[Trinidad]

A case that I recently heard of, without any guarantee that I got the facts straight.

All players are of good standard (genuine experts)

Declarer plays 3 rounds of a suit that is divided 6232. When he plays the third card from his hand, dummy picks up the remaining singleton and plays around with it by turning it between her fingers (akin to how poker players thoughtlessly play with their chips). (I wasn't there, but I have seen this player do it countless times, so I know what it looks like.)

Now, i.e. before LHO has played, RHO makes a revealing discard. This tells LHO what he can discard and what to hold on to.

How do we rule?

Rik

[sfi]

Trinidad, on 2017-May-13, 13:19, said:

A case that I recently heard of, without any guarantee that I got the facts straight.

All players are of good standard (genuine experts)

Declarer plays 3 rounds of a suit that is divided 6232. When he plays the third card from his hand, dummy picks up the remaining singleton and plays around with it by turning it between her fingers (akin to how poker players thoughtlessly play with their chips). (I wasn't there, but I have seen this player do it countless times, so I know what it looks like.)

Now, i.e. before LHO has played, RHO makes a revealing discard. This tells LHO what he can discard and what to hold on to.

How do we rule?

Rik

57C means the declaring side has no recourse. LHO can discard what they like.

[ahydra]

Not sure I agree with that. The singleton in dummy is not played as it hasn't been called for by declarer (L45, L57C1). Also the card was picked up and fiddled with rather than moved to a played position. So L57A applies: RHO's card is a penalty card and declarer has various options.

Dummy should get a ticking-off for picking up cards before declarer calls for them.

ahydra

[sfi]

Law 57C1:

Quote

C. Declarer or Dummy Has Played
1. A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his
partner if declarer has played from both hands, nor if dummy has played a
card or has illegally suggested that it be played. A singleton in dummy, or
one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit, is not considered to be
played until declarer has instructed (or indicated*) the play.

There's nothing in this law that says the card has to be moved to a played position. I'm struggling to see how dummy picking up the card and playing with it would not be seen as a suggestion that it be played.

[barmar]

I wonder how we're supposed to interpret the last sentence of 57C1. Does it mean that dummy should not play the singleton prematurely (because it permits the defender to play out of turn), or does it mean that the singleton isn't considered played even if dummy plays it or suggested that it be played? It can be read as either a clarification of the first sentence, or an exception to it.

[blackshoe]

I've always understood the law as saying that a card in dummy is played only when declarer names it, or plays it physically himself.

I also think that if dummy picks up a card and waves it around, he's suggesting that it be played, at least in the eyes of the law.

[sfi]

barmar, on 2017-May-13, 22:00, said:

I wonder how we're supposed to interpret the last sentence of 57C1. Does it mean that dummy should not play the singleton prematurely (because it permits the defender to play out of turn), or does it mean that the singleton isn't considered played even if dummy plays it or suggested that it be played? It can be read as either a clarification of the first sentence, or an exception to it.

I've always read is as saying that even though the card will have to be played, it hasn't actually been done so until declarer indicates it. If dummy picks it up prematurely it is the same as if any other card was suggested by dummy.

[barmar]

sfi, on 2017-May-14, 00:20, said:

I've always read is as saying that even though the card will have to be played, it hasn't actually been done so until declarer indicates it. If dummy picks it up prematurely it is the same as if any other card was suggested by dummy.

Then what's the point of that sentence? The Law already says that, and there's no reason to think that singletons are an exception.

[blackshoe]

The point is that too many people think the card is played when dummy picks it up, not when declarer names it.

[sfi]

barmar, on 2017-May-14, 21:27, said:

Then what's the point of that sentence? The Law already says that, and there's no reason to think that singletons are an exception.

Just because there is no reason to think so doesn't mean people don't think so. I've always thought the point was merely to reinforce the point made elsewhere, just to stop someone from trying to argue that "must be played" = "is played".

[Trinidad]

My ruling would have been:

Facts:
Dummy's card has not been played, but dummy has suggested to play it.
RHO card was played out of turn.

