[BudH]

LAW 45B (Play of a Card from Dummy) present wording: "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."

LAW 45C4(a) present wording - “A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Law 45C4(a) states if ANY player (declarer or a defender) names a card to be played, then that card MUST be played - however, it is not yet a played card (although presumably it will be a played card shortly thereafter).

ACBL recently informed me their interpretation of Law 45B is that despite the phrase "after which", which has led many readers of the Law 45B to think dummy's card is deemed officially played as soon as it is named, dummy's card is not played until it is face up outside of dummy's remaining cards after being removed from dummy, whether performed by dummy after declarer names the card or if declarer picks up the card himself.

If the ACBL interpretation is correct, it would match well with Law 45C4(a) saying "must be played" and not "is deemed played".

Also, if the ACBL interpretation is correct, declarer's RHO should clearly refrain from playing after dummy until dummy's card is picked up and face up outside dummy's remaining cards, which avoids the problem of mishearing the card verbally called by declarer.

=================================================

IF THE ACBL INTERPRETATION IS VERIFIED TO BE CORRECT, then I propose the following modified versions of Law 45B and Law 45C4(a) which would avoid any possible ambiguity:

LAW 45B (Play of a Card from Dummy) proposed wording: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming dummy's card, the dummy picking up the card, and dummy facing the card on the table outside dummy's remaining cards. In playing from dummy’s hand, declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself."

LAW 45C4(a) proposed wording - “A card must be played (but is not yet deemed played) if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.”

Bud Hinckley
South Bend, Indiana, USA (ACBL)

[barmar]

You've been obsessing over this in several threads in different forums for much of the past week. I still haven't seen a good reason why it's important to distinguish the precise time when the card has been played. If a card "must be played", there are no problems with treating it as if it actually has been played.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2015-March-09, 08:59, said:

You've been obsessing over this in several threads in different forums for much of the past week. I still haven't seen a good reason why it's important to distinguish the precise time when the card has been played. If a card "must be played", there are no problems with treating it as if it actually has been played.

The question on exactly when a card from dummy is played is important in one single case: If dummy has the lead and declarer calls a card that is not in dummy.

If RHO plays a card to that lead (a "lead" that is void - Law 46B4!) then RHO has actually led out of turn. There is no excuse for RHO and Law 56 (referring to Law 54D) applies.

[BudH]

 barmar, on 2015-March-09, 08:59, said:

You've been obsessing over this in several threads in different forums for much of the past week. I still haven't seen a good reason why it's important to distinguish the precise time when the card has been played. If a card "must be played", there are no problems with treating it as if it actually has been played.

As a soccer referee, basketball referee, baseball umpire, softball umpire, certified chess director, and also for a director for duplicate bridge, it is very clear in all of those that definitions are extremely important in defining proper interpretations.

When is the ball live and when is it dead?
When it the ball in play and when is it out of play?
When is a player and when is the ball in bounds or out of bounds (inside or outside the field of play)?
When has a chess piece move commenced? When is it completed?
When must a chess piece be moved? And has it been moved officially at that moment in time?
When has a call been officially deemed made?
When is a card officially been deemed played?
And when must a specific card be played, even though it officially is not yet deemed played?

These are the backbones of all of the rules and laws of the games and sports which I have officiated for more than 30 years. Yes, call me "dedicated" in wanting proper wording of the laws so there is absolutely no ambiguity.

(It probably wouldn't surprise you for ten consecutive years I scored 100% on my annual basketball rules examination at the start of every season.)

[barmar]

 pran, on 2015-March-09, 09:13, said:

The question on exactly when a card from dummy is played is important in one single case: If dummy has the lead and declarer calls a card that is not in dummy.

If RHO plays a card to that lead (a "lead" that is void - Law 46B4!) then RHO has actually led out of turn. There is no excuse for RHO and Law 56 (referring to Law 54D) applies.

I don't see how changing Law 45 would fix that. If we make it clearer that the card isn't played until dummy moves it into place, then RHO playing before this happens will still be a lead out of turn.

Your change would cause the following: Declarer calls for a card that IS in dummy, but RHO follows to the trick before dummy has moved the card into the played position. That would then be deemed a lead or play out of turn.

[campboy]

 pran, on 2015-March-09, 09:13, said:

The question on exactly when a card from dummy is played is important in one single case: If dummy has the lead and declarer calls a card that is not in dummy.

That seems to me to be the case when it is most obviously unimportant. A card that isn't in dummy can't be played, so the question of when it becomes played doesn't even arise.

[Vampyr]

The Law is fine as it is. The reason there is a difference between the form for cards played from dummy and cards played by other players is that for other players, designating the card is not proper procedure. Naming the card is very rarely done, usually to save time when the card has dropped on the floor or is stuck to another card and the player is having difficulty extracting it from his hand.

However, if your point is that there is an inconsistency since when dummy is away from the table declarer does not name the card but simply plays it, well, OK but if this is a problem what is the solution?

[blackshoe]

Here's a radical suggestion:

Dummy shall not participate in the play in any way. Declarer shall play dummy's cards by picking up the desired card and placing it face up outside the array of dummy's remaining cards.

Dummy can take a nap, or go for a beer, or whatever.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2015-March-09, 09:33, said:

I don't see how changing Law 45 would fix that. If we make it clearer that the card isn't played until dummy moves it into place, then RHO playing before this happens will still be a lead out of turn.

Your change would cause the following: Declarer calls for a card that IS in dummy, but RHO follows to the trick before dummy has moved the card into the played position. That would then be deemed a lead or play out of turn.

