[peachy]

PeterAlan's post in another thread presents a case where declarer calls from dummy a card that is not in dummy. I started a new thread on this, not sure if in the right forum though; see below.

The answer seems clear to me, by the Law 46B which PeterAlan quoted, but perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye: " ...the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card from dummy. "

In future edition of the laws, the word should be changed to "designates" or "must designate" instead of "may designate". Afterall, the game must go on, declarer does not have the option of "not designating" a card from dummy.

[gordontd]

peachy, on May 6 2010, 05:33 PM, said:

In future edition of the laws, the word should be changed to "designates" or "must designate" instead of "may designate".

We have enough trouble getting the wording of laws changed when it matters - let's not bother when it makes no difference at all

[jdonn]

I think "may" designate is better since the alternative is for declarer to think longer, which should be allowed. "Must" designate makes it sound like declarer must immediately change his call.

[barmar]

I don't think there's a problem. Other Laws specify that when it's dummy's turn to play that declarer must designate a card. Voiding his original designation doesn't change that. I think the purpose of 46B is simply to make it clear that he can designate ANY legal card, his original designation doesn't create any restrictions.

For instance, if he calls "heart 6", but there is no such card in dummy, he's not required to play another heart or another 6 (one could certainly imagine the Laws having been written to require one of these).

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that if declarer calls a card from dummy, and that card is not in dummy ("that card" including cards which would be required to be played by Law 46) then the call is void - which means there has been no call for a card from dummy. If the lead is actually in declarer's hand, I would rule he must lead from his hand. I don't see this as a big problem.

[mrdct]

What happens if the hand sitting over dummy plays a card based on what was called from dummy?

[pran]

mrdct, on May 7 2010, 09:41 AM, said:

What happens if the hand sitting over dummy plays a card based on what was called from dummy?

If according to Law 46B4 the call of a card from dummy is void then the play from the next player is a lead out of turn.

[mrdct]

But they weren't leading it, they we just trying to follow suit after declarer called out the name of that suit from dummy.

What about Law 47E:

A lead out of turn may be retracted without penalty if the leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead (LHO should not accept the lead).

In this case you could argue that by calling for a card from dummy that doesn't exist, the next hand in turn was mistakenly informed, etc.

[blackshoe]

If it is properly dummy's turn, and declarer calls for a non-existent card, the designation is void. If declarer's RHO has already played to the trick when the error is discovered, he gets to pick up his played card and put it back in his hand (Law 47D). He is not deemed to have led out of turn. Laws 16D (regarding UI) and 62C2 (regarding a third card played to the trick) may apply.

[pran]

blackshoe, on May 7 2010, 05:02 PM, said:

If it is properly dummy's turn, and declarer calls for a non-existent card, the designation is void. If declarer's RHO has already played to the trick when the error is discovered, he gets to pick up his played card and put it back in his hand (Law 47D). He is not deemed to have led out of turn. Laws 16D (regarding UI) and 62C2 (regarding a third card played to the trick) may apply.

Sorry, but as the call of a card from dummy is void no play from dummy has occurred. Consequently no play is changed and Law 47D does not apply.

RHO has simply played a card prematurely, and as no other card has yet been played to that trick this premature play is a lead out of turn.

[jdonn]

mrdct, on May 7 2010, 09:03 AM, said:

But they weren't leading it, they we just trying to follow suit after declarer called out the name of that suit from dummy.

What about Law 47E:

A lead out of turn may be retracted without penalty if the leader was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead (LHO should not accept the lead).

In this case you could argue that by calling for a card from dummy that doesn't exist, the next hand in turn was mistakenly informed, etc.

I agree completely. On that basis I disagree with blackshoe that UI laws could apply due to the phrase "without penalty" (although I'm reading the version of the laws on the ACBL website and it says "without further rectification", which I interpret the same way.)

[bluejak]

A card is played from dummy by a combination of two actions. First, declarer calls for a card in dummy. Second, dummy picks up that card and moves it into the played position. If neither of these two has occurred and RHO plays he is getting no sympathy from me: he has played/led out of turn in a very silly way.

It is different if declarer calls for a non-existent card and dummy puts some card in the played position: now it is a card mistakenly moved by dummy, and RHO [for whom I now have a tad of sympathy] may retract his card.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on May 7 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

A card is played from dummy by a combination of two actions.  First, declarer calls for a card in dummy.  Second, dummy picks up that card and moves it into the played position.  If neither of these two has occurred and RHO plays he is getting no sympathy from me: he has played/led out of turn in a very silly way.

It is different if declarer calls for a non-existent card and dummy puts some card in the played position: now it is a card mistakenly moved by dummy, and RHO [for whom I now have a tad of sympathy] may retract his card.

