[szgyula]

Hi,

A seemingly simple question that I have a problem with: 2 card end play situation. Declarer (South) plays from hand his last trump (♥6). Before West plays, the dummy separates the ♦10 and places it in front of the other diamond. The declarer made no indication whatsoever to the dummy. East immediately plays the ♦Q. Declarer calls the director immediately. What to rule?

My interpretation: According to 45A, the dummy is an exception. The dummy separating a card and placing it anywhere does not make the card "played". As the declarer did not designate, even incompletely, a card from dummy, the dummy did not play a card (45B). Thus, East exposed a card out of turn. This is an unauthorized information for West. According to 16D, he must discard a club: He knows that there are two clubs and a diamond left. East discarding the ♦Q clears up the situation, i.e. West now knows that there can be no diamonds held by the declarer and he can safely discard the king of diamonds. Before seeing the ♦Q, he had to guess. Thus, he has two realistic alternatives and he must choose the one not suggested by East.

How would you rule?

---

[RMB1]

This is Law 57C and Law 45D.

East is not subject to penalty for playing before partner when dummy has played or illegally suggested the card to be played. Dummy has placed in the played position a card that declarer did not name and attention has been drawn. That card and East's card are withdrawn, East is non-offending, so ♦Q is authorised to West (and not authorised to South), West can base his play to trick 12 on the fact that East has ♦Q.

[szgyula]

RMB1, on 2013-December-09, 10:27, said:

This is Law 57C and Law 45D.

East is not subject to penalty for playing before partner when dummy has played or illegally suggested the card to be played. Dummy has placed in the played position a card that declarer did not name and attention has been drawn. That card and East's card are withdrawn, East is non-offending, so ♦Q is authorised to West (and not authorised to South), West can base his play to trick 12 on the fact that East has ♦Q.

To apply 57C, dummy must play or illegally suggest a card to be played. My reading is that dummy did not play (45A and 45B). The question is the meaning of "illegally suggest a card to be played". It is becoming hair splitting, but that is what law is in the end: "suggest" includes the intent to change the course of events. This is clearly not the case here as the declarer has no decisions to be made left.

[GreenMan]

szgyula, on 2013-December-09, 10:54, said:

To apply 57C, dummy must play or illegally suggest a card to be played. My reading is that dummy did not play (45A and 45B). The question is the meaning of "illegally suggest a card to be played". It is becoming hair splitting, but that is what law is in the end: "suggest" includes the intent to change the course of events. This is clearly not the case here as the declarer has no decisions to be made left.

Taking this approach would require applying the Law differently depending on the play position at a given moment -- in other words, an identical action sometimes qualifies and sometimes not, according to factors having nothing to do with the action itself. This seems more problematic than useful IMO.

[mycroft]

"dummy separates the 10 and puts it in front of the other diamond."

If that isn't "dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played" (Law 57C), I don't know what is. Therefore, "A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner". If that means that East has now told West how to defend, so be it. You won't do that next time, will you, North?

There was no choice? Then why does the rest of Law 57C specifically exempt "there's no choice" from "dummy has played"? "A singleton in dummy or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit is not considered to be played until declarer has instructed (or indicated*) the play." (Emphasis mine) It wasn't played until Dummy played it (or suggested it be played) by moving the card. East played after it. It's an irregularity, but there's no rectification by Law.

Also: "After dummys hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card, except for purpose of arrangement, without instruction from declarer" (Law 45F) None of the issues in this Law apply to this case, but it's still a violation. This may be where the "but dummy didn't suggest anything" comes from.
"Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer" (Law 42A1c).

Dummy committed an infraction, and that induced the defenders to do something technically irregular, but with explicitly no penalty. Why do we care about dummy's results? There are a lot of "things people do" that are technically not legal, but 99.9% of the time, don't matter. That doesn't mean that they get away with it the one time in a thousand it does. Next time he'll be a good little dummy, won't he?

