Ruling?

[pclayton]

This happened at another game in Palm Springs today.

 

Opening lead is made and declarer puts her hand on the table face up. How would you rule?

[Elianna]

If the opening lead was by the wrong player, then the ruling is that declarer has chosen to lay her hand on the table and be dummy.

 

This is a pretty standard ruling, so my guess is that the opening lead was made by the correct leader.

 

I think that one would have to chose between two parts of Law 48:

 

A:

Declarer is not subject to penalty for exposing a card, and no card of declarer's or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally.

 

B2:

When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks, and Law 68 then applies.

 

I would note that B2 says "may be deemed", and is not a requirement.

[jtfanclub]

If the opening lead was by the wrong player, then the ruling is that declarer has chosen to lay her hand on the table and be dummy.

 

This is a pretty standard ruling, so my guess is that the opening lead was made by the correct leader.

 

I think that one would have to chose between two parts of Law 48:

 

A:

Declarer is not subject to penalty for exposing a card, and no card of declarer's or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally.

 

B2:

When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks, and Law 68 then applies.

 

I would note that B2 says "may be deemed", and is not a requirement.

Law 48 has been clarified:

 

LAW 48 EXPOSURE OF DECLARER'S CARDS

A. Declarer Exposes a Card

Declarer is not subject to penalty for exposing a card, and no card of declarer's or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally.

 

B. Declarer Faces Cards

1. After Opening Lead out of Turn

When declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn, Law 54 applies.

.

.

.

LAW 54 FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN

When an opening lead is faced out of of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply.

 

A. Declarer Spreads His Hand

After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy, and dummy becomes declarer. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Very straightforward.

[kfay]

Declarer can pick up his cards. Play continues.

 

Wtp?

[blackshoe]

The problem is that we need to know whether the opening lead was faced, and by whom it was made.

[jdonn]

The problem is that we need to know whether the opening lead was faced, and by whom it was made.

Can't we simply assume that portion of the proceedings occurred in proper fashion, since it was not mentioned?

[kenrexford]

Here's a funny question, though.

 

Suppose that the correct person to lead puts his card face down. Suppose that Declarer then puts his hand down before the card is turned over.

 

Technically, one of Declarer's cards would likely have hit the table first. Could the person on opening lead accept that first card as a lead out of turn?

 

I mean, suppose Declarer actually put just one card on the table, thinking for some reason that they were on lead. Is that a lead out of turn? Is it a lead out of turn if the actual dummy does this?

[Lobowolf]

I took a call at a regional once where instead of leading, the opening leader laid out her entire hand as if she were dummy. Talk about a double-dummy problem.

[kfay]

The problem is that we need to know whether the opening lead was faced, and by whom it was made.

The reason why I dont' think we need to know this is because the answer to this problem is well known.

 

Really I think that the answer to this other problem is pretty well-known, too, so I don't see how this is much of a ruling issue.

[pclayton]

The problem is that we need to know whether the opening lead was faced, and by whom it was made.

Can't we simply assume that portion of the proceedings occurred in proper fashion, since it was not mentioned?

No *****. I've made some stupid posts lately, but I think if it were an opening lead came from the wrong hand I would have mentioned it.

 

South plays four hearts. West makes the opening lead. South puts his hand down. Does this contradict what I said originally?

[helene_t]

Declarer can pick up his cards. Play continues.

 

Wtp?

Yes. This happened during the Dutch pairs final a few years ago.

[akhare]

Unless declarer has made a claim, declarer should be allowed to retract the cards without any procedural penalty.

 

The defenders should be glad that they can defend the hand in DD (assuming they remember the cards and haven't already blown it on the opening lead)...

[pclayton]

Unless declarer has made a claim, declarer should be allowed to retract the cards without any procedural penalty.

 

The defenders should be glad that they can defend the hand in DD (assuming they remember the cards and haven't already blown it on the opening lead)...

This is what I thought too. The director at the table had a different idea though.

[Echognome]

I've already talked with Phil privately about this hand. It's a book ruling, although there is some judgement on the facts. The 1997 laws state:

 

When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks, and Law 68 then applies.

This law was clarified in the 2007 Laws to read:

 

When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim),

and Law 68 then applies.

