10 of spades

[dickiegera]

Declarer is in her hand and calls for the 10 of Spades from the dummy.

Dummy and RHO immediately tells declarer that she is in her hand.

LHO now [ 2 seconds] says that he accepts the lead of the 10 of Spades.

 

What is the correct ruling???

 

Thank you.

[iviehoff]

Law 55A says:

 

If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand, either defender

may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after

misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the

option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail.

 

Now in the case of declarer's RHO saying "you are in hand", that doesn't necessarily mean "and I don't accept the lead", it may merely be drawing attention to the irregularity. But often the implied intention is "and I don't accept it", but the TD needs to examine what RHO did mean, probably by asking him.

 

Now LHO explicitly said he accepts it. According to the law above, the player next in turn has priority, if he chooses to express it. I am pretty sure this means next in turn after the irregular lead, ie in this case RHO - it says as much in the WBF commentary on the laws by Ton Kooijman at http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/law...sCommentary.pdf.

 

So first the TD needs to decide whether RHO expressed an option (ie to refuse the lead) or whether he was just drawing attention to the irregularity. If RHO was refusing the lead, then RHO has precedence and the lead is refused.

 

But if RHO was just drawing attention to it, then LHO's desire to accept the lead operates, though apparently RHO may still use his precedence to express the opposite opinion and override it.

 

I think a difficult issue is whether LHO's attempt to refuse the lead is unauthorised information (UI). If TD decide that RHO hasn't expressed an opinion, then LHO is entitled to express an opinion. But if TD decides taht RHO has expressed an opinion, then since that takes precedence, LHO had no business saying anything after him. Probably that ought to be UI. LHO would have been wiser to call the director for a ruling before saying what he thought.

 

Another issue is that dummy apparently sought to draw attention to an irregularity during the play, which is not allowed, so dummy should be reminded not to do that. But in the present case dummy's possible irregularity doesn't seem to affect anything.

[suokko]

Dummy has right to prevent irregularity by declarer.

 

Law 42 B2 "He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer."

[RMB1]

Dummy has right to prevent irregularity by declarer.

Once declarer has called for the card from dummy, the irregularity has occured and dummy can no longer prevent it. When the irregularity has occured, dummy may not draw attention to it.

 

Robin

[shintaro]

;)

 

LAW 55: DECLARER’S LEAD OUT OF TURN

A. Declarer’s Lead Accepted

If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand, either defender

may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after

misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the

option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail.

B. Declarer Required to Retract Lead

1. If declarer has led from his or dummy’s hand when it was a defender’s

turn to lead, and if either defender requires him to retract such lead,

declarer restores the card led in error to the proper hand. No further

rectification applies.

60 LAW 55: DECLARER’S LEAD OUT OF TURN LAW 56: DEFENDER’S LEAD OUT OF TURN 61

2. If declarer has led from the wrong hand when it was his turn to lead

from his hand or dummy’s, and if either defender requires him to retract

the lead, he withdraws the card led in error. He must lead from the

correct hand.

:o

 

From memory (david or Robin will remember) a previous Law book also said 'Either Defender MAY chose but not after consultation' or similar wording

 

As I ruled against Spoors when he was playing :D

[bluejak]

Many people presume that someone who points out the lead is in the other hand has expressed an opinion as to whether it should be accepted. I do not believe it, and would rule that LHO's acceptance means the lead out of turn has been accepted.

[shintaro]

:)

 

But David is saying you are in 'YOUR hand' or 'not from Dummy' saying Please play from Correct hand

 

:D

[bluejak]

You are in your hand is a statement of fact, perfectly correct, and draws attention to an irregularity. nothing more.

[Ant590]

So the following exchange is allowed?

 

LHO [to declarer]: You're in your hand not the dummy

RHO [to declaer]: I accept the lead from the dummy

 

Two further questions

(1) If between the two comments declarer tables a card from hand, can RHO still accept dummy's lead

(2) What if LHO's comment transmits UI to RHO?

(2a) Is it legal/ethical to have an agreement where accepting the card from dummy is Lavinthal based on the pip?

 

Edits: messed up RHO and LHO

[blackshoe]

So the following exchange is allowed?

 

LHO [to declarer]: You're in your hand not the dummy

RHO [to declaer]: I accept the lead from the dummy

 

Two further questions

(1) If between the two comments declarer tables a card from hand, can RHO still accept dummy's lead

(2) What if LHO's comment transmits UI to RHO?

(2a) Is it legal/ethical to have an agreement where accepting the card from dummy is Lavinthal based on the pip?

Yes, it's allowed.

 

(1) Yes.

(2) It doesn't.

(2a) No.

[Ant590]

But if (2a) is even possible -- all be it illegally ---, then surely it must be possible to transmit UI?

 

For instance, RHO may dither before not accepting the lead out of turn, then there is UI that something in his/her hand would make the choice difficult... or is this AI?

 

(sorry to be argumentative, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just trying to get my head around this one)

[bluejak]

So the following exchange is allowed?

 

LHO [to declarer]: You're in your hand not the dummy

RHO [to declaer]: I accept the lead from the dummy

 

Two further questions

(1) If between the two comments declarer tables a card from hand, can RHO still accept dummy's lead

(2) What if LHO's comment transmits UI to RHO?

(2a) Is it legal/ethical to have an agreement where accepting the card from dummy is Lavinthal based on the pip?

 

Edits: messed up RHO and LHO

Sure. Just as after an insufficient bid, RHO might say "That's insufficient" and LHO might say "I want to accept it".

 

A lead out of turn can be accepted, and actions by the offender do not nullify this [it would be pretty stupid if they did! :lol: ]

 

Drawing attention to an irregularity is a matter of Law [9A2] and the information transmitted is thus AI.