[szgyula]

mycroft, on 2013-December-09, 11:52, said:

"dummy separates the 10 and puts it in front of the other diamond."

If that isn't "dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be played" (Law 57C), I don't know what is. Therefore, "A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner". If that means that East has now told West how to defend, so be it. You won't do that next time, will you, North?

There was no choice? Then why does the rest of Law 57C specifically exempt "there's no choice" from "dummy has played"? "A singleton in dummy or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit is not considered to be played until declarer has instructed (or indicated*) the play." (Emphasis mine) It wasn't played until Dummy played it (or suggested it be played) by moving the card. East played after it. It's an irregularity, but there's no rectification by Law.

Also: "After dummys hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card, except for purpose of arrangement, without instruction from declarer" (Law 45F) None of the issues in this Law apply to this case, but it's still a violation. This may be where the "but dummy didn't suggest anything" comes from.
"Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer" (Law 42A1c).

Dummy committed an infraction, and that induced the defenders to do something technically irregular, but with explicitly no penalty. Why do we care about dummy's results? There are a lot of "things people do" that are technically not legal, but 99.9% of the time, don't matter. That doesn't mean that they get away with it the one time in a thousand it does. Next time he'll be a good little dummy, won't he?

45A states "detaching it from his hand andfacing* it on the table" (what the dummy did) is playing a card except for the dummy. 45B states that the declarer must name it or pick it up. This did not happen. So strange as it seems, the card may not be played legally -- no matter what common sense suggests. The "suggests to play a card" (57C1) may be the way to bring common sense and laws together.

To make it extreme: single ♦ in dummy, declarer leads a ♦. Dummy asks (no opponent played yet): "Should I play ♦, when it is my turn". In this situation, can the "other" opponent (out of turn) face a key card?

[GreenMan]

szgyula, on 2013-December-09, 15:41, said:

To make it extreme: single ♦ in dummy, declarer leads a ♦. Dummy asks (no opponent played yet): "Should I play ♦, when it is my turn". In this situation, can the "other" opponent (out of turn) face a key card?

Warning or PP for the dummy, and an admonition to STFU.

[campboy]

szgyula, on 2013-December-09, 15:41, said:

45A states "detaching it from his hand andfacing* it on the table" (what the dummy did) is playing a card except for the dummy. 45B states that the declarer must name it or pick it up. This did not happen. So strange as it seems, the card may not be played legally -- no matter what common sense suggests.

But of course "the card cannot be played legally" is exactly what common sense does suggest, since it is not dummy's turn to play. No more can declarer legally play from both hands before either defender has played. But when either of these things happen (illegally, perforce), law 57C tells us what to do.

[mink]

Dummy has suggested a play. It is not relevant that there is no decision involved in this play. So Law 57C applies, and East is not subject to a rectification. Nevertheless, East has committed an infraction by playing out of turn - Law 57C does not allow him to to that. So the ♦Q was illegally played and therefore is UI to West. It suggests to discard ♦K. Therefore by Law 16B West is required to discard ♣K. Failure to do so should result in a rectification. This is not prohibited by Law 57C, because the partner of the player who played out of turn is subject to the Law 16B rectification. This is not forbidden by Law 57C, which explicitly refers to one player ("A defender") and not to the side who played out of turn. Furthermore, the Law 16B rectification is not a rectification for the act of playing out of turn, but for using UI. If the intention of Law 57C was to forbid such a rectification, something like "the play out of turn is considered a legal action now" or "Law 16 does not apply in this trick" should have been included in the text (as in Law 27B1a).

There is another possible approach to handle this: East could have known that playing out of turn may cause an advantage for his side. So TD could apply Law 23 and rectify. This Law starts with the word "Whenever". In order to override Law 23, Law 57C should have stated this explicitly. And again, a Law 23 rectification would be for the possible intention to get an advantage and not for the play out of turn itself.

