[blackshoe]

A trick is in progress, it's time to play a card from dummy. Dummy slides forward a card of the suit led. Declarer nods his head in assent. Has declarer "otherwise designated" that the card suggested be played? Can he change his mind? The relevant laws seem to be:

Quote

Law 45C4{a}: A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.

and

Quote

Law 45D: If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it.

[Vampyr]

If dummy directs the play in this way, i don't see any choice but to give and adjusted score. So the status of the card is not, for me, the main issue.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2015-July-20, 20:38, said:

If dummy directs the play I. This way, i don't see any choice but to give and adjusted score. So the status of the card is not, for me, the main issue.

I think you're jumping the gun. It is not clear at this point that an adjusted score would be needed.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2015-July-20, 21:09, said:

I think you're jumping the gun. It is not clear at this point that an adjusted score would be needed.

Well, no matter wha happens next, dummy has directed the play. I don't see any way out of this. What am I missing?

[blackshoe]

Forget Law 45D for a second. Does declarer's assent to dummy's suggestion constitute a designation under Law 45C4{a}, or not?

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-July-20, 23:49, said:

Does declarer's assent to dummy's suggestion constitute a designation under Law 45C4{a}, or not?

Yes.

[weejonnie]

OK - so we give Declarer/ Dummy a procedural penalty and decide whether the declarer has made use of unauthorised information in playing the card dummy suggested. (Law 73)

C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2015-July-20, 18:04, said:

A trick is in progress, it's time to play a card from dummy. Dummy slides forward a card of the suit led. Declarer nods his head in assent. Has declarer "otherwise designated" that the card suggested be played? Can he change his mind? The relevant laws seem to be:

Dummy has clearly "suggested" a play and thereby violated Law 43A3.

If this play from Dummy is obviouos (to all players at the table) and Declarer nods (or acts similarly) then the play stands and this is normally the end of the story.

However, either Defender may call the Director and claim that Dummy's action was an active intervention in the play (because there could be a real choice which of Dummy's cards ought to be played). In that case the rest is up to the Director.

And no, if Declarer apparently has assented to Dummy's suggestion he may not change his mind.

[RMB1]

 weejonnie, on 2015-July-21, 02:23, said:

OK - so we give Declarer/ Dummy a procedural penalty and decide whether the declarer has made use of unauthorised information in playing the card dummy suggested. (Law 73)

I think the appropriate law is Law 46F

Law 46F Dummy Indicates Card said:

After dummy’s hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. 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.

[lamford]

I agree with gnasher that a nod is a designation. And RMB1 is right about the procedure. So, if dummy's play gains, the TD assigns an adjusted score. And that includes where declarer might not have known that a small card in dummy was a winner, and the "gain" is measured in comparison with all other rational alternatives.

[billw55]

 lamford, on 2015-July-21, 04:30, said:

So, if dummy's play gains, the TD assigns an adjusted score. And that includes where declarer might not have known that a small card in dummy was a winner, and the "gain" is measured in comparison with all other rational alternatives.

I had not thought of this but it is a good point. For example, a seemingly routine low card might actually be a working finesse.

[blackshoe]

Y'all are getting ahead of yourselves — or at least ahead of me.

Okay, so we've established that declarer has designated a card in dummy. Now, Law 45C4{a} says that this card "must be played". But here's the next part of the story: The contract was 3NT, and late in the play declarer's RHO led a small diamond. Declarer discarded a club, and declarer's LHO played the nine. Dummy's cards were the ten and the seven; it was the seven that dummy put forward. Declarer assented, and then realized he could win the trick with the ten. He immediately suggested that he had not called for a card from dummy and so could change the card played to the ten. Do we let him?

[barmar]

According to a well known precedent, if he says "Oh *****!" after the nod, he can change it.

[RMB1]

 blackshoe, on 2015-July-21, 09:35, said:

.... it was the seven that dummy put forward. Declarer assented, and then realized he could win the trick with the ten. He immediately suggested that he had not called for a card from dummy and so could change the card played to the ten. Do we let him?

By assenting, declarer had "otherwise" designated the seven as the card to be played, so it must be played; according to:
Law 45 C 4. (a) "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play."

The original designation (the seven) was not unintended, because it took subsequent realisation to decide he could win the trick. So the original designation stands, Law 45 C 4. (b) does not apply.

[akwoo]

Not all nods are created equal.

If the nod had at least as much intent as a careless "Play please" (which declarers also frequently do in this situation), we should rule the same way. We wouldn't let SB get away with "I didn't say what to play" in that situation, would we?

[wank]

why the desire to crucify dummy? you've got no idea from the question why he 'slides forward a card of the suit led'. was he tidying the dummy because it has become difficult to see a card(s) (yes, at an inopportune moment)? did he think declarer had said/indicated small? was it entirely accidental?

[Vampyr]

 wank, on 2015-July-22, 08:47, said:

why the desire to crucify dummy? you've got no idea from the question why he 'slides forward a card of the suit led'. was he tidying the dummy because it has become difficult to see a card(s) (yes, at an inopportune moment)? did he think declarer had said/indicated small? was it entirely accidental?

A wank is as good as a nod -- oops I mean a wink.

The choices you give are unlikely but I guess possible (with the possible exception of "accidental"), but anyway I am sure that the matter has been investigated by the director and the facts are as stated,

[blackshoe]

There is no evidence that any of the mitigating circumstances wank suggests existed. If there were, I would have said so.