 

Whether any specific agreement is legal is a matter for the RA or TO. If it is legal, it is automatically ethical to do so. Of course, it must be disclosed.

[mycroft]

In the ACBL, specifically, "you're in your hand" is a statement of fact, not a refusal of the lead out of turn. It is frequently used as such (which is unfortunate), but this exact scenario is resolved in exactly the way people have said here.

[barmar]

Consider the following conversation from the real world:

 

Question: Should I take an umbrella with me?

Answer: The weatherman says it's going to rain.

 

Pedantically, the "answer" is just a statement of fact, not actually an answer to the question. But everyone knows what the intent is, due to the context.

 

Another analogy would be a parent telling their child "You forgot your jacket." Again, it's just a statement of fact, but the clear intent is that it's an instruction to take a jacket.

 

I'm of the opinion that when most people say, "You're in your hand/dummy", what they actually mean is that they expect you to lead from the correct hand. Although, I think this is mostly blurted out practically unconsciously. I know I've done it before actually considering whether I would like to accept the lead from the wrong hand, but when this happens I feel like it's too late to say, "but I accept it anyway." But I guess this discussion indicates that this is really OK.

[blackshoe]

I think, if I'm declarer, and a defender or, God forbid, dummy, points out that I'm in my hand, I'll just call the Director. After all, if the statement is simply calling attention to an irregularity, the law requires that the director be called. And if it's an assertion that the player wants me to lead from my hand, then the director will no doubt give him what he wants.

 

Prediction: the director will arrive, and the conversation will be something like this:

 

TD: How can I help?

me: I led from dummy, and RHO said "you're in your hand".

TD: Come on, Ed, you know the rules.

me: Yes. The rules require that the TD be called when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

TD: just lead from your hand.

 

Note the lack of mention that either defender can accept the lead, and the implication that I'm wasting the TD's time. :D

 

Maybe I should just ask the defenders if either of them wishes to accept the lead. :D :lol:

[bluejak]

I do not think an English TD would react as you say, Ed. They normally quote the rule from memory.

 

But what happens in England in practice is that someone says "You are in your hand" and declarer says "Sorry" and leads from hand. No TD involved.

[blackshoe]

Of course, David, but I'm not in England. :)

[mrdct]

I think the statement by one defender of "you are in your hand" could just as easily translate to, "partner, if you think it might be to our side's advantage to accept this lead from the wrong hand, say so now, otherwise shut up and let me decide whether or not to accept it".

[pran]

I think the statement by one defender of "you are in your hand" could just as easily translate to, "partner, if you think it might be to our side's advantage to accept this lead from the wrong hand, say so now, otherwise shut up and let me decide whether or not to accept it".

Law 10C2: If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner.

 

Law 55 A: If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail.

(My enhancements)

 

Say that declarer (South) leads a card out of turn from dummy.

 

If West or North now says "You are in your hand" then East can still accept the lead out of turn from North (by saying so or just playing to the trick).

 

But if East says "You are in your hand" (or words to that effect) then this is wherever I play or direct understood as a request to play from the correct hand (South).

[bluejak]

But if East says "You are in your hand" (or words to that effect) then this is wherever I play or direct understood as a request to play from the correct hand (South).

Interesting, but against the Laws. He has drawn attention to an irregularity, and, as a matter of Law, you are required as a TD to offer him his options.

 

It is all very well people assuming when he says something he means something else. If players do it, so what? But a TD must not: for him to do so is a breach of Law 9B2.

[iviehoff]

But if East says "You are in your hand" (or words to that effect) then this is wherever I play or direct understood as a request to play from the correct hand (South).

So precisely how would you recommend East draws attention to the irregularity, without removing his or his partner's option to accept the lead?

[pran]

But if East says "You are in your hand" (or words to that effect) then this is wherever I play or direct understood as a request to play from the correct hand (South).

So precisely how would you recommend East draws attention to the irregularity, without removing his or his partner's option to accept the lead?

East doesn't need to do anything other than follow suit.

 

I consider it a violation of Laws 10C2 and 73A1 if East (who is in turn to play after the lead out of turn) calls attention to the irregularity and then leaves it to his partner to decide whether the lead shall be accepted or not.

[bluejak]

So as a TD, pran, you are going to penalise a player who follows Law 9A2? Or are you just saying that you decide which Laws apply and which do not?

[Vampyr]

Now in the case of declarer's RHO saying "you are in hand", that doesn't necessarily mean "and I don't accept the lead", it may merely be drawing attention to the irregularity.  But often the implied intention is "and I don't accept it", but the TD needs to examine what RHO did mean, probably by asking him.

Other people have expressed this same idea, and I think that it is nonsense. A person who points out that the lead is in the wrong hand usually does it as a reflexive action; he has had no chance ot decide whether he wants it or not. And it was RHO who spoke up; it is important for him to point out the irregularity so that dozy partner does not simply follow suit when it is bad for his side.

[iviehoff]

But if East says "You are in your hand" (or words to that effect) then this is wherever I play or direct understood as a request to play from the correct hand (South).

So precisely how would you recommend East draws attention to the irregularity, without removing his or his partner's option to accept the lead?

East doesn't need to do anything other than follow suit.

 

I consider it a violation of Laws 10C2 and 73A1 if East (who is in turn to play after the lead out of turn) calls attention to the irregularity and then leaves it to his partner to decide whether the lead shall be accepted or not.

Surely a player has a right to a recitation of the options for rectification of an irregularity from the TD after attention has been drawn to it. The fact that this is a common irregularity on which the players commonly agree their own ruling without the TD in attandance should not remove that situation. The possibility that the options available might be different according to which defender draws attention to declarer's irregularity does not seem right.