I think the key words in there are "he may be deemed," which is not the same as "he shall be deemed." The paranthetical note added to the 2007 laws clarifies the intent.

 

Here I would rule that the facing of the cards was demonstrably not an intent to claim (but rather confusion about being dummy) and feel ruling that it was a claim would be unduly harsh.

 

So I would just let declarer pick up her cards and carry on.

[jdonn]

I've already talked with Phil privately about this hand. It's a book ruling, although there is some judgement on the facts.

Not really. It's patently absurd to deem declarer to have claimed before he has seen dummy, unless he had 13 tricks in hand on the lead.

[Echognome]

I've already talked with Phil privately about this hand.  It's a book ruling, although there is some judgement on the facts.

Not really. It's patently absurd to deem declarer to have claimed before he has seen dummy, unless he had 13 tricks in hand on the lead.

Heck. I completely agree with you, except other people may "judge" the situation differently. I do not think much of their judgment then however.

[matmat]

Heck. I completely agree with you, except other people may "judge" the situation differently. I do not think much of their judgment then however.

I don't think those people should be allowed to exercise their judgement...

[Sancho]

Here's a funny question, though.

 

Suppose that the correct person to lead puts his card face down.  Suppose that Declarer then puts his hand down before the card is turned over.

 

Technically, one of Declarer's cards would likely have hit the table first.  Could the person on opening lead accept that first card as a lead out of turn?

 

I mean, suppose Declarer actually put just one card on the table, thinking for some reason that they were on lead.  Is that a lead out of turn?  Is it a lead out of turn if the actual dummy does this?

No, because a face-down opening lead is a played card. Thus, an opening lead has already been made and there can be no further opening leads out of turn.

 

If declarer puts a card face-up on the table now (thinking he was on lead himself and not having noticed his LHO's lead), that is a premature play to the first trick. Under L57C2 that card must be played to the first trick. If this would constitute a revoke, however, declarer can of course take it back.

 

Matthias

[pclayton]

Heck.  I completely agree with you, except other people may "judge" the situation differently.  I do not think much of their judgment then however.

I don't think those people should be allowed to exercise their judgement...

No those people just had the 1997 copy of the laws and were following them.

 

Don't treat them like idiots.

[Echognome]

I think even with the 1997 laws it may have been a bad ruling, but all TD's give some bad rulings. It's not to say that they don't give a lot of good rulings as well.

[Elianna]

I don't see that anyone was trying to say that it was a claim unless you're referring to me. I was just pointing out the relevant laws in the rulebook that I have, but that was as helpful as I felt like being.

 

If I were the director, I would have ruled as all seem to say: declarer can pick up her cards, all the more power to the defense. Declarer is also already probably shaken, and that gives them a huge advantage.

[blackshoe]

I've been doing this "what's the ruling" thing online for quite some time. Many times the ruling has seemed clear cut - and then I find out that the original poster left something out, or misstated the facts, or whatever, and now the ruling should be completely different. So I've stopped making assumptions about the facts of a case. If something is not clear to me, I'll question it. If y'all want to make assumptions, you go right ahead. If you want me to stop giving my opinion on rulings in these forums, I'll be happy to do that too. Plenty of other things to do.

[JoAnneM]

If the Director did anything other than allow declarer to pick up his cards he made a terrible ruling. Actually, if the opponents insisted that those cards remain on the table while they called the director I would consider them guilty of extremely bad ethics.

[Finch]

Actually, if the opponents insisted that those cards remain on the table while they called the director I would consider them guilty of extremely bad ethics.

Why on earth would you consider that?

Not everyone knows the Laws off by heart. Perhaps they remembered a previous lead out of turn when declarer became dummy & vice versa, and thought that might apply here. They did exactly what they should do: an irregularity occurred, and they called the TD without doing anything else.

[TimG]

Actually, if the opponents insisted that those cards remain on the table while they called the director I would consider them guilty of extremely bad ethics.

Why on earth would you consider that?

Not everyone knows the Laws off by heart. Perhaps they remembered a previous lead out of turn when declarer became dummy & vice versa, and thought that might apply here. They did exactly what they should do: an irregularity occurred, and they called the TD without doing anything else.

Except for the "insisting that those cards remain on the table" part.