Ruling:
RHO's card becomes a major penalty card. The information about which card it is is UI for LHO. If there are LAs in which card to discard, LHO should choose one that is made least attractive by the UI.
Dummy gets a procedural penalty (in the form of a warning).
Declarer gets permission to slap dummy's hand whenever she is playing with the cards.

The TD ruled that dummy's card was played eventhough declarer never mentioned the card, touched it or otherwise indicated it.

Rik

[RSliwinski]

§57C will be changed
from 2007:
C. Declarer or Dummy Has Played
1. A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if declarer has
played from both hands, nor if dummy has played a card or has illegally suggested that it be
played. A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit, is not
considered to be played until declarer has instructed (or indicated*) the play.
2. A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and may not be
withdrawn.
to 2017:
C. Declarer or Dummy Has Played
1. A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if declarer has
played from both hands. However a card is not considered to be played from dummy until
declarer has instructed (or otherwise indicated*) the play.
2. A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if dummy has of his
own volition prematurely selected a card before his RHO or has illegally suggested that one
be played.
3. A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and if legal
may not be withdrawn.

[sanst]

Trinidad, on 2017-May-15, 01:39, said:

My ruling would have been:

Facts:
Dummy's card has not been played, but dummy has suggested to play it.
RHO card was played out of turn.

Ruling:
RHO's card becomes a major penalty card. The information about which card it is is UI for LHO. If there are LAs in which card to discard, LHO should choose one that is made least attractive by the UI.
Dummy gets a procedural penalty (in the form of a warning).
Declarer gets permission to slap dummy's hand whenever she is playing with the cards.

The TD ruled that dummy's card was played eventhough declarer never mentioned the card, touched it or otherwise indicated it.

Rik

When you decide that the pickling up of the card by the dummy suggest playing it, then Law 57C applies, and it's basically the same in the 2007 and 2017 versions. The RHO can play before his partner does and thus the card doesn't become a MPC.
The 'active' dummy is one of those habits that really annoys me, another one is to have a card ready to play before the lead is faced.

[mycroft]

Sentence 1: RHO is not held to any penalty if the declaring side does something that could lead her to believe that it was her play. Pulling a card up to playing position, picking it up, ...

Oh, the lead was in dummy? I didn't realize. I guess declarer was just pulling the card from hand because he was playing quickly. I'll play now, then. Oh, it's out of turn? And it's *my* fault? Nice skeevy play, guy.

Sentence 2: Just because dummy *has to* play a specific card at his turn, doesn't mean it's "played" for the purposes of Sentence 1 unless declarer does something (calls it) or dummy does something (moves it). Therefore you can't make that revealing discard, and then claim that "well dummy's play is forced".

So, the law is giving an out to RHO if a card is not played, but looks "played". And then ensuring that she knows that "it ain't played just because it has to be, don't try that game, it ain't flyin'."

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2017-May-15, 09:40, said:

Sentence 1: RHO is not held to any penalty if the declaring side does something that could lead her to believe that it was her play. Pulling a card up to playing position, picking it up, ...

Sentence one of what? If you mean law 57C1, it doesn't say that.

[mycroft]

I was generalizing, of course, because the question asked was "why is sentence 2 there?"

All of the things that trigger sentence 1 are the declaring side doing something that would lead an inattentive player to believe it was her turn to play after dummy. Yes, there are other things, but my reading of the intent is "if they told you it was your play by playing from dummy before your partner played, they can't try to nail you for actually playing." Which leads somewhat obviously to the second sentence, the intent of which is "no, smarty, the fact that a specific card *must be played* from dummy does not mean it has been, and you get to signal ahead of your partner."

[blackshoe]

Fair enough.

[barmar]

It's just hard for me to imagine that anyone would think that dummy's play being forced is at all equivalent to dummy's play actually taking place out of turn, and thus allowing 4th hand to also play out of turn. It seems like a totally unnecessary clause, but I guess there must have been some incidents in the past that induced them to put it in the Laws.

[Vampyr]

I think that people might well assume that the card had been played by declarer but they hadn't heard.

Once I was defending, and declarer had won an ace. He was playing with the quitted card, turning it over and stuff. I was awarded recourse when he left it face up for awhile and I (perhaps dozing) followed.