[blackshoe]

 BunnyGo, on 2011-December-25, 18:00, said:

I understand that declarer "plays" and dummy "places" but based on law 45D clearly dummy "plays" as well. Yes?

No.

[BunnyGo]

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-25, 20:27, said:

No.

So you are saying that law 45D is badly written and should say "card misplaced by dummy"?

If that's the case, the law should be edited as such. However as the law is currently written, it seems that dummy can misplay a card.


CORRECTION: I have made a logical fallacy: just because dummy can "misplay" does not require nor imply that it can "play". However, to apply law 61 I need only that Dummy can misplay, and by the statement of law 45D dummy does "misplay" if he plays the club instead of the heart.

This post has been edited by BunnyGo: 2011-December-26, 02:21

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-25, 20:26, said:

Heart from dummy (his lowest), club from declarer's RHO, heart from declarer, trump from declarer's LHO.

Yes, if attention had been called in time, the dummy's error should have been corrected. I never said it should be corrected once it is too late per Law 45D to do so.

So what happens to the heart played from, but still present among dummy's cards, and to the club not played from, but now absent from dummy's cards?

[blackshoe]

Look, either declarer plays dummy's cards by naming or otherwise designating them, or declarer and dummy collaborate in the play - it takes both of them. Law 45B says the former. So does Law 41D ("declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy").

Law 61 says "failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity constitutes a revoke."

Dummy (the hand, declarer the player of that hand) did not 'fail to follow suit' in this case, because that hand was on lead. "Failure to lead or play..." refers, IMO to penalty cards. "Specified by an opponent..." obviously does not apply. Can dummy (the hand) revoke? Certainly - provided declarer, the player of dummy (the hand) calls for a card not of the suit led when dummy (the hand) contains such a card — for example, it is hidden behind another card or cards, or it fell on the floor, or was left in the board. Also, dummy can revoke if a situation occurs where a defender in exercising an option as stated above specifies a card to be played and declarer plays something else. In the case at hand, then, none of the criteria for dummy to have revoked occurred. Therefore, dummy did not revoke.

[mjj29]

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-26, 03:43, said:

Look, either declarer plays dummy's cards by naming or otherwise designating them, or declarer and dummy collaborate in the play - it takes both of them. Law 45B says the former. So does Law 41D ("declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy").

Law 61 says "failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity constitutes a revoke."

Dummy (the hand, declarer the player of that hand) did not 'fail to follow suit' in this case, because that hand was on lead. "Failure to lead or play..." refers, IMO to penalty cards. "Specified by an opponent..." obviously does not apply. Can dummy (the hand) revoke? Certainly - provided declarer, the player of dummy (the hand) calls for a card not of the suit led when dummy (the hand) contains such a card — for example, it is hidden behind another card or cards, or it fell on the floor, or was left in the board. Also, dummy can revoke if a situation occurs where a defender in exercising an option as stated above specifies a card to be played and declarer plays something else. In the case at hand, then, none of the criteria for dummy to have revoked occurred. Therefore, dummy did not revoke.

I think everyone agrees that there's no sensible way of handling this which is entirely within the laws, at least not that doesn't assess revoke penalties against the (IMO) innocent defence (certainly if attention had been drawn in time they would be the NOS, don't see why that should change now). What I think everyone would like is to be able to just restore some kind of equity - this logic is at least close to being a legal justification and if it happens at the congrees I'm directing tomorrow, one I just might invoke and then let various committees sort it out later if anyone is unhappy.

[BunnyGo]

I don't disagree that 41D makes it clear that declarer plays dummy's cards. However, just because declarer "plays" the cards does not mean dummy cannot "misplay" (one does not negate the other). And in fact 45D makes it clear that dummy can misplay (and law 42A3 makes it clear that dummy "plays" as well).

Furthermore, if law 61 only meant "failure to lead or play a card specified by an opponent" (as in for penalty cards) it wouldn't have an "or" clause to add the part about playing a card required by law. Hence there is necessarily more to 61 than you suggest. If your opinion is what the law writers intend, they should rewrite the law.

As per law 42A3 dummy does indeed "play" the cards as directed by declarer. Hence failure to play the card directed is failure to play the card required by law (specifically law 42A3), hence is LITERALLY a violation of law 61.


I understand your preconceived notions that dummy does not "play", in general I agree with you that it is the first of your two options. However the law here seems pretty literal and clear.

It is fine to use mental shortcuts and "understandings" (this is how humans compartmentalize ideas and make connections and inferences), but when the law specifies something that is what must hold, regardless of what understandings guide us in most cases.

This post has been edited by BunnyGo: 2011-December-26, 05:49

[Cascade]

While Law 45D is entitled "Card Misplayed by Dummy" the text of that law uses the more consistent with other laws phrase "dummy places in the played position a card.." which does not indicate that dummy "plays" the card.

