[blml] Clubbed Queen

[Ed Reppert]

On Oct 30, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Andre Steffens wrote:

> Dummy north has:
> B85
> -
> -
> 98
>
> Declarer asks for the five of clubs, to which east contributes the  
> Queen.

Whether dummy placed any card in the played position is not in  
evidence, so until the answer to that is clarified, rulings must be  
based on the assumption he did not.

> Declarer now discovers his error and remarks that he meant to play  
> the five of spades. TD!

Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is  
void and declarer may designate any legal card." But also
Law 45C4(b): "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent  
designation if he does so without pause for thought ... "

Declarer did change his designation without pause for thought. And  
that was the point at which the table became aware of his  
irregularity - at which point the CQ had already been played. So  
which of these laws takes precedence? It seems to me that the latter  
should take precedence - see below.

> What fate befalls the Queen?

Law 45B: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card".  
Therefore, as soon as the card is called, it is next player's turn to  
play. CQ is neither a play out of turn, nor a lead to the next trick.  
However...
Law 45C1: "A defender's card held so that it is possible for his  
partner to see its face must be played to the current trick". The CQ  
is a played card.
Law 45C4(b): "... if an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was  
legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw  
without penalty the card so played and substitute another".
But dummy had not put any card in the played position. Does this  
matter? Law 45B says "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the  
card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table"  
so I would say it does not matter. East was induced to play a card by  
declarer's play. That declarer's play was itself an infraction does  
not seem relevant. Could declarer have known that defenders could be  
damaged by the erroneous call(Law 72B1)? Certainly he could have -  
how could he not? But that does not affect the immediate fate of the  
CQ - it only affects whether there might be a score adjustment later.

It seems that either we allow East to withdraw his card, or we rule  
that he is required to have noticed that the declarer has committed  
an irregularity, required to call attention to that irregularity, and  
required to take no further action (such as playing the CQ) until the  
TD has ruled on the irregularity. There is nothing in law that  
requires any of that, save that *if* attention is called to an  
irregularity, TD must be called, and no further action can take place  
until he rules (Law 9).

Conclusion: Law 45C4(b) applies - East may withdraw his CQ without  
penalty.

Note: if dummy did place a club in the played position, the case for  
45C4(b) is, IMO, even stronger.