Re: Dummy doesn't play two cards

I agree with your ruling (adjust to restore equity), and that is how I 
would have ruled in a similar case (also cited in BLML in September 2014):

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/rec.games.bridge/%22Which$20jack$3F%22/rec.games.bridge/VZX8TxQnv_E

The contract was 3S.  Declarer (South) had taken six tricks, and had the
lead in his hand at trick 11.  It was presumably known to all the
players that the trumps were out, that dummy's club jack was the only
one left, and that the red aces were out.

Here is the position at trick 11:

    -
    KJ
    -
    J
-        -
Q7       5
K        Q9
-        -
    -
    T86
    -
    -

Declarer led the six of hearts at trick 11, and played dummy's king.
For the next trick, he called "Jack," without specifying a suit. Dummy
pushed the jack of clubs forward slightly and removed her hand from the
card; West did not notice this.  East, assuming the club jack had been
the one led (not that it mattered), threw the diamond nine. Declarer
played the heart eight.

West thought that dummy had led the heart jack, since dummy had won a
heart trick and then declarer called "Jack."  Dummy no longer had a hand
on either card at this point; from the position of the cards, you could
tell that she had either pushed the club jack forward or pulled the
heart jack back.  West thus played the heart queen to (as he believed)
follow suit.

Declarer then claimed the thirteenth trick, scoring up his contract.  At
that point, West called the director.

Equity would be served by ruling that the CJ was led but that West could 
retract the HQ because he had been misled by the ambiguous declaration; 
this could also be ruled as, "dummy plays a card that declarer did not 
name", which can be retracted since E-W had not played to the thirteenth 
trick.

A strict ruling of the laws gives West either no tricks (if the CJ was 
played because "jack" incontrovertibly meant the winning jack rather 
than the losing jack, and West made a legal play to that trick), or two 
tricks (if the HJ was played because "jack" means the jack of the suit 
last played).

On 2/12/2017 4:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
> One defender led a club. Declarer called for a club. Dummy took the low club from Ax and held it face forward and motionless, close the table. Which doesn't count as played, though it would be must-be-played for declarer.
>
> Dummy then pushed the ace of clubs forward. Which is what dummy might do for a singleton, albeit the dummy is more likely pull the card backwards (towards dummy). Apparently that does not count as played either, because the card is never picked up from the table.
>
> Defender, thinking that dummy was playing the ace, played small, an irrational play. When he learned that a small club was played, he wanted to play his king (the logical play).
>
> Well, interesting situation -- two cards that looked "played" even though technically neither one had been played. As far as I can tell.
>
> In retrospect, I think dummy's movement of the ace of clubs is an extraneous movement, akin to an extraneous comment -- no penalty, but rectification if the opponents are damaged.
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

-- 
David Grabiner
[email protected] (permanent Email; put this in your address book)
[email protected] (valid as long as I am with Verizon)

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml