[blackshoe]

I think I agree with the Axman here, if I understand what he's saying. In any case, I don't entirely agree with Karl.

[pran]

The prime purpose of Law 57C1 is to confirm the obvious: If declarer has played from both his own hand and from dummy to a trick before any defender has played to that trick then the defenders may contribute cards to that trick in any sequence.

Law 57C1 further elaborates this to include the case that RHO is free to play to the trick once dummy has played, suggested a play or just touched a card with the apparent effect of at least suggesting a play. (This is where Law 45F is relevant.)

Defendes are not supposed to keep track on the correct order of play to a trick when declarer and/or dummy has "disturbed" such order.

[mink]

axman, on 2013-December-12, 20:26, said:

Some care is due here. The passage provides no such qualification; and is in fact rather unilateral.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

Quote

It perhaps is worth ruminating over what effect L45C4a has;

Obviously this does not apply to the dummy, because it would be a contradiction with Law 45D.

Quote

and L16D provides its own obfuscation.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.


Karl

[axman]

mink, on 2013-December-13, 04:22, said:

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

Obviously this does not apply to the dummy, because it would be a contradiction with Law 45D.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.


Karl

It is presumptuous to believe ‘it is assumed that it is the dummy's turn to lead or play a subsequent card.’ Further, the language of 45D specifies ‘If dummy places in the played position’ as the relevant qualification.

Yes, declarer’s agent is not empowered to act on his own volition; yet, by doing so [having designated] the card must be played. And having been played, presumably does not preclude it from being affected by other passages.

There is some question as to who qualifies [or ought it be said, does not qualify] as OS.

[iviehoff]

mink, on 2013-December-12, 17:51, said:

1. People think that it is possible to accept a card played out of rotation. But this is only true for cards led - see Law 53.

Someone might have said it, but none of the serious arguments are on this basis.

mink, on 2013-December-12, 17:51, said:

2. People think that Law 45D is applicable in our case. This is not true. When Law 45D refers to a card "played" by the dummy, it is assumed that it is the dummy's turn to lead or play a subsequent card. Only then a defender can reasonably assume that the card was played, because he just overheard what the declarer said or did not see the gesture by which the declarer instructed the dummy to play.

You are quite correct, we do think that 45D is applicable, and that is because we disagree completely with your argument for saying it isn't. The law defines playing a card or putting a card into the played position in a way which is quite independent of whether it is done in rotation or not. A card played out of rotation or put into the played position when not played may in some circumstances be withdrawn of course, but that doesn't mean it wasn't played or wasn't put into the played position. Thus there is absolutely no reason to think that 45D applies only if it is done in rotation, and every reason to think it applies whenever the card is played or put into the played position.

mink, on 2013-December-12, 17:51, said:

3. People think that Law 57C disables any rectification for which a connection to play out of turn by a defender can be found. This is not true. Rather, only a rectification that aims at the act of playing before his partner is prohibited. That means, in our case, that if East had played the ♣2 prematurely, really no rectification at all would have been necessary. But playing the ♦Q is evil. It gives UI to partner, and East could have known that his side will benefit. If this has been done deliberately, which seems likely for me, it is unethically.

In a colloquial sense, playing in rotation means playing after the player on your right has (apparently) played. Now the fact that your RHO played out of rotation, or that dummy put the card in the played position without it being properly called by declarer, was their offence. And what L57C is aimed at is protecting the player who plays after a card on his right was apparently played, because the card apparently played on your right may still be withdrawn, and beacuse it may gull you into playing out of turn. To declare the card you played as being UI to partner would not be protecting the NOS. Now you are quite happy to take this interpretation when it is done inadvertently. But you can't really make the advertent/inadvertent distinction in this case. In general we are not in the business of deciding whether things are done inadvertently or not, although there are some very specific laws related to "unintended" things that do require that distinction. So the effect of this law is to give a player an effective right to play before his partner when the other side have played out of rotation, or dummy has placed a card in the played position a card that declarer has not called.

[barmar]

Law 47D also may be relevant:

Quote

After an opponent’s change of play a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply.)

When dummy's premature play is retracted, does that count as a change of play? Or does this depend on whether declarer plays the same or a different card when he properly calls a card from dummy?

[mink]

barmar, on 2013-December-13, 09:56, said:

Law 47D also may be relevant:

When dummy's premature play is retracted, does that count as a change of play? Or does this depend on whether declarer plays the same or a different card when he properly calls a card from dummy?

The dummy did not play, and therefore nothing is retracted. Even if the declarer had instructed the dummy to play, there would have been no change of this play.

Karl

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-December-13, 09:56, said:

Law 47D also may be relevant:

When dummy's premature play is retracted, does that count as a change of play? Or does this depend on whether declarer plays the same or a different card when he properly calls a card from dummy?

mink, on 2013-December-13, 11:44, said:

The dummy did not play, and therefore nothing is retracted. Even if the declarer had instructed the dummy to play, there would have been no change of this play.

Karl

If Dummy has violated Law 45F and RHO subsequently has played a card to the trick then sure Law 57C1 is applicable.

And if Dummy's illegal play/suggestion/touching is retracted/nullified for whatever reason then RHO may withdraw his played card under Law 47D without any rectification. Any information from RHO's card such retracted is AI to his partner and UI to declarer (Law 16D).

[mink]

iviehoff, on 2013-December-13, 09:49, said:

You are quite correct, we do think that 45D is applicable, and that is because we disagree completely with your argument for saying it isn't.

Nice reason.

Quote

The law defines playing a card or putting a card into the played position in a way which is quite independent of whether it is done in rotation or not.

Yes, if you read it literally. But it is only about putting a card into a played position and not about playing a card. I think we agree that Law 45D does never apply if the card is really played or designated by the declarer.

Quote

A card played out of rotation or put into the played position when not played may in some circumstances be withdrawn of course, but that doesn't mean it wasn't played or wasn't put into the played position.

I fail to find a law that allows the retraction of a card simply for the reason it was played out of rotation. On the contrary, Law 47 that lists all cases when a card may be retracted, and fails to mention a card played out of rotation.

Quote

Thus there is absolutely no reason to think that 45D applies only if it is done in rotation, and every reason to think it applies whenever the card is played or put into the played position.

Nearly always when more than one infraction happens at the same time or close to each other, the Laws fail to tell us exactly what to do. Such a case is the dummy "playing" a card, doing this out of turn, and the defender after the dummy plays out of rotation, too. If the dummy puts a card in the played position when it is his turn to play, and the declarer had named a different card or no card a all, we use Law 45D of course. On the other hand, if the declarer makes a legal lead from the dummy, and the next card is played by the declarer from his hand while RHO is still thinking, there is no Law that defines any rectification for this situation. Especially the declarer is not allowed to put the played card back into his hand, which Law 45D requires for the dummy. Only if LHO now plays out of turn, too, Law 57C becomes effective and again no rectification occurs for this play out of turn. It would be ridiculous if the defender playing out of turn after the dummy does something wrong may take back his card, while the other defender who plays out of turn after the declarer's play out of turn must not retract his card. A solution to this ambiguity is only to use Law 57C in both cases and Law 45D only if the dummy "plays" in turn - this is what it was designed for.

The other reason is that Law 57D is specifically designed to deal with the current situation. If the intention of this Law was that Law 45D should be applied, too, there would be a reference to Law 45D in Law 57C, and probably some words to resolve the ambiguity that though Law 57C just states there is no rectification, Law 45D defines a rectification that affects the defender.

Karl