And something else: The Laws assume that irregularities and infractions happen accidentally. Law 72B1 explicitly disallows intentional infractions ("must not"). But my first impression about East's play out of turn is that it was a deliberate action. Evidence for this is that he discarded the ♦Q and not the ♣2. If East was really not paying attention and thought it was his turn to play, I rather would expect him to discard the ♣2. Therefore, if I was called to his table, I would first ask East what he had been thinking when playing the ♦Q. If he answered: "I did not see declarer's lead and thought dummy had led the ♦10, very sorry.", there is no case. But if he tells me that he is entitled to play now because of Law 57C, I have gotten him, and he would receive a severe disciplinary penalty, no matter if he pretends he has misunderstood the Law.

Karl

[mycroft]

I disagree - "no rectification" means "no rectification". That means no UI. It's a play out of turn, accepted. It is an irregularity, yes; but one that gets "play on".

All I can say is that I would say "I waited until dummy played, I'm hard of hearing and blind in one eye, so I always wait until dummy moves a card, and then play. If it matters what my partner played, I'll check to see what it was, but it didn't this time."

Don't believe me? Okay. What if I were about 30 years older than I am. Still don't believe me?

I also love the players who put down dummy turning the singleton in the led suit sideways. But at least that's a suggested play in turn.

[szgyula]

mink, on 2013-December-09, 18:26, said:

Dummy has suggested a play. It is not relevant that there is no decision involved in this play. So Law 57C applies, and East is not subject to a rectification. Nevertheless, East has committed an infraction by playing out of turn - Law 57C does not allow him to to that. So the ♦Q was illegally played and therefore is UI to West. It suggests to discard ♦K. Therefore by Law 16B West is required to discard ♣K. Failure to do so should result in a rectification. This is not prohibited by Law 57C, because the partner of the player who played out of turn is subject to the Law 16B rectification. This is not forbidden by Law 57C, which explicitly refers to one player ("A defender") and not to the side who played out of turn. Furthermore, the Law 16B rectification is not a rectification for the act of playing out of turn, but for using UI. If the intention of Law 57C was to forbid such a rectification, something like "the play out of turn is considered a legal action now" or "Law 16 does not apply in this trick" should have been included in the text (as in Law 27B1a).

There is another possible approach to handle this: East could have known that playing out of turn may cause an advantage for his side. So TD could apply Law 23 and rectify. This Law starts with the word "Whenever". In order to override Law 23, Law 57C should have stated this explicitly. And again, a Law 23 rectification would be for the possible intention to get an advantage and not for the play out of turn itself.

And something else: The Laws assume that irregularities and infractions happen accidentally. Law 72B1 explicitly disallows intentional infractions ("must not"). But my first impression about East's play out of turn is that it was a deliberate action. Evidence for this is that he discarded the ♦Q and not the ♣2. If East was really not paying attention and thought it was his turn to play, I rather would expect him to discard the ♣2. Therefore, if I was called to his table, I would first ask East what he had been thinking when playing the ♦Q. If he answered: "I did not see declarer's lead and thought dummy had led the ♦10, very sorry.", there is no case. But if he tells me that he is entitled to play now because of Law 57C, I have gotten him, and he would receive a severe disciplinary penalty, no matter if he pretends he has misunderstood the Law.

Karl

I checked and Houston, there is a problem. The translation of the 2007 rules apply. Unfortunately this translated 57C has a broad ban on rectification which is not limited to the defender playing out of turn. This of course opens an other can of worms as one can now perform the Alcatraz Coup this way as 57C does not even limit the ban on rectification to defenders, it is a global ban on rectification.

As for 23: "... that this could well damage the nonoffending side, ..." is the exact wording. Due to the action of dummy, they are no longer nonoffending.

[mink]

szgyula, on 2013-December-10, 02:52, said:

I checked and Houston, there is a problem. The translation of the 2007 rules apply. Unfortunately this translated 57C has a broad ban on rectification which is not limited to the defender playing out of turn. This of course opens an other can of worms as one can now perform the Alcatraz Coup this way as 57C does not even limit the ban on rectification to defenders, it is a global ban on rectification.

