[lamford]

---

Teams. Lead QS. Table result: 6NT-4.

The auction on the above hand left something to be desired, and the hopeless 6NT was reached. The explanations showed that both North and South were not on the same wavelength, but South volunteered any corrections before the opening lead. West led the queen of spades and declarer did his best by continuing with the king of diamonds on which East played the nine (normal count) and West ducked. Now declarer called for the ten and, quick as a flash, East, our friend who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, had the ace of clubs on the table. Dummy led the ten of diamonds at about the same time, and East stated, "sorry, I thought you asked for a ten, and I did not see the ten of diamonds in dummy", and continued, "we had better call the director". The director ruled that declarer was allowed to play the ten of diamonds, but East was, of course, allowed to change his card without penalty, as the original infraction had been declarer's, and the fact that East had the ace of clubs was now AI to West. West managed to work out that ducking a second round of diamonds might not be the cleverest move in the world, and he won it and continued spades. South now lost the obvious five tricks, but felt something had not been quite right and called the director back, as he thought that East's play of the ace of clubs was sharp practice. How do you rule?

And I intended to put this in the Laws and Rulings section. Perhaps someone can move it!

This post has been edited by lamford: 2014-January-22, 07:25

[pran]

 lamford, on 2014-January-21, 11:34, said:

---

Teams. Lead QS. Table result: 6NT-4.

The auction on the above hand left something to be desired, and the hopeless 6NT was reached. The explanations showed that both North and South were not on the same wavelength, but South volunteered any corrections before the opening lead. West led the queen of spades and declarer did his best by continuing with the king of diamonds on which East played the nine (normal count) and West ducked. Now declarer called for the ten and, quick as a flash, East, our friend who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, had the ace of clubs on the table. Dummy led the ten of diamonds at about the same time, and East stated, "sorry, I thought you asked for a ten, and I did not see the ten of diamonds in dummy", and continued, "we had better call the director". The director ruled that South was allowed to play the ten of diamonds, but East was, of course, allowed to change his card without penalty, as the original infraction had been declarer's, and the fact that East had the ace of clubs was now AI to West. West managed to work out that ducking a second round of diamonds might not be the cleverest move in the world, and he won it and continued spades. South now lost the obvious five tricks, but felt something had not been quite right and called the director back, as he thought that East's play of the ace of clubs was sharp practice. How do you rule?

And I intended to put this in the Laws and Rulings section. Perhaps someone can move it!

I cannot see any damage from the exposed ♣A here so IMHO there is no cause for any adjusted score whatever we think of East's action.

I would, however, warn East that it is not his business to rule which card is played from dummy after an incomplete designation, and that if he tries that stunt again in another situation he might find himself in trouble (with a major penalty card).

[jeffford76]

Did the director cite any laws in making the ruling about the withdrawn card?

[Cyberyeti]

 pran, on 2014-January-21, 15:54, said:

I cannot see any damage from the exposed ♣A here so IMHO there is no cause for any adjusted score whatever we think of East's action.

I would, however, warn East that it is not his business to rule which card is played from dummy after an incomplete designation, and that if he tries that stunt again in another situation he might find himself in trouble (with a major penalty card).

TBF E said he only saw one ten in dummy, so he wasn't making a decision on an incomplete designation.

[mr1303]

I seem to remember an example from one of the Menagerie books by Mollo.

HH suggested that the only fair way to deal with this problem was to treat the played card as a revoke. But sadly, I don't think this has any basis in the laws

[blackshoe]

 mr1303, on 2014-January-21, 17:54, said:

I seem to remember an example from one of the Menagerie books by Mollo.

HH suggested that the only fair way to deal with this problem was to treat the played card as a revoke. But sadly, I don't think this has any basis in the laws

Which played card? Never mind, it's the ace of clubs. And it certainly does have a basis in the laws - Laws 46B3{a} and 61A.

Lamford's Secretary Birds seem to often tell porkies, just so Lamford can see if they get away with it. I would prefer to have been there, but even so, on that basis, a ruling that the ♦10 was led, East revoked, and the ♣A is a major penalty card with all attendant restrictions, is certainly possible.

[pran]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-January-21, 17:00, said:

TBF E said he only saw one ten in dummy, so he wasn't making a decision on an incomplete designation.

So we have a case of East violating

Law 74B1 said:

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
1.paying insufficient attention to the game.

when he only saw one ten in dummy do we?

Besides: We do have an incomplete designation regardless of how many tens there are in dummy.

[iviehoff]

In this situation, East's "misunderstanding" about what had been played is plainly his own responsibility. The reason for that is because he took action before the procedure for the playing of dummy's card (45B) was completed by dummy placing the card in the played position, or apparently completed with dummy placing the wrong card in the played position (45D). East doesn't have to work out what the incomplete designation means, he just needs to wait for dummy to place a card in the played position, at which point he can rely upon what he sees put into the played position. If he decides to work out for himself what the incomplete designation means, that is his own problem, because it is unnecessary for him to do it. If Dummy had misinterpreted it and placed the wrong card in the played position, East would be fully protected under 45D. (I would also note in passing that it is a violation of the proprieties to take physicial steps towards playing a card before it is your turn to play - 74B3).