I wrote that the question on exactly when a card is played from dummy is only important in one single case.

Say that Declarer calls for the ♠2 which is not in Dummy and RHO "follows" suit with his ♠5. The Director has no option other than to rule that RHO has led his ♠5 out of turn.

Now say that the ♠2 indeed is in dummy. It doesn't matter whether RHO playes his ♠5 (a split second or more) before or after Dummy physically places the ♠2 in a played position, the game will proceed normally in either case.

If we want to understand Law 45 that the ♠2 is played when called whether or not that card actually is in dummy then we are in trouble how to handle the following play by RHO when the called card is not in dummy because RHO just played to a card led by instruction from declarer.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-09, 10:20, said:

Here's a radical suggestion:

Dummy shall not participate in the play in any way. Declarer shall play dummy's cards by picking up the desired card and placing it face up outside the array of dummy's remaining cards.

Dummy can take a nap, or go for a beer, or whatever.

I don't love playing the cards myself, unless I really want that beer. Also I find it distracting as a defender when declared does it -- you have to lean over the table to play the card and then to turn it over and put it in a played card pile or in the board. It's not like rubber bridge where you just put it in the centre of the table and then someone gathers the trick. So I prefer dummy to manipulate the cards.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2015-March-09, 10:44, said:

I wrote that the question on exactly when a card is played from dummy is only important in one single case.

Say that Declarer calls for the ♠2 which is not in Dummy and RHO "follows" suit with his ♠5. The Director has no option other than to rule that RHO has led his ♠5 out of turn.

Now say that the ♠2 indeed is in dummy. It doesn't matter whether RHO playes his ♠5 (a split second or more) before or after Dummy physically places the ♠2 in a played position, the game will proceed normally in either case.

If we want to understand Law 45 that the ♠2 is played when called whether or not that card actually is in dummy then we are in trouble how to handle the following play by RHO when the called card is not in dummy because RHO just played to a card led by instruction from declarer.

No one is suggesting that the card is played if it's not actually in dummy. There's another law that says that calling for a nonexistent card is voided, and no one has proposed removing that as part of this change.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2015-March-10, 09:41, said:

No one is suggesting that the card is played if it's not actually in dummy. There's another law that says that calling for a nonexistent card is voided, and no one has proposed removing that as part of this change.

Then why maintaining the huge difference in reaction to RHO followiing a call for a card from dummy dependiong on whether the card is in dummy or not?

Say that the call is for alead of ♠4 which is not in dummy, RHO understood the call as being for ♠5 which indeed is in dummy and played his own card without awaiting dummy to actualløy move the card to a played position.

Why rule differently on the play by RHO (lead out of turn or ordinary play) depending on the situation?

[barmar]

Because if RHO is paying sufficient attention, he should be able to see that the named card is not in dummy. He doesn't get a pass on his own error just because it happened at the same time that declarer made a mistake.

[BudH]

From the Phoenix Fall 2013 NABC ACBL Laws Commission Minutes

"In a diamond contract Declarer leads a club loser from Dummy and says "playing the 9 of diamonds" as he faces the 9 of hearts (Laws 45C2 and 45C4). The Commission considered the following:

A. Does whichever comes first rule?
B. If simultaneous does the tie go to the non-offending side? Or do words supercede the action of playing a card?

Ultimately the Commission agreed it is up to the Director's interpretation, and application of this Law is dependent upon trying to discover Declarer's intent. If other play at the table may have influenced Declarer to possibly change the play of a card, such change should not be allowed. (Small club led from Dummy and Declarer says "I'm ruffing with the 9 of diamonds." He sees the 10 of diamonds played by RHO and now plays the 9 of hearts. In this case we would require the play of the 9 of diamonds if he holds that card.)"

(end of excerpt)

This appears to confirm that verbally naming a card (as declarer, but the principle is similar for a defender) that you will play commits you to playing that card and if you remove different card from your hand and place it face up on the table, it must be replaced with the card you verbally said you were playing (and if you are a defender, that face up card is a major penalty card).

[barmar]

Playing a card from dummy is qualitatively different from playing a card from your hand.

The most obvious difference is that everyone can see the cards in dummy. So if you call for a card that doesn't exist, the defenders should be able to tell.

Second, the act of naming the card in dummy IS the play of the card, rather than being an action done ahead of the play and committing you to play the card.

[BudH]

 barmar, on 2015-March-17, 02:12, said:

Second, the act of naming the card in dummy IS the play of the card, rather than being an action done ahead of the play and committing you to play the card.

And THAT is exactly what needs to be explicitly described in the Laws (and related interpretations) IF the explanation I was given (and confirmed) by ACBL is incorrect.

I plan on sending a letter to Horn Lake on this subject in the next few weeks. Too bad the deadline was more than a few years ago for submittals to changes to the 2017 Duplicate Laws, but perhaps at least this point could be clarified.

[gordontd]

 BudH, on 2015-March-17, 19:14, said:

Too bad the deadline was more than a few years ago for submittals to changes to the 2017 Duplicate Laws, but perhaps at least this point could be clarified.

It might still be worth contacting Laurie Kelso if you have something for the next update to the Laws.

[blackshoe]

Why Laurie? Did he take over Grattan's position?

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-18, 11:45, said:

Why Laurie? Did he take over Grattan's position?

Yes
http://www.worldbridge.org/laws-1.aspx

[blackshoe]

 gordontd, on 2015-March-19, 02:34, said:

Yes
http://www.worldbridge.org/laws-1.aspx

Ah. I missed that.