When is a card played from dummy law 45
#41
Posted 2013-December-12, 21:08
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#42
Posted 2013-December-13, 02:54
Law 57C1 further elaborates this to include the case that RHO is free to play to the trick once dummy has played, suggested a play or just touched a card with the apparent effect of at least suggesting a play. (This is where Law 45F is relevant.)
Defendes are not supposed to keep track on the correct order of play to a trick when declarer and/or dummy has "disturbed" such order.
#43
Posted 2013-December-13, 04:22
axman, on 2013-December-12, 20:26, said:
Quote
Quote
Karl
#44
Posted 2013-December-13, 07:08
mink, on 2013-December-13, 04:22, said:
Obviously this does not apply to the dummy, because it would be a contradiction with Law 45D.
I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
Karl
It is presumptuous to believe ‘it is assumed that it is the dummy's turn to lead or play a subsequent card.’ Further, the language of 45D specifies ‘If dummy places in the played position’ as the relevant qualification.
Yes, declarer’s agent is not empowered to act on his own volition; yet, by doing so [having designated] the card must be played. And having been played, presumably does not preclude it from being affected by other passages.
There is some question as to who qualifies [or ought it be said, does not qualify] as OS.
#45
Posted 2013-December-13, 09:49
mink, on 2013-December-12, 17:51, said:
Someone might have said it, but none of the serious arguments are on this basis.
mink, on 2013-December-12, 17:51, said:
You are quite correct, we do think that 45D is applicable, and that is because we disagree completely with your argument for saying it isn't. The law defines playing a card or putting a card into the played position in a way which is quite independent of whether it is done in rotation or not. A card played out of rotation or put into the played position when not played may in some circumstances be withdrawn of course, but that doesn't mean it wasn't played or wasn't put into the played position. Thus there is absolutely no reason to think that 45D applies only if it is done in rotation, and every reason to think it applies whenever the card is played or put into the played position.
mink, on 2013-December-12, 17:51, said:
In a colloquial sense, playing in rotation means playing after the player on your right has (apparently) played. Now the fact that your RHO played out of rotation, or that dummy put the card in the played position without it being properly called by declarer, was their offence. And what L57C is aimed at is protecting the player who plays after a card on his right was apparently played, because the card apparently played on your right may still be withdrawn, and beacuse it may gull you into playing out of turn. To declare the card you played as being UI to partner would not be protecting the NOS. Now you are quite happy to take this interpretation when it is done inadvertently. But you can't really make the advertent/inadvertent distinction in this case. In general we are not in the business of deciding whether things are done inadvertently or not, although there are some very specific laws related to "unintended" things that do require that distinction. So the effect of this law is to give a player an effective right to play before his partner when the other side have played out of rotation, or dummy has placed a card in the played position a card that declarer has not called.
#46
Posted 2013-December-13, 09:56
Quote
When dummy's premature play is retracted, does that count as a change of play? Or does this depend on whether declarer plays the same or a different card when he properly calls a card from dummy?
#47
Posted 2013-December-13, 11:44
barmar, on 2013-December-13, 09:56, said:
When dummy's premature play is retracted, does that count as a change of play? Or does this depend on whether declarer plays the same or a different card when he properly calls a card from dummy?
The dummy did not play, and therefore nothing is retracted. Even if the declarer had instructed the dummy to play, there would have been no change of this play.
Karl
#48
Posted 2013-December-13, 13:39
barmar, on 2013-December-13, 09:56, said:
When dummy's premature play is retracted, does that count as a change of play? Or does this depend on whether declarer plays the same or a different card when he properly calls a card from dummy?
mink, on 2013-December-13, 11:44, said:
Karl
If Dummy has violated Law 45F and RHO subsequently has played a card to the trick then sure Law 57C1 is applicable.
And if Dummy's illegal play/suggestion/touching is retracted/nullified for whatever reason then RHO may withdraw his played card under Law 47D without any rectification. Any information from RHO's card such retracted is AI to his partner and UI to declarer (Law 16D).
#49
Posted 2013-December-13, 13:55
iviehoff, on 2013-December-13, 09:49, said:
Quote
Quote
Quote
The other reason is that Law 57D is specifically designed to deal with the current situation. If the intention of this Law was that Law 45D should be applied, too, there would be a reference to Law 45D in Law 57C, and probably some words to resolve the ambiguity that though Law 57C just states there is no rectification, Law 45D defines a rectification that affects the defender.
Karl
#50
Posted Today, 06:07
blackshoe, on 2013-December-10, 23:07, said:

I reread the OP, and laws 45B, 45D and 57, and I think the proper interpretation is that dummy does not "play" cards, he puts them in the played position, on instruction from declarer. If he puts a card in the played position absent such instruction, he has illegally suggested a play, and Law 57 is invoked. The rectification referenced in 57C1 is the one specified in 57A, which would otherwise make the declarer's RHO's play a major penalty card. So in this case it's not a major penalty card.
The remaining question is whether West's knowledge that East has the ♦Q is UI or AI to him (West). The information arises from East's play, which is technically illegal in spite of not being subject to the rectification in 57A. It is not an illegal call that has been accepted (there's no procedure for that in this case), so I would say it is UI. West will do what he does, but if he discards the ♦K, I will, in the ACBL, adjust the score to give both remaining tricks to declarer (Laws 16A1, 16A3, 16A4, 12C1). In a 12C1{c} jurisdiction I would award an adjusted score, probably 60/40 or 55/45 in declarer's favor.
On that last point (the UI) there may be case law that says otherwise, I'm not sure. If someone can point to some such I might be convinced to rule differently. Maybe.

Notably:
45C4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play.
D. 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 andreturn to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it. if declarer’s rHo changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16d).
F. 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.
45C4a dummy designated the DT. It must be played. There is reasoning that it has not yet been played but the law is barmy.
45D dummy put in a played position a card declarer did not designate and attention was drawn. It must be withdrawn, yet it remains ‘compulsory to be played 45C4a’
45F dummy indicated a play described as infraction of 45F. arguably this caused damage of causing RHO to POOT. Arguably, RHO was in a position to penalize dummy for his infraction before he acted
Regarding L57A, the conditions for penalty are not met since RHO’s play to T12 was after LHO’s play to T12 (rather than prior)