Therefore I rule East revoked, etc.

[lamford]

 iviehoff, on 2014-January-22, 04:59, said:

In this situation, East's "misunderstanding" about what had been played is plainly his own responsibility. The reason for that is because he took action before the procedure for the playing of dummy's card (45B) was completed by dummy placing the card in the played position, or apparently completed with dummy placing the wrong card in the played position (45D). East doesn't have to work out what the incomplete designation means, he just needs to wait for dummy to place a card in the played position, at which point he can rely upon what he sees put into the played position. If he decides to work out for himself what the incomplete designation means, that is his own problem, because it is unnecessary for him to do it. If Dummy had misinterpreted it and placed the wrong card in the played position, East would be fully protected under 45D. (I would also note in passing that it is a violation of the proprieties to take physicial steps towards playing a card before it is your turn to play - 74B3).

Therefore I rule East revoked, etc.

Then I would appeal your ruling, as SB. 45B states: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table." So the card is played when declarer names the card, and East does not need to wait for dummy to place the card in the played position. Note that is says "after which" clearly indicating that the picking up of the card is not part of the "play" but supplementary to it. It is not East's obligation to establish whether there is more than one ten in dummy; it is declarer's job to follow Law 46A: "When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card."

47A states: "A card once played may be withdrawn when required by rectification following an irregularity (but a defender’s withdrawn card may become a penalty card, see Law 49). And Law 49 states: "Except in the normal course of play or application of law <snip>" Clearly there was an irregularity. The ♣A is withdrawn on the application of 46B3(a) requiring declarer to lead the ♦T, and the ♣A is restored without penalty. And I amazed that your post had 3 upvotes, as it seems quite wrong.

And if we can't give SB his pound of flesh under those Laws, we fall back on Law 23:

"Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity."

The declarer could have been aware that calling "ten" instead of "ten of diamonds" might cause East to play the ace of clubs. He could have been aware that the non-established revoke would lead to a major penalty card, the ace of clubs. He could have been aware that possession of the ace of clubs by East could become UI to West, and that West would then be debarred from winning the second diamond, as ducking again would be a logical alternative. So, the director adjusts the score anyway to 6NT-4 (yes declarer can cash out for three off, but will not).

And FWIW I do not care at all whether we believe that East did not see the ten of diamonds. The whole episode was South's fault.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2014-January-21, 15:54, said:

I cannot see any damage from the exposed ♣A here so IMHO there is no cause for any adjusted score whatever we think of East's action.

I am aware that TD's do not need to be strong players, but even so ...

And FWIW, SB will argue he was paying sufficient attention to the play, more than enough to stop his partner going wrong in fact!

[nige1]

 lamford, on 2014-January-21, 11:34, said:

Teams. Lead QS. Table result: 6NT-4.
The auction on the above hand left something to be desired, and the hopeless 6NT was reached. The explanations showed that both North and South were not on the same wavelength, but South volunteered any corrections before the opening lead. West led the queen of spades and declarer did his best by continuing with the king of diamonds on which East played the nine (normal count) and West ducked. Now declarer called for the ten and, quick as a flash, East, our friend who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, had the ace of clubs on the table. Dummy led the ten of diamonds at about the same time, and East stated, "sorry, I thought you asked for a ten, and I did not see the ten of diamonds in dummy", and continued, "we had better call the director". The director ruled that declarer was allowed to play the ten of diamonds, but East was, of course, allowed to change his card without penalty, as the original infraction had been declarer's, and the fact that East had the ace of clubs was now AI to West. West managed to work out that ducking a second round of diamonds might not be the cleverest move in the world, and he won it and continued spades. South now lost the obvious five tricks, but felt something had not been quite right and called the director back, as he thought that East's play of the ace of clubs was sharp practice. How do you rule?

---

 pran, on 2014-January-21, 15:54, said:

I cannot see any damage from the exposed ♣A here so IMHO there is no cause for any adjusted score whatever we think of East's action.

Were the law to insist on correct designations, all such interesting problems would disappear. The contract wasn't exactly "hopeless". As Lamford implies, declarer might have succeeded, until the secretary bird protected his partner from a fatal duck. This probably upset declarer since he went four down instead of two down.

[iviehoff]

 lamford, on 2014-January-22, 06:49, said:

Then I would appeal your ruling, as SB. 45B states: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table." So the card is played when declarer names the card, and East does not need to wait for dummy to place the card in the played position.

...47A...

...L23...

I presume you are just arguing this one out for fun. But for completeness here's what's wrong with your appeal.

I agree that the card is played once it is named. But that is not the issue. The issue is the identification of what card has been played. East decided to make his own computation of what card had been played, which was completely unnecessary. If East had waited for dummy to pick a card up, he can rely on that being the card that is played, for if dummy picks up the wrong one East is protected by 45D. We certainly wouldn't have given East any relief if he said that he mis-saw what card dummy picked up (in full sight) or failed to look at it.

