[blml] Clubbed Queen

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of 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. 

At this place in your reasoning I must remind you that Declarer called a
card that was not in Dummy. According to Law 46B4 this call is void.

East "followed suit" to a card that was not led nor could it be led simply
because that card did not exist in Dummy. That makes his play of DC a lead
out of turn.

East was induced to play a card by
> declarer's play. That declarer's play was itself an infraction does
> not seem relevant. 

There had not been any play (lead) to the trick in question when the QC was
played. Declarer's call was void and Dummy had not placed any card in the
played position.

> 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.

First of all you must decide if there has been a play from Dummy, and in
this case it has not. East cannot just "follow suit" because he believes
that Declarer has called a card.
 
> 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.

Definitely not, but in that case Law 45D applies.

Sven