[blml] Clubbed Queen

[Tim West-Meads]

Sven wrote:

> Without ascertaining that the called card is available in Dummy so 
> that L46B4 does not apply? That is only too bad for the opponent who > 
just violated L74B1.

Hence the benefit to declarer of deliberately mumbling a little over the 
card rank - particularly when the five/nine are phonetically similar.

If the player who played the CQ tells me it's his own fault, that 
declarer spoke clearly but he just wasn't paying attention I have no 
problem ruling the CQ as a PC.  L72b1 is there for when declarer (with 
or without dummy assistance) has contributed to the confusion.

> If Dummy takes any action whatsoever indicating that he is selecting a
> particular card in response to something declarer says I rule that he 
> is actually "playing" that card.

Under which law?  Dummy will tell you that he was reaching for the C5 
and only touched the 9 briefly when he realised it wasn't there (or to 
look for the C5 underneath it).  Please don't tell me it is an 
irregularity for dummy to try and find the card declarer has requested.

> In the case we are discussing Dummy has not taken any action of any 
> kind. 

So sometimes the ploy works without any assistance from dummy.  The fact 
remains that declarer has committed an irregularity in a situation I 
know (and he can know) may prove advantageous.  You want to let declarer 
get away with it, I don't.

BTW, we were *not* told that dummy had "done nothing", albeit we have 
discovered that dummy has not played a card.  We have to investigate 
whether dummy did anything (such as reaching for the club suit, or 
touching a card there).  An alternative tactic is for dummy to knock his 
pen onto the floor and say "hang on, on it's way" while retrieving it - 
giving ample scope for the next player to be misled.

Tim