[StevenG]

dburn, on Jul 15 2010, 09:37 AM, said:

Put it this way: if declarer led towards his hand and played the jack before noticing that RHO had played the queen, he would not be allowed to change his play. Why should he be allowed to change a play from dummy in identical circumstances?

But the circumstances are not identical. Declarer can pull the jack out of his hand, spot that he needs to play the king, put the jack back and play the king. The point at which the jack is actually and irrevocably played is quite late in the process - much later in playing from hand than in calling for a card from dummy.

[dburn]

StevenG, on Jul 15 2010, 05:01 AM, said:

dburn, on Jul 15 2010, 09:37 AM, said:

Put it this way: if declarer led towards his hand and played the jack before noticing that RHO had played the queen, he would not be allowed to change his play. Why should he be allowed to change a play from dummy in identical circumstances?

But the circumstances are not identical. Declarer can pull the jack out of his hand, spot that he needs to play the king, put the jack back and play the king. The point at which the jack is actually and irrevocably played is quite late in the process - much later in playing from hand than in calling for a card from dummy.

Certainly he can, but there comes a point at which he has played the jack from his hand

Law 47C2 said:

Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played.

and he won't be allowed to change the play after that point.

Identically, there comes a point at which he has played the jack from dummy

Law 47B said:

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card

and he won't be allowed to change the play after that point.

Similarly, if declarer leads towards the ace-queen in the dummy and calls for the ace, but RHO plays the king because he thought declarer was about to call for the queen, the king becomes a played card if it is held so that it was possible for his partner so see its face. This is somewhere in "the process" between the time at which a card is played from dummy and the time at which a card is played by declarer - but what on Earth is the relevance of that? Once you've played a card, you've played it.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on Jul 15 2010, 05:03 AM, said:

That said, I would want to hear declarer repeat exactly what he said, exactly the way he said it. "Ja..king" is different from "jack..king" or from "jacking".

It would be better if "jack" didn't end with the same consonant as the beginning of king. If he had said "kna-king" or "knave-king", there would be no uncertainty about how far he got with his first designation before starting the second. I blame the shortsighted lawmakers who didn't think of this problem when they gave the cards their names.

[Oof Arted]

I must be down to his 'intent' he was intending to finesse against the known Queen and that is what he did, that he was not paying attention is TOUGH

[mrdct]

JoAnneM, on Jul 14 2010, 10:11 PM, said:

Back to the OP, I think this goes back to the world championship several years ago that was lost in a similar situation, and the change of call was not allowed.  I use that incident as an example when telling people to wait till it is their turn to play, after I have been called to the table.

In that case Lauria (declarer) physically picked up the ♠9 from dummy (as Versace had left the room at this point leaving Lauria to mind dummy for himself) and then tried to put it back and play something different when his LHO revealled a higher ♠ than he'd expected (♠Q if memory serves). So a pretty strong precedent was established there that if you play a card from dummy before LHO plays to the trick you do so at your own peril.

[nige1]

mrdct, on Jul 15 2010, 07:30 PM, said:

In that case Lauria (declarer) physically picked up the ♠9 from dummy (as Versace had left the room at this point leaving Lauria to mind dummy for himself) and then tried to put it back and play something different when his LHO revealled a higher ♠ than he'd expected (♠Q if memory serves).  So a pretty strong precedent was established there that if you play a card from dummy before LHO plays to the trick you do so at your own peril.

Scoring: IMPS

2003 Bermuda Bowl Final Board 128
(_P) 1♦ (2♦) _X
(2♥) 3♦ (_P) _P
(3♥) 5♦ (_P) _X
AP
I think MrDct is referring to the board on which Italy lost the Bermuda Bowl. Lorenzo Lauria was declarer in 5♦, doubled by Paul Soloway. Dummy, Alfredo Versace, left the table. Paul cashed ♣A. Lorenzo won the ♥Q switch, ruffed a ♥, ruffed a ♣ and advanced ♥J, covered and ruffed. Lorenzo exited from dummy with ♠K, won by Paul's ♠A. Before Lorenzo had turned dummy's card played to the current trick, Paul led a ♠ to the next trick. Lorenzo touched a low ♠ in dummy but wanted to play dummy's ♠Q instead. The director ruled that the low ♠ had been played. At appeal, Lorenzo said he didn't intend to play the low ♠. He intended to use it as a tool to flip over dummy's card from the current trick, before playing to the next trick. But the committee didn't accept this explanation
300 instead of 100 meant that USA1 won the Bermuda Bowl.

---

[bluejak]

mrdct, on Jul 16 2010, 01:30 AM, said:

So a pretty strong precedent was established there that if you play a card from dummy before LHO plays to the trick you do so at your own peril.

Agreed it is a high level at which the decision was made. But the precedents were many years before: it has been a well known internationally agreed interpretation for many years.