Defender's change of card
I really feel I ought to know my way round the law book by now, but this situation caused me some difficulty:
A defender was on lead in the middle of the hand, led a card (placed it face-up on the table) then decided it wasn't the card he'd wanted to play (probably a mispulled card rather than a change of mind, if it makes any difference) and played another card. The director was called.
I'm sure I got the ruling right, but could someone help me: which laws did I apply?
Comments
If the first card was not led/played, but was dropped or otherwise exposed, then it is a penalty card, which must be led.
So regardless of how it got there, The card was exposed deliberately, so the first card is led. The second card is a major penalty card: I guess this is Law 45E1, although the card was played second (not fifth) to the trick.
Or we could deem that the second card was an attempt to lead, so is a premature lead to the next trick, and invoke the full force of Law 57A.
If the first card was a misspull couldn't it be a minor penalty card initially - under 50B? In which case there is no further rectification except that is stays there etc...
It may be a mispull in the sense that he intended to play another card, but it's still a card deliberately played within the meaning of the law, since it was not dropped accidentally or pulled out along with the intended card.
I think that we could say 47F has been applied
LAW 47 - RETRACTION OF CARD PLAYED
.
.
.
F. Other Retraction
1. A card may be withdrawn as Law 53B provides.
2. Except as this Law specifies, a card once played may not be withdrawn.
Of course L49 is also applied, because the second card is a major penalty card, L50 and so on...
OK, it seems it's not just me.
I did consider laws 45E1 and 57A, but it doesn't seem right to rule that it is a fifth card played to a trick or an attempt to play to the next trick, when it was clearly neither of these. It's even a stretch to say it's a "play out of turn before his partner has played".
Law 47 is very useful to demonstrate that the card originally played cannot be retracted, but does it have to be led, with the attempted substitute lead a major penalty card, or does the offender now have two penalty cards, so declarer can designate which is to be played (law 51A)?
I allowed declarer the option of accepting the second lead, in which case the first card led would be a major penalty card, or of rejecting it, in which case the first lead stands and the second card becomes a major penalty card. Law 53A says that "prior to the thirteenth trick, any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead" which I suppose covers it, although it looks as if it was written for the first card played to a trick, rather than an attempt to change a played card.
The first card has been led in the normal course of play so is not a MPC. (Law 49). The second card has not been led out of turn if you regard it as being led to this trick - so I don't think law 53A applies. (I may be wrong of course), so I am tempted to just have the 2nd card as a MPC with the first one being led - see below.
Look at law 67
When a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick, the error
must be rectified if attention is drawn to the irregularity before a player on each side has played
to the following trick.
1. To rectify omission to play to a trick, the offender supplies a card he can legally play.
2. To rectify the play of too many cards to a trick, Law 45E (Fifth Card Played to a Trick) or Law
58B (Simultaneous Cards from One Hand) shall be applied.
So law 45E must be called
E. Fifth Card Played to Trick
1. A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50,
unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 53 or 56 applies.
2. When declarer contributes a fifth card to a trick from his own hand or dummy, it is returned
to the hand without further rectification unless the Director deems that it was led, in which
case Law 55 applies.
You can't have two leads to the same trick. the definition of lead is "The first card played to a trick". So the second card is just contributed to the trick and becomes a MPC.
I would be reluctant to rule that both cards are simultaneously penalty cards and declarer gets to choose. There will be social pressure for declarer to accept the second lead - the one defender wanted to lead - to not be too harsh on the defender. We know defender did not want to lead the first card, so I want to rule that it is led.
[Weejonnie]: "The second card has not been led out of turn if you regard it as being led to this trick - so I don't think law 53A applies."
It was certainly the intention of the offender to lead the second card to the trick, and for it to supersede the first card led.
[Weejonnie]: "You can't have two leads to the same trick. the definition of lead is "The first card played to a trick"."
You certainly can, see law 58B: "If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously:"
(These cards were not, however, played simultaneously.)
Even if the offender intended to make a second lead, the law does not allow it to be classified as such - only if we regard it as a lead to the next trick.
This was not simultaneous though was it - and that law is normally aimed at covering pulling two cards out by mistake. (and the rectification is the same as I suggested anyway - one card is led the other becomes a MPC)
It's still not clear to me whether the first card played remains the lead to this trick and the second becomes a penalty card, or whether offender can choose which card is played, or whether declarer can choose. I can see arguments for all of these.
By analogy, if a player makes an intended call, they are not allowed to change it (law 25A2), but if they do change it, the opponent next in turn has the option of accepting the second call (law 25B1).
There is no direct equivalent to Law 25B. Laws 67A2 and 58B and 45E do not cover the case of a player playing twice to a trick in succession. I think we are left with Law 57A
I do not mind if the second card is a lead to the next trick, or a play to the current trick. If the latter, it is a play out of turn since offender has already played to the trick. Either way, the opening clause of Law 57A applies to the lead/play of the second card.
How about Law 49? Defender has chosen to play a card (lead)to a trick and then decided to "expose" another card to the same trick. 45E is specific "Fifth card played to a trick" which in this situation it isn't. It can't be a lead to the next trick as this trick hasn't been completed, no one else has played to it. 67B is also specific and does not cover this situation. We have to take the facts and I read from to opening that the player took back the first card and played another. So to consider it a lead to the next trick is a bit far. The first card is the "played " card to the trick. The exposed second card then becomes a penalty card.
CMOT_Dibbler
You can certainly lead to the next trick before a trick is completed - in fact there is a law to cover this. However the player's intent is not to lead to the next trick. I agree with myslef that the 1st card is accepted as the lead and the 2nd a MPC.
In applying law 53A I was trying to give declarer an advantage by giving them the choice of which card to accept as the lead. I didn't consider "social pressure", but I see what you mean, Robin.
I'd be happy to apply law 49 to make the original lead stand and the second a penalty card, but if we apply the opening paragraph of law 57A, surely we have to apply the rest of it and allow declarer to force offender's partner to play the highest or lowest card of the suit, or require or forbid the play of a specified suit?