[pran]

blackshoe, on May 9 2010, 03:49 PM, said:

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.

Of course we have two . . . Irregularities, only one of which I will term infractions.

Let me handle them in sequence:

Declarer calls a card from dummy, only that none of the cards available in dummy can match his call. This is an irregularity that is handled under law 46B4, and the ruling shall be that the call is void, (i.e. not made).

Declarer is now free to call a different card from dummy, or - if he becomes aware of his mistake regarding which hand has the lead - he is forced to lead from the correct hand.

However, before he manages to lead an existing card his RHO leads to the trick in the belief that he is just playing to the trick after declarer's (non-existing) "lead" from dummy. He is of course wrong because no card has been led (see above).

This infraction is handled (by the Director) under law 49 unless Law 47F1 (leading to Law 53) is chosen by Declarer. Whatever the reason for the infraction committed by RHO, he may for instance have paid insufficient attention, he is an offending side in this situation.

Only on one condition can he be allowed to retract the card incorrectly led by him without any rectification; if he was incorrectly informed by an opponent that is was his turn to play (Law 47E1). Of course that does not apply here.

[blackshoe]

pran, on May 9 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

This is an irregularity that is handled under law 46B4, and the ruling shall be that the call is void, (i.e. not made).

My understanding of the meaning of "void" is that it is "not valid", not "not made".

Declarer has called for a card. Next player has followed suit. Declarer's call has been found to be not valid, so he must change it. I do not see why the next player should not be allowed to change his play as well (Law 47D).

[bluejak]

pran, on May 8 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

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.

The wording of the Law you quote makes it completely clear that there is a pair of actions involved in playing a card.

jdonn, on May 8 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

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.

I do not know. When I comment I have no sympathy, all I actually mean is that I have no sympathy.

jdonn, on May 8 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

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.

Neither action happened. He did not call for a card that was in dummy, and the card he called for was not moved to the played position.

[pran]

bluejak, on May 9 2010, 11:05 PM, said:

pran, on May 8 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

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.

The wording of the Law you quote makes it completely clear that there is a pair of actions involved in playing a card.

So in this scenario:
Declarer calls a card from Dummy, but Dummy takes no immediate action, RHO, Declarer and LHO follow suit, and all four players including dummy turn their affected cards face down.
Your assertion is that no card was actually led from Dummy?

I have seen such scenario occur many times and never had any problem with it. Pretty often the called card was for instance already positioned by itself among Dummy's cards so there seemed no real need for Dummy to reposition it in order to make it clear that it was played.

To me it is completely clear that although the law specifies a pair of actions involved in playing a card the play is legally completed already with the first action, the second action is just supplementary.

[dburn]

bluejak, on May 9 2010, 05:05 PM, said:

pran, on May 8 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

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.

The wording of the Law you quote makes it completely clear that there is a pair of actions involved in playing a card.

On the contrary - the wording of the Law makes it completely clear that there is only one action involved in playing a card from dummy. Declarer may name the card or may pick it up himself, but as soon as he has done one of those things the card has been played.

Otherwise, the following is possible: declarer calls for the seven of diamonds (a card that is in dummy); before dummy picks up that card, dummy's LHO plays a diamond; the Director is called because dummy's LHO has played out of turn. Do you believe that this is what the Law says should be done? No, of course you don't, and nor does anyone.

[PeterAlan]

On a detail, and I'm not sure that it affects any later post in this thread (because I haven't read it all fully) Peachy's original post misquotes Law 46B4.

It does not say "...the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card from dummy." The Law does not have the last 2 words: it reads

"If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card."

This was relevant to the original context, where the putative lead from dummy was out of turn; the lead should have been from declarer's hand. It seemed to me that this meant that declarer, if (s)he had by then realised that the lead was out of turn, was free to lead a card from hand: indeed, was probably obliged to do so because the lead of a card from dummy would not be of a legal card, being out of turn.

