[lamford]

---

Swiss Teams. Table result 4S= N +420.

From a future EBU Appeals file, and one where I do not know the correct ruling, so I will put it here to get some views!

East led a club against 4S by North, ruffed in dummy. North stated that he had asked for a top spade on the second trick. Dummy had played a small spade and West won the trick. North called for (another) top spade and at the same time West claimed she played a diamond. North claimed she had not. South didn’t know what had happened. East agreed that his partner had led a diamond.

The TD ruled that under L45D both sides had played to the next trick so although dummy had played the wrong card on trick 2, that card could not be withdrawn.

The AC upheld this decision, but were they right? Did both sides play to the following trick? My view is that the only logical way of interpreting this is that both sides must have made a legal play to the next trick, and what would have been a revoke by dummy, ruffing West's diamond is not a "play to the next trick". It seems that the AC and TD interpreted the Law as "any attempt to play to the next trick, even to lead out of turn".

[barmar]

I think the AC may be right.

On trick 3, dummy and West played their cards simultaneously. 58A says that since West's card was the legal one, it's considered to have been played first.

Therefore, dummy's card is not a lead out of turn, it's a premature play. 57C2 says that a premature play by declarer from dummy is a played card. It doesn't specify that it has to be a legal play, so I would deal with that separately.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-October-01, 14:33, said:

I think the AC may be right.

On trick 3, dummy and West played their cards simultaneously. 58A says that since West's card was the legal one, it's considered to have been played first.

Therefore, dummy's card is not a lead out of turn, it's a premature play. 57C2 says that a premature play by declarer from dummy is a played card. It doesn't specify that it has to be a legal play, so I would deal with that separately.

However we have: 62B2 The card may be replaced without further rectification if it was played from declarer’s (subject to Law 43B2(b)) or dummy’s hand, or if it was a defender’s faced card.

So, it could be argued that dummy has not yet "played" to this trick. Clearly this card is not "contributed to the trick" as it will, and must, be withdrawn before the trick is completed, so it is not played under definition (1) of "play" which is the most relevant in this case. It seems that only a premature legal play from dummy is a played card, and that is just another example of contradiction and poor wording in the Laws.

Another approach is to take the general meaning of a "played card" as a "card that must be played". In this example, the revoke by dummy is not a "card that must be played".

[sailoranch]

lamford, on 2012-October-01, 15:54, said:

However we have: 62B2 The card may be replaced without further rectification if it was played from declarer’s (subject to Law 43B2(b)) or dummy’s hand, or if it was a defender’s faced card.

So, it could be argued that dummy has not yet "played" to this trick. Clearly this card is not "contributed to the trick" as it will, and must, be withdrawn before the trick is completed, so it is not played under definition (1) of "play" which is the most relevant in this case. It seems that only a premature legal play from dummy is a played card, and that is just another example of contradiction and poor wording in the Laws.

Another approach is to take the general meaning of a "played card" as a "card that must be played". In this example, the revoke by dummy is not a "card that must be played".

I don't think this is correct. Law 58A: "A lead or play made simultaneously with another player’s legal lead or play is deemed to be subsequent to it."

This necessarily requires that one of the plays be illegal. The use of the phrase "legal lead or play" also implies that if the lawmakers wanted to refer only to legal plays, they would explicitly say so. Moreover, if we were supposed to construe "played card" in 57C2 to exclude revokes, then that interpretation would have to apply throughout the Laws. If that were the case, the Laws would say that when they defined "play" or "played card," which they don't do.

Furthermore, assuming we agree that West played a card at the same time that declarer designated a card, the AC can't overrule the TD's decision based on a different interpretation of "played card" in 57C2.

[sailoranch]

I'd be interested to know which side is pursuing the appeal. Are East-West asking for an adjustment based on damage from dummy's misplay?

[iviehoff]

Although each side was separately playing to different next tricks, and therefore at least one of those cards was bound to be withdrawn whichever was the correct next trick, I can conclude only that both sides had played to (some) next trick, and it is too late to rectify the earlier irregularity.

