[plaur]

---

South is declarer in a spade contract. West is on lead. West leads the 7 of clubs. Before declarer calls for a card to be played, dummy plays the 4 and east the king. Now declarer says 'I did not call for a card yet'. Director is called.

What is the ruling?
How many tricks does declarer get?
What are the relevant laws?

[pran]

plaur, on 2019-February-28, 19:40, said:

---

South is declarer in a spade contract. West is on lead. West leads the 7 of clubs. Before declarer calls for a card to be played, dummy plays the 4 and east the king. Now declarer says 'I did not call for a card yet'. Director is called.

What is the ruling?
How many tricks does declarer get?
What are the relevant laws?

See Laws 45D1 and 45F

[sanst]

Pran mentions the appropriate laws, but doesn’t answer the question about the number of tricks. The TD should find out whether the declarer has an accurate idea about the remaining cards. If so, the lkast two tricks go the the declarer, otherwise I would give EW one trick, which, I think, is the most likely decision. The dummy gets a PP, as a warning.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2019-March-01, 02:20, said:

Pran mentions the appropriate laws, but doesn’t answer the question about the number of tricks. The TD should find out whether the declarer has an accurate idea about the remaining cards. If so, the lkast two tricks go the the declarer, otherwise I would give EW one trick, which, I think, is the most likely decision.

Even if declarer did not have an accurate idea about the remaining cards before the incident, he does now he has seen partner play the 4 and then the King dropping. So it's not easy for the TD to find out, although I guess he could start by asking declarer what West's remaining card is.

Law 45F says: "At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested." Dummy certainly suggested a play to declarer, and making that play damages the defenders. Is that not enough?

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2019-March-01, 07:32, said:

Even if declarer did not have an accurate idea about the remaining cards before the incident, he does now he has seen partner play the 4 and then the King dropping. So it's not easy for the TD to find out, although I guess he could start by asking declarer what West's remaining card is.

Law 45F says: "At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested." Dummy certainly suggested a play to declarer, and making that play damages the defenders. Is that not enough?

Everyone has the right to defend him or herself. So you should establish what the declarer knows about the outstanding cards. If he says “E has the king of clubs singleton and W has a club lower than the ten”, I’m Inclined to believe him if such a statement is in accordance with his level. That would also be the case if the player makes an other statement that is believable given the level.
That doesn’t mean that the dummy should get away with this behavior and therefore I give a PP. That can be a warning, but if the player is experienced or prone to this kind of offences, it will be more serious than that.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2019-March-01, 09:40, said:

Everyone has the right to defend him or herself. So you should establish what the declarer knows about the outstanding cards. If he says “E has the king of clubs singleton and W has a club lower than the ten”, I’m Inclined to believe him if such a statement is in accordance with his level. That would also be the case if the player makes an other statement that is believable given the level.
That doesn’t mean that the dummy should get away with this behavior and therefore I give a PP. That can be a warning, but if the player is experienced or prone to this kind of offences, it will be more serious than that.

Makes sense, thanks, but you don't directly address my doubt about 45F.
I take it you interpret it to intend "If he considers Dummy suggested a play to declarer which declarer might not otherwise have made and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested.".

[barmar]

I think sanst's point refers to this clause: "the defenders were damaged by the play suggested". The definition of damage is:

Quote

Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

If declarer was going to make the same play as the one suggested, then the opponents didn't get a less favorable result than if the infraction had not occurred.

[pran]

The essential point for me is that playing the ♣10 from Dummy can only be correct if West has led his ♣7 from ♣K7 (or possibly K97). This is for the TD to consider when applying Law 45F.

A different but also important fact is that East "accepted" the uncalled-for play by Dummy and followed suit with his King without any comment or reaction to the violation of Law 45D1.

Dummy obviously deserves a PP (warning), but I am seriously interested in why declarer made his comment in the first place?

[barmar]

pran, on 2019-March-01, 10:29, said:

Dummy obviously deserves a PP (warning), but I am seriously interested in why declarer made his comment in the first place?

Because he's scrupulously honest?

[plaur]

pran, on 2019-March-01, 10:29, said:

..., but I am seriously interested in why declarer made his comment in the first place?

I was declarer and was taken by surprise by the quick action. Playing with good friends in a club game I'd thought it better to call TD, when I had already uttered surprise.

I had full count of distribution and was pretty sure RHO had the king, but(!) it was not a 100% thing, so I was getting ready to play through the hand in my head to make sure.

[pran]

plaur, on 2019-March-01, 11:25, said:

I was declarer and was taken by surprise by the quick action. Playing with good friends in a club game I'd thought it better to call TD, when I had already uttered surprise.

I had full count of distribution and was pretty sure RHO had the king, but(!) it was not a 100% thing, so I was getting ready to play through the hand in my head to make sure.

Fair enough

[weejonnie]

I think the only question is whether "and was pretty sure RHO had the king, but(!) it was not a 100% thing" would mean that playing the 10 was a logical alternative. (Under 45D -> 16C)

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2019-March-06, 12:27, said:

I think the only question is whether "and was pretty sure RHO had the king, but(!) it was not a 100% thing" would mean that playing the 10 was a logical alternative. (Under 45D -> 16C)

That's a good question.

LAs are based on what hypothetical similar players would consider and do, not what's in the actual player's mind. How do you account for uncertainties like this? If you poll players, I think telling them "you're pretty sure, but not certain, that RHO has the king" would bias responses too much. You could conceivably replay the entire auction and play for them, and let them come to their own conclusions. But if the reason for the actual player's uncertainty is that he's forgotten some plays, how can you get the poll respondents into the same frame of mind?

My conclusion is that you can't really apply the LA principle in this situation.