L47A does not apply. It only allows the withdrawal of a card where required for rectification of an irregularity. The withdrawal of a defender's card is not required as part of the rectification of the irregularity of declarer's incomplete designation, it is not mentioned anywhere in relation to the rectifications specified for that irregularity. Nor has declarer withdrawn a card allowing East to withdraw a subsequently played card.

And if I'm wrong, then I'll go after East, not South, for a L23 rectification of the matter.

[iviehoff]

 nige1, on 2014-January-22, 07:56, said:

Were the law insistent on correct designations, all such interesting problems would disappear.

The other, more realistic, way to make the problem disappear is to specify that abbreviated designations of certain popular and unambiguous kinds are perfectly regular. Now even the most imaginative SB of an East hasn't a leg to stand on, and no injustice has been done.

[lamford]

 iviehoff, on 2014-January-22, 08:03, said:

The other, more realistic, way to make the problem disappear is to specify that abbreviated designations of certain popular and unambiguous kinds are perfectly regular. Now even the most imaginative SB of an East hasn't a leg to stand on, and no injustice has been done.

I tend to agree. However, this will lead to SBs making the minimum legal designation hoping to induce an error from an opponent. I also find it annoying when declarer calls for a card by rank only from dummy, both when I am dummy and when I am a defender.

[PeterAlan]

 lamford, on 2014-January-21, 11:34, said:

.... Now declarer called for the ten and, quick as a flash, East ... had the ace of clubs on the table. Dummy led the ten of diamonds at about the same time, ...

I think you're glossing over a few details here, Paul. Did East give declarer a chance to complete his designation? What, precisely, was said and done and in what timescale and sequence? For there is the interesting question of the point at which an incomplete designation finally becomes completely incomplete ...

[lamford]

 iviehoff, on 2014-January-22, 08:00, said:

I presume you are just arguing this one out for fun. But for completeness here's what's wrong with your appeal.

I agree that the card is played once it is named. But that is not the issue. The issue is the identification of what card has been played. East decided to make his own computation of what card had been played, which was completely unnecessary. If East had waited for dummy to pick a card up, he can rely on that being the card that is played, for if dummy picks up the wrong one East is protected by 45D. We certainly wouldn't have given East any relief if he said that he mis-saw what card dummy picked up (in full sight) or failed to look at it.

L47A does not apply. It only allows the withdrawal of a card where required for rectification of an irregularity. The withdrawal of a defender's card is not required as part of the rectification of the irregularity of declarer's incomplete designation, it is not mentioned anywhere in relation to the rectifications specified for that irregularity. Nor has declarer withdrawn a card allowing East to withdraw a subsequently played card.

And if I'm wrong, then I'll go after East, not South, for a L23 rectification of the matter.

I assume you are just arguing this one out for fun. Under which Law is East obliged to wait for dummy to place the diamond in the played position? South has played when he said "ten", and East followed to the ten of clubs. Are you saying that he can do so if there is only one ten in dummy, but has to wait if there is more than one ten in dummy? This allows declarer to make minimum designations in the hope of achieving MPCs.

And for a Law 23 adjustment against SB, you need an infraction by East. There is clearly one by South, and you submit no arguments to refute the claim that South "could have been aware" his infraction would benefit his side.

And for completeness, I assume you would rule that the ace of clubs is a MPC, and West has to duck the second diamond, so 6NT=?

[lamford]

 PeterAlan, on 2014-January-22, 08:22, said:

I think you're glossing over a few details here, Paul. Did East give declarer a chance to complete his designation? What, precisely, was said and done and in what timescale and sequence? For there is the interesting question of the point at which an incomplete designation finally becomes completely incomplete ...

South said "ten" and nothing else, nor was he intending to say anything else. He deliberately breached 46A in an attempt to gain an advantage (at least that is how we must rule, to stop the Probst cheat). Dummy played the ten of diamonds and East the ace of clubs simultaneously, we will say 1-2 seconds later for the sake of argument.

[pran]

May I remind the audience that

Law 46B3 said:

If declarer designates a rank but not a suit

a. In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.

so under no circumstances shall East be heard on his request that the ♣10 was played.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2014-January-22, 07:56, said:

Were the law to insist on correct designations, all such interesting problems would disappear.

Or multiply, because these designations would rarely be made. The law should, instead, not class incomplete designations as irregularities. Except maybe "play", because that really does sound like "play anything" and is stupid.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2014-January-22, 08:49, said:

May I remind the audience that

Quote

Law 46B3 said:

If declarer designates a rank but not a suit

a. In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.

so under no circumstances shall East be heard on his request that the ♣10 was played.

There is no dispute that dummy has to play the ten of diamonds. I argue that declarer cannot benefit from the incomplete designation, and if the Laws allow him to, as Iviehoff argues, then it is automatic to apply Law 23. Not optional, but automatic.

In the other thread on here where "small" was chosen instead of naming the card, dburn was about the only person to talk sense, and Law 23 would have been the best way of dealing with that as well.