Dummy doesn't play two cards

David Grabiner:

[snip]

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).

Richard Hills:

David's cited ambiguity in the Laws will be removed by the forthcoming 2017
version of Law 45C4(b):

"Declarer may correct an unintended designation of a card from dummy up
until he next plays a card from either his own hand or from dummy. A change
of designation may be allowed after a slip of the tongue, but not after a
loss of concentration or a reconsideration of action. If an opponent has,
in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation,
that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and
substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16C1)."

Richard Hills:

a) There are two jacks clearly visible in dummy.
b) Declarer designated the single word "jack".
c) The default meaning of a mere "jack" in this particular case is for the
losing heart jack to be played from dummy.
d) Ergo, declarer obviously had "a loss of concentration" (which dummy -
"le mort" - illegally attempted to rectify).

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

On Monday, February 13, 2017, David Grabiner <[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:

> 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
>

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