What's the difference in either case whether or not you have sympathy for the player? He can either take back his card or can't, based on the laws.

Also I don't think either of those situations is the one that happened. The first of those two auctions happened but not the second. You mentioned either both or neither.

[barmar]

I just noticed that 45B says that dummy "picks up the card and faces it on the table". I wonder how many people consistently "pick up" the card, rather than simply sliding it around on the table. If it's singleton, it's very common for dummy to just touch it to indicate that he's playing it.

But regardless, dummy is supposed to do something mechanical to indicate that the designated card has been played. And the next player should be paying sufficient attention to notice that declarer called a nonexistent card.

[pran]

bluejak, on May 7 2010, 11:46 PM, said:

A card is played from dummy by a combination of two actions.  First, declarer calls for a card in dummy.  Second, dummy picks up that card and moves it into the played position.  If neither of these two has occurred and RHO plays he is getting no sympathy from me: he has played/led out of turn in a very silly way.

It is different if declarer calls for a non-existent card and dummy puts some card in the played position: now it is a card mistakenly moved by dummy, and RHO [for whom I now have a tad of sympathy] may retract his card.

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. In playing from dummy’s hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself.

Technically this says that once declarer has named the card it is played.

Dummy's action of picking up the card etc. is not part of the play, it is subsequent to the play.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on May 7 2010, 06:46 PM, said:

A card is played from dummy by a combination of two actions.  First, declarer calls for a card in dummy.  Second, dummy picks up that card and moves it into the played position.  If neither of these two has occurred and RHO plays he is getting no sympathy from me: he has played/led out of turn in a very silly way.

Law 45B says, in part

Quote

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table.

The first clause of this sentence specifies how the card is played. The second specifies dummy's subsequent required action. So if declarer names a card, that card is played, and it is now dummy's LHO's turn to play, whether dummy has completed his required moving of the card or not. That, at least, is how I've always read this law. I suppose if the defender doesn't immediately recognize that declarer called for a card that isn't in dummy, he's "paying insufficient attention to the game" (Law 74), but is that sufficient to consider him an offender here?

He has not, afaics, in any way led out of turn. He has not led at all. He has played, in his turn as far as he can see, to the current trick. If he and I are both wrong, and in fact it wasn't in his turn just because the card declarer called for isn't in dummy, then he still hasn't led out of turn. His card would be "a card prematurely exposed (but not led)" (Law 50).

[pran]

[quote name='blackshoe' date='May 8 2010, 01:59 PM'] [quote name='bluejak' date='May 7 2010, 06:46 PM'] A card is played from dummy by a combination of two actions. First, declarer calls for a card in dummy. Second, dummy picks up that card and moves it into the played position. If neither of these two has occurred and RHO plays he is getting no sympathy from me: he has played/led out of turn in a very silly way. [/QUOTE]
Law 45B says, in part [QUOTE]Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table.[/QUOTE]The first clause of this sentence specifies how the card is played. The second specifies dummy's subsequent required action. So if declarer names a card, that card is played, and it is now dummy's LHO's turn to play, whether dummy has completed his required moving of the card or not. That, at least, is how I've always read this law. I suppose if the defender doesn't immediately recognize that declarer called for a card that isn't in[/QUOTE] dummy, he's "paying insufficient attention to the game" (Law 74), but is that sufficient to consider him an offender here?

He has not, afaics, in any way led out of turn. He has not led at all. He has played, in his turn as far as he can see, to the current trick. If he and I are both wrong, and in fact it wasn't in his turn just because the card declarer called for isn't in dummy, then he still hasn't led out of turn. His card would be "a card prematurely exposed (but not led)" (Law 50). [/quote]
All this is very fine except that law 46B4 explicitly states: If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void

I cannot read this to mean anything else than no card has been played from dummy.

[blackshoe]

Well, let's see now. Is calling for a card that is not in dummy an infraction of law? I think so. Has declarer done that? Yep. Has this call led an opponent down the garden path? Yep. So why isn't this one of those cases David dislikes so much, where we're going after the NOS instead of the OS?

[pran]

blackshoe, on May 8 2010, 10:28 PM, said:

Well, let's see now. Is calling for a card that is not in dummy an infraction of law? I think so. Has declarer done that? Yep. Has this call led an opponent down the garden path? Yep. So why isn't this one of those cases David dislikes so much, where we're going after the NOS instead of the OS?

NOS?
If calling a card that is not in dummy is an infraction of law then paying insufficient attention to the game so that this fact is not detected certainly is. (Law 74B1)

[blackshoe]

Come on, Sven. The one has nothing to do with the other, and you know it.

I asked earlier if paying insufficient attention was sufficient to consider south an offender. I presume your answer is yes. Then we have two infractions, and we're in that wonderfully murky territory that the laws deal with so well.