twice played. But that did not happen.

[mycroft]

We in the ACBL (*) have an argument that if dummy is placed incorrectly (12 cards, or ♥A♦K84 or the like), and the defence goes awry as a result, that we protect them. I would consider a 14-card hand (where the ♠7 is in there twice) is a similar issue, and I would protect.

We also have the process where "if you hear wrong, that's your own lookout. If dummy pulls not declarer's call, we will protect you." (I have a couple of people with strong accents that mumble into their cards that I *absolutely* will not 'play to what's heard' as a result - and I strongly encourage others to do so as well. If their rounds get 15 seconds a hand slower as a result and they start running out of time, they can stop mumbling into their cards (can't help the strong accent). I also have several people (commonly, two at the table I'm playing at, especially in complicated hands) who are very soft with their calls and it's hard to hear - especially the difference between "top heart" and "heart", for instance. Same thing - wait for dummy to pull a card, you won't go wrong). I think that this is similar to that - dummy has done something wrong, and the opponents are misled.

Pulling out Law numbers for this isn't easy; but if nothing else, "failure to quit a trick (as dummy at least) is an infraction (65A). In rectifying the infraction (another trick in progress with a card not quitted), 'a card once played may be withdrawn' (45A), and we will designate it not a penalty card (50, preamble), as its exposure was (at least partially) caused by the other side's infraction". These are "does" laws, so the trigger isn't very strong, but I believe it gives us the legal backing to do "the right thing".

(*)I believe that this is at least now universal. From the Commentary: "Note that only the declaring side is responsible for the correctness of the dummy's hand. For instance, the defenders have no obligation to observe that dummy has too few or too many cards, or that the dummy has played a card not designated by declarer." Again, I would argue that this sentence also applies to "dummy failed to quit trick".

[jillybean]

"Everyone is responsible for dummy"

Another myth debunked.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-July-01, 18:14, said:

"Everyone is responsible for dummy"

Another myth debunked.

Yes it's in the Commentary. It would be nice if such things trickled down to the Laws, at least at next revision.

I would have no doubt about penalizing the declaring side, just about allowing replacement of the card West chose to play. Not sure I fully follow mycroft on how L65 and L45A (? 47A I imagine) interact to allow it, although I can see it is arguably in the spirit of the Laws (consider precedent of Declaring side suggesting that the wrong opponent makes opening lead). But do we really need to annull the play to rectify the L65 infraction? Even if Declarer had said "play the 9 of spades", rather than "spades", and West still played the 8?

You can guess what actually happened.