[bluejak]

Declarer called for a heart, or so he says. Dummy played a club, RHO played a club, declarer played a heart, LHO ruffed with a spade. Declarer had not noticed that the wrong card was played from dummy, and was not surprised to lose the trick when LHO ruffed, so play continued, LHO leading, dummy playing and then ...

"Where has dummy's club gone?" asked declarer, and all was revealed.

It is now too late to change dummy's card. Declarer had a club as well as a heart: LHO had a heart but no club.

"You revoked," said LHO, "you did not play a club."

"Don't be ridiculous," said declarer, "I asked for a heart, I played a heart, that cannot be a revoke! Anyway, you had a heart, you ruffed, so you revoked."

"Bog off," said LHO, unpleasantly, "a club was played from dummy and I did not have any."

Did anyone revoke?



Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone, especially the ones with whom I have the least pleasant disagreements.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 61A: 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.

I see no evidence that anyone was required to lead or play any particular card from any hand, save for the requirement to follow suit. So we should start with "what card was led?"

Quote

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.

Quote

Law 45D: If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it. if declarer’s RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16D).

Declarer says he called for a heart. He also played a heart from his own hand. To me, this is sufficient evidence that he called for a heart. So a heart was played from dummy. Dummy, however, placed a club in the played position (the emphasis I wrote in Law 45D above is intended to draw attention to the fact that dummy does not play cards; acting as declarer's agent, he places cards in the played position. Now declarer's RHO played a club. If he had a heart, he revoked. Declarer played a heart. LHO, having a heart, ruffed, so he revoked.

If the TD determines that a club was led from dummy (I don't think this is a good judgement in this case) then declarer's RHO followed suit, and declarer revoked. LHO did not revoke, because he had no clubs (see Law 59).

So the answer to your question David, is "yes".

TD should remind LHO of his obligation to remain pleasant in his interactions at the table (Law 74). In a ZT environment, he should get an automatic PP per the ZT regulation in force.

[ddrankin]

bluejak, on 2011-December-24, 10:39, said:

...so play continued, LHO leading, dummy playing and then ...

Assuming this means that declarer called a card to the next trick (as opposed to dumy playing a card on his own), then the previous trick must stand as played, since both sides have played to the next trick.

So the andswer is yes, someone revoked, but it was declarer.

Declarer may not have been surprised to lose the trick, but I would think he should be surprised that neither defender has a heart.

[AlexJonson]

Tricky presentation.

'Dummy played'.

I suppose it depends if this fierce dummy plays to all tricks without attention to the wishes of declarer.

If declarer called for dummy's second card, he is lost (IMO) otherwise not.

Merry Christmas to All

[RMB1]

If declarer called for a heart from dummy on the first trick, then that card was played and was the card led to the trick. The fact that dummy contributed a different card and that different card is the one ultimately quit as part of the trick does not change the card led: nothing in Law 45D changes which card was played. So it appears that the club by the defenders was a revoke. (Bah, humbug!)

In other circumstances, this problem could affect the ownership of the trick. Say declarer calls for a heart but dummy puts a club in the played position, and one defender plays a higher club; but declarer plays a heart and the other defender plays a lower heart. My reading of Laws 44F/45B/45D is that declarer wins the trick, not the defender with the club.

I suggest a second paragraph in Law 45D: "If attention is drawn after each side has played to the next trick, the trick stands as played: the card misplayed by dummy becomes the card played to the trick. If dummy led to trick then ownership of the trick and any revoke is determined with respect to the suit of the card misplayed by dummy (not the suit of the card named by declarer)."

[c_corgi]

The laws seem rather vague. Can we rule that no revoke has occurred, designate both pairs as the NOS and award an artificial score that protects the equity of both sides following the irregularity?

[pran]

My ruling in this situation would depend on alternative either a} or b} below and be as follows.

After Declarer called a heart from Dummy and Dummy placed a club in the played position, RHO followed suit with a club, declarer played a heart and LHO ruffed, and then LHO led to the next trick:

a}: Declarer now called a card from Dummy and then asked: "Where has dummy's club gone?"

Sorry Declarer, it is now too late to change the club that was incorrectly led by Dummy in the previous trick so that trick stands as played and you actually revoked with your own heart.

b}: Dummy now played a card without waiting for the call of a card by Declarer who instead asked: "Where has dummy's club gone?"

Dummy's club led to the previous trick is withdrawn and replaced by the heart that was called. RHO may withdraw and replace the club he played to that trick, and must do so if he has a heart. If RHO changed his card then Declarer may withdraw and replace the heart he played (only with a different heart and only if he has any). LHO may withdraw and replace the trump he played to the trick and must do so if he has a heart. LHO may also withdraw his lead to the next trick.

There is no rectification on any side for the irregularities so far, any card withdrawn by defenders is UI to Declarer and AI to defenders and any card withdrawn by Declarer is AI to both sides.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2011-December-24, 13:44, said:

[...]
I suggest a second paragraph in Law 45D: "If attention is drawn after each side has played to the next trick, the trick stands as played: the card misplayed by dummy becomes the card played to the trick. If dummy led to trick then ownership of the trick and any revoke is determined with respect to the suit of the card misplayed by dummy (not the suit of the card named by declarer)."