[PeterAlan]

Having now read the thread, I essentially agree with pran's statement of the position: in particular, dummy's LHO can not be following to a card that has not been played from dummy, and is not, blackshoe, "following suit".

Whilst LHO may think (s)he is playing to the trick in turn, this is not the case, and LHO must accept responsibility for and the consequences of attempting to follow to a card that is not in dummy (and which LHO should have realised is not in dummy) and that has not been played.

I'm also with dburn over Law 45B: it seems absolutely clear that the first 10 words determine what constitutes the logical step of "playing" a card from dummy, and the words "after which" distinguish as subsequent the physical actions of dummy in moving the card. "Playing" in the second sentence of the law is using the word in a rather broader sense, and no party can argue that a card has not been "played" in the technical sense just because it has not been physically moved.

[blackshoe]

I remain unconvinced.

[jvage]

pran, on May 9 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 9 2010, 03:49 PM, said:

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.

Of course we have two . . . Irregularities, only one of which I will term infractions.

Let me handle them in sequence:

Declarer calls a card from dummy, only that none of the cards available in dummy can match his call. This is an irregularity that is handled under law 46B4, and the ruling shall be that the call is void, (i.e. not made).

Declarer is now free to call a different card from dummy, or - if he becomes aware of his mistake regarding which hand has the lead - he is forced to lead from the correct hand.

However, before he manages to lead an existing card his RHO leads to the trick in the belief that he is just playing to the trick after declarer's (non-existing) "lead" from dummy. He is of course wrong because no card has been led (see above).

This infraction is handled (by the Director) under law 49 unless Law 47F1 (leading to Law 53) is chosen by Declarer. Whatever the reason for the infraction committed by RHO, he may for instance have paid insufficient attention, he is an offending side in this situation.

Only on one condition can he be allowed to retract the card incorrectly led by him without any rectification; if he was incorrectly informed by an opponent that is was his turn to play (Law 47E1). Of course that does not apply here.

In the following end-position it seems the correct play is becoming obvious. Hearts are trumps, declarer is in dummy where he got the last trump and a small diamond, knowing that the defender behind dummy got the last and winning diamond:

♥2
♦3

Clearly best is to call "Two of Diamonds". If the opponent next in turn now plays his winning diamond (as many would) you call for the TD. If that happens to be Sven he will say that the opponents played diamond is a penalty card and tell you to state a card that is in dummy. Of course you play the ♥2 and score both tricks, if asked you will say that you always meant to play the heart, the "technical correct card for the pseudo-squeeze" (which of course had no hope of succeding with the 13. card visible in dummy)

This is a no-lose play, if the director rules that the opponent can pick up his card (or that a diamond was played) you are back to the one trick you originally had. The same will happen if your opponent (or dummy) is awake and asks you to restate what card you want to play.

(Just to be clear, this is not a serious suggestion. It is just to show why the minority-opinion on the correct ruling may lead to serious problems. I do not recommend Alcatraz-type coups or lying to the director, just noting that a practice where this is rewarded seems dubious )

John

[bluejak]

The Laws are not designed to prevent cheating. It is generally understood that cheats will get some gains until they are caught and expelled.

There are plenty of other Laws where a cheat can gain from a knowledge of th Laws and deliberate bad ethics. I do not believe we should change Laws, especially to complicate them in very rare positions, to avoid cheating.

[dburn]

bluejak, on May 11 2010, 04:24 PM, said:

The Laws are not designed to prevent cheating.

This is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard. If the Laws are not designed to prevent cheating, what in blazes are they designed to do?

[jdonn]

dburn, on May 11 2010, 07:48 PM, said:

bluejak, on May 11 2010, 04:24 PM, said:

The Laws are not designed to prevent cheating.

This is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard. If the Laws are not designed to prevent cheating, what in blazes are they designed to do?

I'll offer a third utterly obvious viewpoint and say you are both wrong. It doesn't mean anything to say the laws are (or aren't) designed to prevent cheating, because if you are considering designing a law to prevent something, than that something isn't cheating as there is not yet a law preventing it.

