[NickRW]

Facts: LHO leads A♠ to trick one, all follow small. Trick 2 LHO continues with x♠. Dummy now has J9x, declarer calls for the 9. RHO then follows with the 8 that all at the table can see, but immediately tries to replace it with the 10. RHO is hard of hearing. These facts were not in dispute.

Director is called and from initial comment appears to be going to rule that a played card is played card, but upon protest from RHO that she misheard declarers call, changes her mind to allowing the 10 to be played (on the grounds that the 8 was exposed accidentally) and the 8 is ruled as a minor penalty card.

I was declarer here and, as one of the club's directors (on other evenings), I was primarily happy to get an independent ruling, right or wrong, so as to difuse a potential argument. However, in hind sight, maybe I should have asked the director if she might ascertain from the lady if she was hard of seeing as well as hard of hearing.... (or am I just a miserable old geezer) ....

Nick

[bluejak]

She played the card so it cannot be retracted.

[peachy]

The 8 was played and as such, cannot be changed. The excuse about a hearing problem, well, I won't say what I think.

[RMB1]

As a TD, I would respectfully suggest to RHO that (concious of her hearing difficulties) she should wait until cards are put in the played position before choosing which card to play. In this case, I suspect RHO just assumed the Jack would be played.

[barmar]

Maybe I can't appreciate the difficulty because I'm not hard of hearing, but I have a hard time believing that they could mishear "eight" as "jack". I'd also expect players who have chronic hearing problems to make up for it by watching the cards played more carefully.

I have sympathy for the person, but not the player.

[mycroft]

I continue to bring up the local guy with a very heavy accent who mumbles into his cards. *Everybody* has a hearing problem around him. But I had to rule that the CA was a penalty card when declarer had said "spade" and RHO had heard "club", which gave the contract.

I did tell declarer to pay more attention to how he calls, then (of course) he mumbled for the next card, and I stated "no, I mean it. *I* didn't understand what you said on that call."

Oh well, my rounds at his table take 2 minutes longer than normal, because for some reason I never play before dummy. There's a defence to every "play", you just have to find it and be conscientious about applying it.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on Mar 3 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

Oh well, my rounds at his table take 2 minutes longer than normal, because for some reason I never play before dummy.

Does this mean that, at other tables, you frequently play a card before the hand on your right has played one?

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on Mar 3 2010, 07:48 PM, said:

mycroft, on Mar 3 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

Oh well, my rounds at his table take 2 minutes longer than normal, because for some reason I never play before dummy.

Does this mean that, at other tables, you frequently play a card before the hand on your right has played one?

I think that people will often play after a card has been called from dummy but before it has been placed in a played position. I am sure I do it without really noticing, and I suspect that that is the case for many people.

That being said, I have an not infrequent enough partner, who, when dummy has a singleton in the suit led, sometimes plays before the card is played from dummy. Drives me crazy.

[mycroft]

aguahombre, on Mar 3 2010, 12:48 PM, said:

mycroft, on Mar 3 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

Oh well, my rounds at his table take 2 minutes longer than normal, because for some reason I never play before dummy.

Does this mean that, at other tables, you frequently play a card before the hand on your right has played one?

It means that when the card has been played by declarer (by "...designat[ing] it as the card he wants to play") I will play after. With this person, who if not deliberately does this to incite a misplay by defenders, certainly has no interest in avoiding it, I explicitly wait until the person that makes the mistake, if there's one to be made, is in the opposition.

I realize that this habit (which, as Vampyr says, effectively everybody has) puts me in jeopardy of being on the wrong side of L21 (the preamble, which reasonably applies to the play as well - L47F2 is effectively the same thing, but not as well said); if it truly is my own misunderstanding, fine. Against those who don't have the courtesy to attempt to be clear to opponents, and play right to the letter of the law, I return the courtesy and play. I think anything less is stupid.

People who play out of turn to "forced" plays by dummy - this includes both declarer's CHO and RHO - deserve more than they're ever going to get - unfortunately there's no way declarer can take advantage of the irregularity. I do what I can as declarer, by explaining to partner why it's a bad idea to do as dummy, and by taking the time I need, and then explicitly calling for dummy's card before playing my own when it's third-to-play. The good news is that there is something I can legally do when declarer plays from hand and calls from dummy before my partner - and my partners know that if they have a discarding problem, they might be able to make a better choice if they wait a second to see if I exercise my L57C1 "rights".