I've never seen this at the table, but I wonder what would be the right ruling if it did.

I'm declarer, and RHO leads a club. I want to play the jack of clubs, but I'm having trouble getting it on the table: maybe I've dropped it, or it's stuck to another card or something. To keep the game moving while I struggle with this, I say "jack" so LHO can play. LHO plays the queen, and then I realize I don't have the jack of clubs at all: the one in my hand is the king. Of course I call the director now.

It's clear there's an irregularity here, and it's my fault, but how do we rectify it? Law 45C4(a) says that a card is deemed played when a player names it, so I have "played" a card not in my hand. LHO is entitled to play after that, on the assumption that I will indeed play the jack, so my side shouldn't gain any advantage from the ruling. Clearly I will have to play something else instead of the jack, but I'm not sure what law allows that to happen or what will happen afterwards.

47A and 47B look like the likely candidates: maybe my "play" of the jack was illegal because it wasn't in my hand, and so it should be retracted? If so, 47D clearly says LHO can take back the queen, and 16C says the queen will be UI to me and AI to RHO, which makes perfect sense.

Or maybe I never played the jack at all, and so I can't retract it? I remember hearing a rumor long ago that if you name a card and then don't actually play it, that's treated the same as revoking: by naming the card you established it as your only legal play, and then you didn't play it. 61A defines a revoke as

> Failure to follow suit in accordance with Law 44 or failure to lead or play,
> when able, a card or suit required by law or specified by an opponent
> when exercising an option in rectification of an irregularity

In some sense I've failed to play a card required by law, because the law says I have to play the card I named, and so you could argue this is a revoke. But 62A says I must correct the revoke, and 62B says the only way to correct it is to substitute a legal card. But we've already argued that the jack is the only legal play, so I can't make the substitution, and I'll be stuck.

I think all this shows that the "revoke" rumor I heard long ago is nonsense.. Is the earlier stuff about 47B, 47D, and 16C all correct, or is the right ruling different?

Alan wrote:

> I'm declarer, and RHO leads a club. I want to play the jack of clubs, but I'm having trouble getting it on the table: maybe I've dropped it, or it's stuck to another card or something. To keep the game moving while I struggle with this, I say "jack" so LHO can play. LHO plays the queen, and then I realize I don't have the jack of clubs at all: the one in my hand is the king. Of course I call the director now.

> It's clear there's an irregularity here, and it's my fault, but how do we rectify it? Law 45C4(a) says that a card is deemed played when a player names it, so I have "played" a card not in my hand.

Correct.

> LHO is entitled to play after that, on the assumption that I will indeed play the jack,

Not just that. The jack is played.

When you discover that you do not have the jack, you have to (formally)
retract the card (§47B) and play another card instead. Now LHO according
to §47D can retract his card and play again.

The card that LHO retracts, is authorised information (AI) for his
partner (§16C), but not for you, and it is also AI for RHO that you do
not have the jack of clubs. There are no further rectifications.

So your initial ruling was actually the correct one. But when it comes
to rumours: Don't listen to them. Read the law instead. There are many
false rumours circulating - certainly in the Danish clubs that I know.

That you never played the jack is wrong. That is not logical, but that
is what the law says. There is no revoke (there can't be when you
haven't played a card out of suit).

> I think all this shows that the "revoke" rumor I heard long ago is
nonsense.

Quite.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 3:25:15 AM UTC-5, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
> > I'm declarer, and RHO leads a club. I want to play the jack of clubs, but I'm having trouble getting it on the table: maybe I've dropped it, or it's stuck to another card or something. To keep the game moving while I struggle with this, I say "jack" so LHO can play. LHO plays the queen, and then I realize I don't have the jack of clubs at all: the one in my hand is the king. Of course I call the director now.
>
> > It's clear there's an irregularity here, and it's my fault, but how do we rectify it? Law 45C4(a) says that a card is deemed played when a player names it, so I have "played" a card not in my hand.
> Correct.
> > LHO is entitled to play after that, on the assumption that I will indeed play the jack,
> Not just that. The jack is played.
>
> When you discover that you do not have the jack, you have to (formally)
> retract the card (§47B) and play another card instead. Now LHO according
> to §47D can retract his card and play again.
>
> The card that LHO retracts, is authorised information (AI) for his
> partner (§16C), but not for you, and it is also AI for RHO that you do
> not have the jack of clubs. There are no further rectifications.

> Bertel, Denmark

The Alcatraz Coup lives! What remedy is the opponent getting when the CJ is corrected to CK after seeing the CQ?

axman

axman22@hotmail.com wrote:

>> The card that LHO retracts, is authorised information (AI) for his
>> partner (§16C), but not for you, and it is also AI for RHO that you do
>> not have the jack of clubs. There are no further rectifications.
>
>> Bertel, Denmark
>
> The Alcatraz Coup lives! What remedy is the opponent getting when the CJ is corrected to CK after seeing the CQ?

As I said: It is UI for declarer that LHO has the CQ. If, after the
impossible CJ, he chooses the K instead, the opponents may call the TD
so he can evaluate if there has been use of UI on declarers part.

In this specific case it would be difficult. Trying to play the jack
indicates that he wanted to play a picture card.

But you can advise your friends not to play until they have seen the
previous card.

--
Bertel, Denmark