[blml] Clubbed Queen

[Tim West-Meads]

Sven wrote:
 
> If Dummy actually placed a card in the played position (it doesn't 
> matter which card!) then of course Law 45D applies and the QC can be 
> withdrawn without any penalty. This is however not how I understood > 
the OP; the way he wrote I understood that East played his QC in 
> response to the call for 5C from Dummy and that Dummy hadn't gotten > 
around to "play" any card yet.

That is what I thought was the probable case, but I wasn't sure enough 
not to consider the alternatives.

> > Did declarer articulate carelessly such that his opponent might 
> > easily have heard 9/8/small/top rather than 5?  (afraid my Dutch 
> >isn't up to that one).
> 
> If Dummy hadn't responded by placing a card in the played position 
> then I'm afraid this doesn't matter so in that case my first ruling
> is correct: The QC is prematurely led.

Calling for a card not in dummy is an irregularity.  Calling for a card 
not in dummy in a way which can be easily misheard is an irregularity 
which a "cunning" declarer knows damn well can work to his advantage 
(and which carries no risk).

> > Could declarer have known, at the time of his irregularity, that 
> > calling
> > for a non-existent club would likely induce RHO to produce a penalty
> > card?  Generally I'd expect a declarer who wasn't trying it on to
> > request a waiver of the penalty card provisions.
> 
> This is a too far shot for me to believe in.

So, in this end position (S trumps) declarer needs all the tricks:

      Q85
      -
      -
      98
          -
immat     xx
          x
          Qx
      
        Jx
        x
        x
        T
        
Please tell me what you think is the best line for the contract?
Hint: nothing ethical is going to work.       

If, as TD, you do nothing to protect players from such Alcatraz 
positions you allow the cheats to walk all over the game.  There aren't 
*many* of such players around but the only way to ensure that there 
aren't more is to keep an eye out for nefarious situations and apply 
L72b1 assiduously when they arise.  This won't affect the ethical 
players because they have already said something like "It doesn't seem 
fair that I should benefit from calling the wrong card" to which the TD 
may reply "Would you like to ask me to waive the penalty then?"

> > There are also possibilities relating to the defender having 
> > exposed the CQ deliberately in an attempt to avoid his partner 
> > crashing it under the A/K next round but these are more remote.
> 
> And irrelevant as the QC becomes a major penalty card 

So what?  There are positions where it doesn't matter that the CQ is an 
MPC but it does matter that pard might crash it (which the PC rules 
cannot force him to do).

Tim