What you might mean to say is the laws are designed to define cheating. If you don't follow them you are cheating, by definition.

[jeremy69]

Quote

This is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard. If the Laws are not designed to prevent cheating, what in blazes are they designed to do?

I think they are designed, amongst other things, to provide a framework for the game, to give a set of rules and procedures and to specify redress and or penalties if laws are broken.

If someone cheats they place themselves outside the law. For example the player who fixes hands in matches played at home. You don't really need a law to deal with this. It is so bad that if caught the player is not permitted to play in the organised game, in my view, for life but authorities are too afraid of infringing someones human rights that it ends up with the odd decade or so ban.

[barmar]

jdonn, on May 11 2010, 09:44 PM, said:

What you might mean to say is the laws are designed to define cheating. If you don't follow them you are cheating, by definition.

It's only cheating if you do it on purpose. In practice, most infractions of bridge laws are inadvertent.

There's a law that says you're not allowed to commit an infraction intentionally, even if you're willing to pay the penalty it imposes. I guess that one could be specifically aimed at cheaters.

And in general, laws (both bridge and real world) can't *prevent* anything. At best they can deter.

[bluejak]

dburn, on May 12 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

bluejak, on May 11 2010, 04:24 PM, said:

The Laws are not designed to prevent cheating.

This is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard. If the Laws are not designed to prevent cheating, what in blazes are they designed to do?

They are designed to run a game, and define how it is played. If you do not know this, I am absolutely flabbergasted. Surely you realise that the Laws are designed to control the playing of bridge?

[dburn]

bluejak, on May 14 2010, 01:55 PM, said:

dburn, on May 12 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

bluejak, on May 11 2010, 04:24 PM, said:

The Laws are not designed to prevent cheating.

This is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard. If the Laws are not designed to prevent cheating, what in blazes are they designed to do?

They are designed to run a game, and define how it is played. If you do not know this, I am absolutely flabbergasted. Surely you realise that the Laws are designed to control the playing of bridge?

Of course they are. But in defining how a game is played, its Laws say also how it is not played. That is: they render certain practices illegal (failing to follow suit when able to do so, communicating with partner other than by means of legal calls and plays, and so on and and so forth).

For these illegal practices, the Laws impose what used to be called "penalties" but are now called "rectifications" (however, for something to be put right, a wrong must first have been done). That is: the Laws seek to provide redress when players act illegally either through ignorance or by design.

In so doing, the Laws take no particular notice of whether an offender has acted illegally through ignorance or by design. Although there is a common assumption that no one will "really" act illegally on purpose, this does not matter - the "penalty" or the "rectification" will be identical regardless of the actual motive of the offender. As I once put it in a remark that led to the existence of that helpful legal fiction the "Probst Cheat":

When we rule against you, we do not say that you are a cheat; we say only that you did what a cheat might have done.

We are right to do so, of course, for the vast majority of infractions are committed through ignorance and not by design - no one actually revokes on purpose. But again, this does not matter: what the Laws are designed to do is to ensure that no one derives benefit from breaking them, no matter what their motives. That is: the Laws are designed to prevent cheats from prospering, and in that (important) respect to prevent (by deterring) cheating.

In English, the verb "to cheat" carries a very definite connotation of wilfulness; to cheat is to gain an advantage through deliberate chicanery. It is true that at bridge, most people who break the Laws do not do so by design, and are thus not actually "cheats" - but again, this does not matter, for they will be dealt with as though they were.

It is also true that anyone who is incontrovertibly found to have attempted to gain an advantage by a premeditated attempt to break the Laws is dealt with far more severely than someone who is merely found to have acted illegally while the balance of his mind was temporarily disturbed. That is why, for example, Law 73B2 says that:

Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 Code said:

The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.

That Law is expressly designed to prevent cheating. But so are all the other Laws, from Law 1 onwards; if you break one of those Laws, you are not necessarily a cheat - but you might be.