[pescetom]

South is doing her best in 3♥X after a bidding mishap.
West who doubled already covered the T with Q, almost certainly has the A but might not have J.
South looking at K52 in hand plays 9 from 98 in dummy, East plays 3 in tempo, South plays low and prays: no luck, West confidently covers and leads A.
South sighs and looks at the remaining cards in dummy, but North (who has not quitted his card) quickly interjects "you won the trick in dummy, and that Ace is a penalty card".
The quitted cards are inspected, West did indeed play 7 even though he had obviously decided to play J, as he explains.
West calls Director and explains the above: how do you proceed?

[smerriman]

It doesn't matter what he intended to play.

Quote

47 F 2. Except as this Law specifies, a card once played may not be withdrawn.

None of the other aspects of law 47 apply to the play of the 7, so that stands and the A is a lead out of turn.

Of course, then you have the issue that dummy isn't allowed to draw attention to this.. but 43B3 doesn't apply because of the silly restriction to A2 only, so dummy is liable to be penalized, but the rest proceeds as per a standard lead out of turn, as far as I can tell anyway.

[pescetom]

And if South told you clearly "I was convinced like West that he had played the Jack before leading the Ace and I was about to call hearts from dummy." ?

[smerriman]

That's why the restriction of 43B3 to A2 only is silly; it seems more logical to say play should continue after any breach from dummy.

But it appears that as written, even though dummy wasn't allowed to bring attention to it, the result is attention gets brought to it. And dummy's PP is the only way to compensate..

[blackshoe]

"Dummy's PP" doesn't apply only to dummy.

Attention has been drawn to an irregularity (Law 9) so the director should be called (Law 9 again). The director must rule on the LOOT -- the fact that it was dummy who called attention to it, and that dummy is prohibited from doing so (Law 9 says "may not"; so does Law 43) doesn't change the director's duty.

As has been said, the play of the 7 may not be changed (Law 47). The Ace LOOT becomes a major penalty card (Law 56, Law 50) unless declarer decides to accept it (IMO he shouldn't). The lead is in dummy. Proceed.

Agree with the PP, btw.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2025-July-08, 10:48, said:

"Dummy's PP" doesn't apply only to dummy.

Attention has been drawn to an irregularity (Law 9) so the director should be called (Law 9 again). The director must rule on the LOOT -- the fact that it was dummy who called attention to it, and that dummy is prohibited from doing so (Law 9 says "may not"; so does Law 43) doesn't change the director's duty.

As has been said, the play of the 7 may not be changed (Law 47). The Ace LOOT becomes a major penalty card (Law 56, Law 50) unless declarer decides to accept it (IMO he shouldn't). The lead is in dummy. Proceed.

Agree with the PP, btw.

I fully agree that a PP to Dummy is due (this is a "shall not" clause of law and West was an experienced player) although I seem to be in a minority amongst Italian TDs I have questioned

I agree that is is a legitimate to rule this as a simple LOOT and penalize the Ace, proceed
But I also think it is far from the spirit of the Laws, given the situation.
South if asked will to make it clear that without the infraction by Dummy, she would have called trump from Dummy, accepting the LOOT.
Even now, I would agree, TD cannot oblige her to do so.
But could Dummy have been aware at the time of his irregularity that it could well damage the non-offending side?
I would say not only that he could have been, but almost surely that he was was, even if he perceived the other side as offending and damage to them as damage avoided to his own side.

[blackshoe]

Interesting view. I don't think 72C applies.

[pescetom]

Thanks, that was the main question of the post.
Curious to hear other opinions.

[blackshoe]

Pescetom has a reconciliation problem with my ruling on this thread compared to my ruling on this other thread.

I don't see the problem. This thread was about a problem during the play. The other was about a problem during the auction. Different problems, different laws.

In this case, the problem (a LOOT only noticed by dummy) was exacerbated by dummy illegally calling attention to it. I didn't let that slide -- I gave him a PP. But maybe there's another approach. Let's see… Laws 42 and 43 both prohibit dummy from calling attention to an irregularity. These are serious prohibitions -- "may not" -- which is why he rates a PP. No rectification for dummy's infraction is specified in the laws, and the director is required to deal with any irregularity of which he becomes aware (see Law 81). So all we do with dummy's infraction is give him a PP, and then we deal with the LOOT. That happened; we can't just ignore it. We can't rule that the lead stands because declarer "was about to play from dummy". So the lead reverts to dummy, and the Ace is a major penalty card.

In the other case, somebody had a brain fart and passed an ostensibly forcing bid. He wanted to change his pass once he realized he screwed up, but he can't -- the law allows a change only if he thought he had a bid card in hand and the pass card was a complete surprise. When he passed, he wasn't thinking "I want to bid 5♦" or whatever, he was thinking "I want to pass". So he doesn't get to change it.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2025-July-11, 12:53, said:

Pescetom has a reconciliation problem with my ruling on this thread compared to my ruling on this other thread.

I don't see the problem. This thread was about a problem during the play. The other was about a problem during the auction. Different problems, different laws.

In this case, the problem (a LOOT only noticed by dummy) was exacerbated by dummy illegally calling attention to it. I didn't let that slide -- I gave him a PP. But maybe there's another approach. Let's see… Laws 42 and 43 both prohibit dummy from calling attention to an irregularity. These are serious prohibitions -- "may not" -- which is why he rates a PP. No rectification for dummy's infraction is specified in the laws, and the director is required to deal with any irregularity of which he becomes aware (see Law 81). So all we do with dummy's infraction is give him a PP, and then we deal with the LOOT. That happened; we can't just ignore it. We can't rule that the lead stands because declarer "was about to play from dummy". So the lead reverts to dummy, and the Ace is a major penalty card.

In the other case, somebody had a brain fart and passed an ostensibly forcing bid. He wanted to change his pass once he realized he screwed up, but he can't -- the law allows a change only if he thought he had a bid card in hand and the pass card was a complete surprise. When he passed, he wasn't thinking "I want to bid 5♦" or whatever, he was thinking "I want to pass". So he doesn't get to change it.

Thanks. I still think that the two problems do have in common the theme of following the Laws literally versus following their spirit.

In this case, a Taliban will have no doubt, Declarer did not accept the LOOT and so the Ace is penalized and NS gain a trick that (by admission of S) they would not have obtained had Dummy not committed the infraction.
A more liberal TD might be ready to apply L72C here (and yes it is unusual to apply it, but if not here where the wrongdoer is about to benefit knowingly, then when?).

In the other case, a Taliban will have no doubt, "someone" has not yet called by exposing a bidding card and now may make any call he wants, although there is an accusation that he received UI from partner which must be evaluated and if we buy it will lead to L16 evaluation.
A more liberal TD would probably rule that decades of bad directing have conceded that tapping twice on table (or returning bidding cards, or whatever) is equivalent to passing.

I just found it hard to reconcile your two rulings, at least without any admitted torment about either.