UI from play out of turn?

[awm]

This apparently happened in the recent LA regional (I wasn't involved). The suits may be approximate, but the situation is equivalent.

 

Declarer was playing 4♠, and at trick twelve the lead was in his hand. He held the last remaining trump, and a losing heart. Declarer played his trump.

 

At this point declarer's LHO held the top heart and top diamond, and had to determine which to discard. Before he made his decision, declarer's RHO (holding a small club and a small diamond) pitched his small diamond. This gave declarer's LHO a complete count, so that he would know which card to save.

 

The director was called to the table for a ruling. Now there are a couple questions:

 

(1) Is there a specific law dealing with information transmitted by partner's play out of turn?

(2) Is it necessary to determine the likelihood of declarer's LHO getting this wrong without the play out of turn? Note that this is potentially difficult, as it requires going over all the previous tricks (was there an opportunity for a count signal? was count signaled correctly?) as well as gauging the odds that LHO simply missed his partner's count signal if there was one, inferences from the bidding, and so on.

[Jlall]

FWIW this has happened against me, and the director ruled that LHO must pitch the wrong card. LHO argued that obv she would always keep the right card. If it makes a difference she was a bad club player, and when the director asked her why she would obviously keep the right card she couldn't say anything about my shape or anyones shape or anything.

 

Interested to see what the law gurus say about this, always wondered whether that was the right ruling.

 

Also wanna add, if RHO is not an inexperienced player definitely recorder form at least and it seems like it should be worth a PP since it's so shady.

[jeffford76]

LAW 57

PREMATURE LEAD OR PLAY

A. Premature Play or Lead to Next Trick

When a defender leads to the next trick before his

partner has played to the current trick or plays out of

turn before his partner has played, the card so led or

played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer

selects one of the following options. He may:

1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card

he holds of the suit led, or

2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card

he holds of the suit led, or

3. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another

suit specified by declarer.

 

So if declarer knows what two suits LHO has left, they can forbid playing the suit of the extra card, and thus force the play of the winner. Note that this is true even if LHO knew which card to keep.

 

Even if declarer can't do this, the normal UI laws apply, which do require the director to do the difficult task you mention. Although in general you'd have to be *very* convincing for the director to rule you were getting it right anyway. (Especially given that you could have already claimed the trick if you knew what was happening.)

 

The first time this happened to me as declarer, LHO just played their winner to the twelfth trick without a director call, which is certainly the most pleasant way for this to get resolved.

[bluejak]

Humph! :angry: I wrote a post quoting Law 57 - and then I was beaten to it!

 

Assuming it is a UI case, then

LHO argued that obv she would always keep the right card.

Whooppee! :ph34r:

It is like a hesitation, or a claimer who forgets to mention a missing trump. Saying "of course" convinces no-one: either they have a convincing reason why the other card is not an LA, or they get ruled agaisnt.

 

The first time this happened to me as declarer, LHO just played their winner to the twelfth trick without a director call, which is certainly the most pleasant way for this to get resolved.

I would certainly. I do not accept bad ethics from partners.

 

(1) Is there a specific law dealing with information transmitted by partner's play out of turn?

Law 57 gives declarer an option that may solve it. But it does not refer to the information. If, for example, declarer bans the wrong suit, eg one LHO does not have, then it is a straight UI case.

 

(2) Is it necessary to determine the likelihood of declarer's LHO getting this wrong without the play out of turn? Note that this is potentially difficult, as it requires going over all the previous tricks (was there an opportunity for a count signal? was count signaled correctly?) as well as gauging the odds that LHO simply missed his partner's count signal if there was one, inferences from the bidding, and so on.

You are falling into the trap I see a lot on these forums and RGB, especially for some reason from North Americans: you are forgetting who are the non-offenders and that they get the benefit of doubt.

 

Unless LHO has a convincing argument, just rule agaisnt him. It is easy, not difficult! :P

[mink]

According to law 57, declarer could now chose to require LHO to play a low or high diamond or to forbid LHO to play a suit specified by declarer. If declarer requires diamond or forbids heart, he will lose a trick of course. If he forbids diamond, he will win both remaining tricks. If declarer choses not to require or forbid anything, it becomes relevant that the small diamond pitched by RHO is a penalty card now. Law 50.E defines that only the information that partner has to play the penalty card is allowed here. Other Information, in this case especially the fact that RHO has this card, is UI for LHO. Of course, it must now be decided by the TD if playing the top heart is a LA for LHO. What Justin writes suggests that it in fact was a LA for this specific LHO. The UI created by the penalty card makes it clearly more attractive pitch the top diamond, as he now can know that there are no other diamonds in play. Therefore, this alternative has to be avoided. If LHO nevertheless choses to pitch the top diamond and win the last trick with the top heart, the director will adjust the score.

 

Of course, the director cannot directly force LHO to play a specific card if declarer waives his rights according to law 57, but the final result is the same.

 

Karl

[Finch]

FWIW this has happened against me, and the director ruled that LHO must pitch the wrong card. LHO argued that obv she would always keep the right card. If it makes a difference she was a bad club player, and when the director asked her why she would obviously keep the right card she couldn't say anything about my shape or anyones shape or anything.

 

Interested to see what the law gurus say about this, always wondered whether that was the right ruling.

 

Also wanna add, if RHO is not an inexperienced player definitely recorder form at least and it seems like it should be worth a PP since it's so shady.

I usually rule against people in this position, because

 

i)It's obviously bad ethics to play in this position before partner has played. It's hard to do it by accident (unless dummy has also played a card, which is a mitigating factor).

 

You are an offensive offending side (rather than in e.g. a MI or UI case where there is an 'offending' side but it can easily come about through forgetfulness, confusion or even trying to do the right thing). This is not an established technical term, but you know what I mean.

 

ii) If you were 'obviously' going to discard the right card, why hadn't you already claimed the last trick?

 

In the rare case when you will get a ruling in your favour, it will be something like

- You (incorrectly) believe that you can't claim when your aren't on lead (that is quite a common misconception), or you know your opponent or your partner hates claims, or something similar

- You state clearly and quickly to the TD why you were going to get it right (e.g. all 13 diamonds have been played / declarer has already shown out of clubs / the alternative would be that partner opened 1NT on a 2137 12-count)

 

Law 57 may save declarer in some circumstances anyway, as has been pointed out.

[Phil]

Of course if LHO knows which card to keep at T13, LHO might have claimed earlier.