In Germany, in case of translation problems the original English version of the laws applies.

Quote

As for 23: "... that this could well damage the nonoffending side, ..." is the exact wording. Due to the action of dummy, they are no longer nonoffending.

What the dummy did was an irregularity, because there is normally no rectification for a suggested play that did not really solve a problem for the declarer and would have no consequences at all if East did not play out of turn.

OTOH, East's play out of turn was an infraction. Relative to this infraction, N/S are the non-offending side.

Karl

[iviehoff]

mink, on 2013-December-09, 18:26, said:

But if he tells me that he is entitled to play now because of Law 57C, I have gotten him, and he would receive a severe disciplinary penalty, no matter if he pretends he has misunderstood the Law.

The law says there is no rectification for a certain irregular action. A player is allowed to read the law, know it says that, and take an apparently irregular action confident that there is no rectification for it.

This is because we generally distinguish an irregularity and an infraction. L72B is headed "Infraction of Law" and reads "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." We all know that deliberate irregularities, such as in the manner of calling cards from dummy, and variations in tempo of play, are routine, and done deliberately because players know the consequences. This is different from infracting in the manner of L72B because one knows the consequences.

L57C is curious because it refers to Dummy playing a card (as distinct from declarer playing a card from Dummy - which is separately mentioned), yet according to L45 dummy can't play a card. But it is worth going back and reading 45D, as RMB suggested initially, which refers to dummy putting a card into the played position without instruction from Declarer, which we might interpret L57C as meaning. L45D is then entirely consistent with the reading of 57C. If no one draws attention to it, after sufficient further actions by the players it becomes treated as a played card. But if attention is drawn to it in time, then it isn't played and Dummy's RHO can withdraw his card without rectification. Again, this law does not apply only to those who play inadvertently after Dummy's placement of the card.

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2013-December-09, 18:41, said:

I also love the players who put down dummy turning the singleton in the led suit sideways. But at least that's a suggested play in turn.

Worse than this are the players who move the singleton to the played position and leave their hand there obscuring it.

Seriously though, I find it hard to believe some folks want to rule against the defenders here. Dummy committed an infraction that they could have been aware might work to his side's advantage. Defenders quite often react to Dummy fiddling with the cards without thinking any more than following their RHO. That alone is enough to rule against declarer, quite aside from the status of which cards are played, penalty cards or UI.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2013-December-09, 11:52, said:

Next time he'll be a good little dummy, won't he?

Probably not.

[blackshoe]

szgyula, on 2013-December-09, 15:41, said:

45A states "detaching it from his hand andfacing* it on the table" (what the dummy did) is playing a card except for the dummy. 45B states that the declarer must name it or pick it up. This did not happen. So strange as it seems, the card may not be played legally -- no matter what common sense suggests. The "suggests to play a card" (57C1) may be the way to bring common sense and laws together.

To make it extreme: single ♦ in dummy, declarer leads a ♦. Dummy asks (no opponent played yet): "Should I play ♦, when it is my turn". In this situation, can the "other" opponent (out of turn) face a key card?

My answer to dummy's question, as declarer or director is "you should not touch any card until instructed to do so by declarer".

GreenMan, on 2013-December-09, 15:46, said:

Warning or PP for the dummy, and an admonition to STFU.

Yeah, and that.

[blackshoe]

mink, on 2013-December-09, 18:26, said:

Dummy has suggested a play. It is not relevant that there is no decision involved in this play. So Law 57C applies, and East is not subject to a rectification. Nevertheless, East has committed an infraction by playing out of turn - Law 57C does not allow him to to that. So the ♦Q was illegally played and therefore is UI to West. It suggests to discard ♦K. Therefore by Law 16B West is required to discard ♣K. Failure to do so should result in a rectification. This is not prohibited by Law 57C, because the partner of the player who played out of turn is subject to the Law 16B rectification. This is not forbidden by Law 57C, which explicitly refers to one player ("A defender") and not to the side who played out of turn. Furthermore, the Law 16B rectification is not a rectification for the act of playing out of turn, but for using UI. If the intention of Law 57C was to forbid such a rectification, something like "the play out of turn is considered a legal action now" or "Law 16 does not apply in this trick" should have been included in the text (as in Law 27B1a).