Law 45D also says what to do when attention is drawn to such a card before both sides play to the next trick. However Law 45D is silent on what to do when attention is first drawn to the wrong card being placed in the played position subsequent to that.

Therefore I think rectification is possible only under Law 84D. "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side.
He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a nonoffending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12)."

[blackshoe]

We disagree as to what the law specifies.

[Cascade]

Which law?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-26, 03:43, said:

Look, either declarer plays dummy's cards by naming or otherwise designating them, or declarer and dummy collaborate in the play - it takes both of them. Law 45B says the former. So does Law 41D ("declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy").

Law 61 says "failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play, when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity constitutes a revoke."

Dummy (the hand, declarer the player of that hand) did not 'fail to follow suit' in this case, because that hand was on lead. "Failure to lead or play..." refers, IMO to penalty cards. "Specified by an opponent..." obviously does not apply. Can dummy (the hand) revoke? Certainly - provided declarer, the player of dummy (the hand) calls for a card not of the suit led when dummy (the hand) contains such a card — for example, it is hidden behind another card or cards, or it fell on the floor, or was left in the board. Also, dummy can revoke if a situation occurs where a defender in exercising an option as stated above specifies a card to be played and declarer plays something else. In the case at hand, then, none of the criteria for dummy to have revoked occurred. Therefore, dummy did not revoke.

We agree that Dummy did not revoke.

But I still need an answer to (in your opinion):

What happens to the heart played from, but still present among dummy's cards, and to the club not played from, but now absent from dummy's cards?

when you claim that the card played from dummy is the heart called by Declarer and not the club placed in the played position by Dummy, and nobody drew attention to this misplay until after each side had played a card to the next trick.

[bluejak]

 mjj29, on 2011-December-26, 04:05, said:

What I think everyone would like is to be able to just restore some kind of equity - this logic is at least close to being a legal justification and if it happens at the congrees I'm directing tomorrow, one I just might invoke and then let various committees sort it out later if anyone is unhappy.

Sorry, I strongly disagree with this. I do not want to restore some kind of equity which is neither my job, yours, nor any other TD. Our job is to apply the Laws, and only restore equity when the Laws tell us to, not when some people think it would be a good idea.

If you rule contrary to the Laws and let "a Committee" sort it out you are not doing your job. I appreciate it is not easy to work out what the correct ruling is, but that is why I have posted this. But faffing around with what a set of people want, equity for no apparent reason, is not the answer.

I do dislike this current fad for trying everything we can to let people commit infractions and not suffer. In this case we have one side who are the offenders, and one side who are the non-offenders, so to my mind there are only two reasonable views: one is to work out what the Laws tell us to do, and two is to make sure the non-offenders do not suffer.

[blackshoe]

I already answered that question, Sven. What happens to those cards? Nothing. They remain where they are.

I don't "claim" the card played from dummy is the heart called by declarer. Law 45B "claims" it.

[AlexJonson]

 bluejak, on 2011-December-26, 13:16, said:

Sorry, I strongly disagree with this. I do not want to restore some kind of equity which is neither my job, yours, nor any other TD. Our job is to apply the Laws, and only restore equity when the Laws tell us to, not when some people think it would be a good idea.

If you rule contrary to the Laws and let "a Committee" sort it out you are not doing your job. I appreciate it is not easy to work out what the correct ruling is, but that is why I have posted this. But faffing around with what a set of people want, equity for no apparent reason, is not the answer.

I do dislike this current fad for trying everything we can to let people commit infractions and not suffer. In this case we have one side who are the offenders, and one side who are the non-offenders, so to my mind there are only two reasonable views: one is to work out what the Laws tell us to do, and two is to make sure the non-offenders do not suffer.

Slightly unsure about the end of this piece. Are we deciding who the 'offenders' are and then searching for a way to make them suffer. Sounds like an old approach to directing that I thought was now deprecated.

[blackshoe]

I submit that anyone at the table "suffers" in this case, particularly if he has to listen to or read all the posts in this thread.

The original offender was dummy, who placed in the played position a card that was not played. A second offense was committed by fourth hand, who failed to follow suit. Yes, he was probably misled by what dummy did, but if there's a law that lets him off the hook, I don't know which one.

BTW, can dummy "fail to follow suit" when he's on lead?

[gnasher]

Can't we just rule 60:40, on the grounds that the possible interpretations of the Laws are both numerous and non-obvious?

[mjj29]

 bluejak, on 2011-December-26, 13:16, said:

Sorry, I strongly disagree with this. I do not want to restore some kind of equity which is neither my job, yours, nor any other TD. Our job is to apply the Laws, and only restore equity when the Laws tell us to, not when some people think it would be a good idea.