Do the defenders acknowledge you called for a high spade, or are they maintaining that in fact you called for a low one? (Presumably, since he has ruled you can't withdraw it, the TD did not feel constrained to make a finding of fact on this point, but if the legal point is reversed then the fact needs to be determined.) If they were aware you called for a high spade, it wasn't very nice of them to play on without drawing attention, although presumably within their rights to do so.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2012-October-03, 01:33, said:

Although each side was separately playing to different next tricks, and therefore at least one of those cards was bound to be withdrawn whichever was the correct next trick, I can conclude only that both sides had played to (some) next trick, and it is too late to rectify the earlier irregularity.

I don't think that both sides played to the next trick which will be the lead of the second top spade from dummy. They played to different next tricks. It does not say "a next trick". It says "the next trick".

[lamford]

sailoranch, on 2012-October-02, 19:52, said:

I'd be interested to know which side is pursuing the appeal. Are East-West asking for an adjustment based on damage from dummy's misplay?

North-South appealed, although the ruling only cost an overtrick in a Swiss Teams, but that could have been a VP.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2012-October-01, 15:54, said:

Clearly this card is not "contributed to the trick" as it will, and must, be withdrawn before the trick is completed,

On the contrary, it's hard to see how a card can be withdrawn if it was not contributed to the trick.

[bluejak]

I have always been of the opinion than when a Law refers to a card having been played there is no effective difference between a card having been played as per the Law on how to play a card, and a card that must be played as per the Law on when a card must be played.

So, why have the distinction?

Simple: the Laws want a played card to be a card played in a certain way, and they tell you what that way is. If the Law on cards that have to be played was the same Law as played cards you would get positions where people are playing cards in a funny way and that would be permitted. Let me give you a fairly ridiculous example to show you the sort of problems this would engender.

Assuming the Law was combined, so any way that a card that must be played becomes a way that a card is played, consider what happens when a defender takes a card out of his hand, shows it to partner, and puts it face-down on the table, declarer not having seen it. This would now be played!

So the distinction is for the sake of orderliness: all cards that are played are either placed on the table, or moved by dummy on the table. But when deciding [for example] whether a card is played out of turn the distinction between a card played and a card that must be played fades away.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2012-October-03, 05:17, said:

On the contrary, it's hard to see how a card can be withdrawn if it was not contributed to the trick.

I don't see why. Would you think that a fifth card was contributed to a trick? The definition of trick in the Laws is:
"the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead."

The card from dummy was not contributed in rotation, and therefore was not contributed to that trick. Once you have decided that the diamond is the lead to the next trick, then declarer has not contributed a card to the next trick.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2012-October-03, 10:30, said:

The card from dummy was not contributed in rotation, and therefore was not contributed to that trick. Once you have decided that the ace of diamonds is the lead to the next trick, then declarer has not contributed a card to the next trick.

Then what is 57C2 talking about? "A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and may not be withdrawn." How can it be a played card, yet not contribute to the trick that was in progress when it was played?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-October-03, 10:39, said:

Then what is 57C2 talking about? "A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and may not be withdrawn." How can it be a played card, yet not contribute to the trick that was in progress when it was played?

The Laws are full of contradictions. But in this example, another Law, 62B2, allows the declarer not to contribute the card to the trick, as it would be a revoke, and it has not been contributed to the trick either, as it is a play out of turn. I think the overriding point is that it was clearly not being contributed to the trick to which the ace of diamonds is led. When both defenders make a simultaneous lead, the partner of the correct leader is not obliged to revoke, so cannot be said to have played to that trick.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2012-October-03, 10:30, said:

I don't see why. Would you think that a fifth card was contributed to a trick? The definition of trick in the Laws is:
"the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead."

Yes, I would think a fifth card was contributed to the trick. Law 45E1 specifically talks about "a fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender", so presumably that is something which can happen. Even the definition of "trick" you quote alludes to the possibility of a trick being composed of some number of cards other than four, so I don't understand your objection to this.

[mamos]

Interesting if obscure problem and in my opinion not one anticipated by the lawmakers. I don't think it matters enormously, it will probably be another 100 years before it happens but I do think it's reasonable to argue that the TD and the AC decision could have been different.

All we can do is look at the Law and particularly the wording therein. Arguing about what "contributed" means won't help. It's not a word found in the Laws.

If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick,

I think these two cards are indeed played - declarer has named the card in dummy "another top Spade" and the defender has apparently played a Diamond.