There is another possible approach to handle this: East could have known that playing out of turn may cause an advantage for his side. So TD could apply Law 23 and rectify. This Law starts with the word "Whenever". In order to override Law 23, Law 57C should have stated this explicitly. And again, a Law 23 rectification would be for the possible intention to get an advantage and not for the play out of turn itself.

And something else: The Laws assume that irregularities and infractions happen accidentally. Law 72B1 explicitly disallows intentional infractions ("must not"). But my first impression about East's play out of turn is that it was a deliberate action. Evidence for this is that he discarded the ♦Q and not the ♣2. If East was really not paying attention and thought it was his turn to play, I rather would expect him to discard the ♣2. Therefore, if I was called to his table, I would first ask East what he had been thinking when playing the ♦Q. If he answered: "I did not see declarer's lead and thought dummy had led the ♦10, very sorry.", there is no case. But if he tells me that he is entitled to play now because of Law 57C, I have gotten him, and he would receive a severe disciplinary penalty, no matter if he pretends he has misunderstood the Law.

Karl

I read this. Twice. I read Law 57. Again. I cannot make sense of it. The words of an old sea chantey occur to me: "'E's bound to be guilty, or 'E wouldn't be here!"

I have to go. Perhaps I'll come back and review this later.

[mycroft]

I thought the stress was on "here", and I know it as a whipping cadence (which I guess is a sea shanty, of sorts).

I still don't understand what part of "no rectification" means "go look for another rule to let this dummy off the hook", never mind "go look for another rule to make it advantageous for dummy to pull this garbage."

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2013-December-10, 10:48, said:

I thought the stress was on "here", and I know it as a whipping cadence (which I guess is a sea shanty, of sorts).

I still don't understand what part of "no rectification" means "go look for another rule to let this dummy off the hook", never mind "go look for another rule to make it advantageous for dummy to pull this garbage."

I learned it as a shanty for the timing of saluting guns. It continues "Port gun, fire! Shooting's too good for 'im, kick the louse out! Starboard gun, fire!" I suppose the proper emphasis could be on "here" as you say, and then "good" and "out". Memory's hazy - it's been about thirty years.

I reread the OP, and laws 45B, 45D and 57, and I think the proper interpretation is that dummy does not "play" cards, he puts them in the played position, on instruction from declarer. If he puts a card in the played position absent such instruction, he has illegally suggested a play, and Law 57 is invoked. The rectification referenced in 57C1 is the one specified in 57A, which would otherwise make the declarer's RHO's play a major penalty card. So in this case it's not a major penalty card.

The remaining question is whether West's knowledge that East has the ♦Q is UI or AI to him (West). The information arises from East's play, which is technically illegal in spite of not being subject to the rectification in 57A. It is not an illegal call that has been accepted (there's no procedure for that in this case), so I would say it is UI. West will do what he does, but if he discards the ♦K, I will, in the ACBL, adjust the score to give both remaining tricks to declarer (Laws 16A1, 16A3, 16A4, 12C1). In a 12C1{c} jurisdiction I would award an adjusted score, probably 60/40 or 55/45 in declarer's favor.

On that last point (the UI) there may be case law that says otherwise, I'm not sure. If someone can point to some such I might be convinced to rule differently. Maybe.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2013-December-10, 23:07, said:

adjust the score to give both remaining tricks to declarer (Laws 16A1, 16A3, 16A4, 12C1). In a 12C1{c} jurisdiction I would award an adjusted score, probably 60/40 or 55/45 in declarer's favor.

And once you have done that you will then deal with Dummy's irregularity and adjust the adjusted score via Law 23 to one trick each, right? You cannot deal with one irregularity without dealing with the irregularity that caused it to happen!