But I thought:

L12B1 said:

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-
offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending
side through its infraction.

ergo - restore equity.

 bluejak, on 2011-December-26, 13:16, said:

If you rule contrary to the Laws and let "a Committee" sort it out you are not doing your job.

Well, my tongue was at least slightly in my cheek for that comment. The chief problem here seems to be that the clear offenders are the declaring side and the NOS (as I said, when caught in time L45D clearly treats defence here as the NOS, I don't see why we shouldn't also if it's caught later) are the defence - but the closest interpretation of the law seems to require assessing revoke penalties against defence, which definitely seems unjust. Thus, I'm trying to find an alternative reading of the law which allows us to. I've not seen any suggestions for handling this which aren't contrary to some law. Vis your last paragraph:

 bluejak, on 2011-December-26, 13:16, said:

I do dislike this current fad for trying everything we can to let people commit infractions and not suffer. In this case we have one side who are the offenders, and one side who are the non-offenders, so to my mind there are only two reasonable views: one is to work out what the Laws tell us to do, and two is to make sure the non-offenders do not suffer.

I'm pretty sure you're agreeing that the side who are the offenders are the declaring side and the other side are the non-offenders, and yet the Laws tell us to penalise them for revokes. I am trying to find a legal justification for your second point: make sure the non-offenders do not suffer. The two most logical approaches to do this I can see are:

• Declare that dummy has revoked and invoke L64B7 and L64C
  
• Decide the defence have revoked and while we can't adjust the score because the penalty for that is unduly harsh (L12B2) we can say that dummy's misplacing of the card is an irregularity for which the laws don't provide indemnity and adjust under 12A1.

I believe in both cases the resulting score will be the same.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-26, 14:22, said:

I already answered that question, Sven. What happens to those cards? Nothing. They remain where they are.

I don't "claim" the card played from dummy is the heart called by declarer. Law 45B "claims" it.

So the result on this board as ruled by you is according to the heart in dummy being played twice (first when called but not "played" by Dummy and second when eventually disposed of from dummy's hand) and the club never?

Sorry for using the word "ridiculous", but if this isn't ridiculous I don't know what is.

At least my understanding of ruling according to Law 45D leaves us with a manageable result on the board:
Once each side has played to the next trick the irregular trick stands as virtually played, i.e. it consists of clubs from Dummy and RHO, a heart from Declarer (Revoke) and a trump from LHO.

Is this reasonable? IMHO yes.
(And judging from the last submission by bluejak I believe he is of the same opinion: The declaring side is OS, the defending side is NOS. I only disagree with him where he seems to consider this being a difficult case )

[pgrice]

 pran, on 2011-December-27, 00:34, said:

At least my understanding of ruling according to Law 45D leaves us with a manageable result on the board:
Once each side has played to the next trick the irregular trick stands as virtually played, i.e. it consists of clubs from Dummy and RHO, a heart from Declarer (Revoke) and a trump from LHO

I don't find this reasonable ... a heart was played from dummy [L45B] ... RHO revoked (though we may have some sympathy since Dummy moved a club to the played position) ... Declarer followed suit and LHO revoked (although as with RHO we may have some sympathy). After LHO leads and Declarer plays to the next trick L45D doesn't tell us what to do but it would seem that the trick just played must remain as played. To now decide that a club was played from dummy and thus Declarer and not RHO nor LHO revoked surely must be wrong. Had, for example RHO played a heart, would he also now be deemed to have revoked?! I agree the situation with dummy's cards is unusual but I suppose we have to put up with this to avoid players having followed suit to the card played from dummy (by Declarer naming it) being deemed to have revoked if attention is not drawn to a card misplayed by dummy in time to correct it.

So, the revoke(s) is(are) established L63A1 and one trick (presently) is transfered to Declarer L64A1. Further tricks may be transfered L64C. A PP for Dummy may well be in order.

Peter

[bluejak]

 mjj29, on 2011-December-26, 18:38, said:

But I thought:

{quote eliminated by software}

ergo - restore equity.

The trouble with that argument, which has been used for such things as saying you may not use Law 90 onwards is simple: it is merely a statement of intent by the lawmakers, and you do not rule based on it: you rule based on the laws the lawmakers have provided.

[schulken]

What an interesting situation. I'll add a twist that I recently had to resolve (which was the subject of a previous thread). What if LHO had been hearing-impaired? Would you rule differently?

It strikes me that when both sides played to the next trick, dummy has revoked and the revoke has been established. Both defenders also revoked by failing to play a heart. That takes us over to L64B3 and L64B7. Although dummy revoked, there is no rectification. Since both sides revoked on the same board - heck, on the same trick - there is no rectification. Just keep playing.

All this assumes you've ruled that indeed a heart was called for by declarer.