Unless I have completely misunderstood Law 45 that is precisely how Law 45D is, and has been intended at least since 1975.

[blackshoe]

c_corgi, on 2011-December-24, 15:17, said:

The laws seem rather vague. Can we rule that no revoke has occurred, designate both pairs as the NOS and award an artificial score that protects the equity of both sides following the irregularity?

I don't see how one could justify any such ruling.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-December-24, 17:42, said:

Sorry Declarer, it is now too late to change the club that was incorrectly led by Dummy in the previous trick so that trick stands as played and you actually revoked with your own heart.

No. Law 45B is clear: the card declarer called is the one played, not the one dummy placed in the played position, if they are different.

[bluejak]

Both cards to the next trick were played normally.

[EricK]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-24, 11:47, said:

I see no evidence that anyone was required to lead or play any particular card from any hand, save for the requirement to follow suit. So we should start with "what card was led?"

Declarer says he called for a heart. He also played a heart from his own hand. To me, this is sufficient evidence that he called for a heart.

To me that is only evidence that he intended to call for a heart and believed he called for heart. There is also the evidence that neither of the opponent nor dummy seems to have heard him call for a heart, and all acted as if they heard him call for a club.

At least where I play, if dummy played a card which declarer hadn't stated, there would be some indication from the opponents - either voluntary or involuntary - that something was amiss. Declarer must have been looking somewhere at the time dummy played the ♣. If it wasn't at the table, and wasn't at either opponent, where was it? And surely he would have to look at the table when RHO played a card? Why didn't he spot dummy's error then?

The evidence suggests to me that it was declarer who had a major lapse of concentration.

[Xiaolongnu]

I do not see a clear cut convincing ruling in this situation. I am however, more inclined to rule that it is defender who revoked. As long as we assume that declarer did indeed mean to play a heart from dummy in the first hand, I think it is definite. And I agree with blackshoe that it seems to be likely the case so. As for the defender, it seems to me that it is "his own fault" that he did not carefully listen to or ask what declarer called. I suppose we all have been in situations where dummy holds the A10xx, for example, and when declarer's call is not that clear, we have all asked him "Excuse me, did you say 10 of diamonds?" before deciding whether or not to cover with a secondary honour in diamond. It is perfectly clear that dummy does not play cards, he mechanically touches, lifts and turns them for declarer. Dummy does not technically exist, hence the name dummy.

As to how to rectify and salvage the mistake, I mildly suggest (not very convinced though) a possibility of bringing in 12A2, impossible result. However, as to what the "correct" result "should" be by "equity" is another difficult to say thing. So much has to be taken into consideration, the line of play has to be taken into consideration but only where it is valid and legal. It might be easier to just give back 2 tricks, although I am still not convinced completely.

And yes, "Bog off" by defender sounds like a disciplinary penalty to me. I don't know what it means in the local context or how severe it is locally (as, for example, the F word is more severe in Asian countries than in American states but the opposite is true for calling someone animal names) but according to Urban Dictionary it is generally as bad as a vulgarity, I would penalize him more heavily if it could be the case that he could have known the offensive connotations that the phrase could have, as, for example, if it is known that he is a player who knows modern contemporary language to a great effect.

Merry Christmas everyone (:

[barmar]

I feel a sense of deja vu.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-December-24, 19:33, said:

Both cards to the next trick were played normally.

My alternative a} ?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-24, 18:20, said:

No. Law 45B is clear: the card declarer called is the one played, not the one dummy placed in the played position, if they are different.

Yes, Law 45D is clear: The card incorrectly placed in the played position may no longer be withdrawn after each side has played a card to the next trick.

Consequently the incorrect play by Dummy becomes the card played (led) to that trick which then stands uncorrected as actually played.

[Trinidad]

LOL, fun problem.

One of the keys to the problem is to find out what card declarer actually did call for. I would do whatever I can to find out. I might go to the adjacent tables and ask the dummies there whether they overheard something from this table. Who knows?!?

I will ask declarer to repeat what he said in the way he said it. Maybe declarer realizes now that his mouth didn't do what his brain ordered.

I will ask dummy why he played a club.

At some point I will rule what declarer actually had said and I will base my ruling on that.

Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and wisdom in your rulings in 2012 ,

Rik

[Cascade]

pran, on 2011-December-24, 17:54, said:

Unless I have completely misunderstood Law 45 that is precisely how Law 45D is, and has been intended at least since 1975.

Law 45D doesn't mention revokes.

[Cascade]

pran, on 2011-December-25, 04:24, said:

Consequently the incorrect play by Dummy becomes the card played (led) to that trick which then stands uncorrected as actually played.

This consequence is not obvious to me.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-December-25, 04:24, said:

Consequently the incorrect play by Dummy becomes the card played (led) to that trick which then stands uncorrected as actually played.

Sorry, Sven, but that's just nonsense. The fact that it's too late to correct dummy's mistake does not change the fact that the card played to the trick was a heart.