For me the crucial question is whether these cards are played to the next trick. Clearly the intention of both players is to lead a card to a trick - indeed different tricks. What worries me about this is West's actions. If we are not careful a cunning defender will always be able to "establish" dummy's mistake by smacking a card on the table for the next trick. Now I'm not suggesting that is what happened here but it makes me worry about the TD/AC ruling
Mike

[pran]

mamos, on 2012-October-03, 12:21, said:

Interesting if obscure problem and in my opinion not one anticipated by the lawmakers. I don't think it matters enormously, it will probably be another 100 years before it happens but I do think it's reasonable to argue that the TD and the AC decision could have been different.

All we can do is look at the Law and particularly the wording therein. Arguing about what "contributed" means won't help. It's not a word found in the Laws.

If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick,

I think these two cards are indeed played - declarer has named the card in dummy "another top Spade" and the defender has apparently played a Diamond.

For me the crucial question is whether these cards are played to the next trick. Clearly the intention of both players is to lead a card to a trick - indeed different tricks. What worries me about this is West's actions. If we are not careful a cunning defender will always be able to "establish" dummy's mistake by smacking a card on the table for the next trick. Now I'm not suggesting that is what happened here but it makes me worry about the TD/AC ruling
Mike

What I consider obvious from the story so far is that Declarer thought he had won the trick with a high trump from Dummy while West thought he had won the trick with the highest trump (apparently) played to the trick.

Both players thought they were leading to the next trick.

The important question which has not so far been answered here, and which indeed is not answered in the laws, is whether the two such separate leads to the next trick in fact imply that both sides have played to that next trick?

My personal understanding of the laws is that WBFLC in Law 45D thinks of both sides having played to the next trick in a regular way, i.e. with a lead and a subsequent play as described in Law 44 (without any irregularity).

Here the previous trick was won by Dummy because the card played from Dummy was the high trump called by North. However, as Dummy actually placed a low trump in the played position West thought he had won the trick and led to the next at the same time as North called the next card to be led from Dummy. The result was not a lead and a subsequent play to the next trick.

Consequently I would allow North to change the play from Dummy in the last trick to the high trump which he requested, and that both defenders may change any card they subsequently played (including the "lead" by West to the next trick) without any rectification.

[campboy]

mamos, on 2012-October-03, 12:21, said:

For me the crucial question is whether these cards are played to the next trick. Clearly the intention of both players is to lead a card to a trick - indeed different tricks.

I don't understand what you mean here. Weren't both players intending to lead cards to trick 3?

Quote

What worries me about this is West's actions. If we are not careful a cunning defender will always be able to "establish" dummy's mistake by smacking a card on the table for the next trick. Now I'm not suggesting that is what happened here but it makes me worry about the TD/AC ruling

I don't see this as being a problem. The card isn't un-correctable until both sides have played to the next trick, so neither side can deprive the other of the chance to notice.

[pran]

campboy, on 2012-October-03, 14:51, said:

I don't see this as being a problem. The card isn't un-correctable until both sides have played to the next trick, so neither side can deprive the other of the chance to notice.

I suspect his point is that with West "knowing" that North called a high trump from Dummy and obviously believed that he still has the lead from Dummy West now has the possibility to "nail" the situation by "leading" to trick three (as described in OP) before North discovers the error made by Dummy.

If instead West had just objected to the "lead" from Dummy with a statement like "it is my lead" then there would not have been any problem in correcting the incorrect play by Dummy in the last trick.

[campboy]

West could rescue N/S from their own mistakes, but why should he? The opportunity for the card to be corrected after OS have played but before NOS have played (unlike revokes) exists for his benefit, not declarer's.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2012-October-03, 10:30, said:

I don't see why. Would you think that a fifth card was contributed to a trick? The definition of trick in the Laws is:
"the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead."

The card from dummy was not contributed in rotation, and therefore was not contributed to that trick. Once you have decided that the ace of diamonds is the lead to the next trick, then declarer has not contributed a card to the next trick.

barmar, on 2012-October-03, 10:39, said:

Then what is 57C2 talking about? "A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and may not be withdrawn." How can it be a played card, yet not contribute to the trick that was in progress when it was played?

LHO leads a card, dummy follows, declarer then plays a card, and RHO has not yet played.

Declarer certainly played to this trick, even though it was not in rotation, and Law 57C2 applies to it.

I am not saying it affects this thread, but certainly a card does not have to be in rotation to be contributed to the current trick.