10 of spades

[pran]

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.

If that "dozy" partner simply followed suit it would be a play out of turn by him.

Remember that it is RHO who is in turn to play after the lead out of turn.

 

Again I am astonished by the views and in particular the accusations expressed by bluejak (but I don't care). Although technically correct (Thou shalt always call the Director in case of an irregularity) a Norwegian player would hardly ever bother the director in simple cases like this.

 

If RHO does not accept the lead he will simply say to declarer: You are in your hand.

If RHO accepts the lead he will just follow suit; he might even add a comment like "you were in your hand, but I accept the lead"

If LHO calls attention to the lead out of turn and wants to either accept or not accept it he will just say so.

And if RHO then has a different desire he will simply state his decision (he has the deciding vote).

 

Most Norwegian players even understand that it illegal for them to call attention to a lead out of turn in a way where they request partner's opinion before they decide whether or not to accept the lead.

 

At any time if anybody is uncertain on what they may do they will of course call the director, but the above is really so basic knowledge here that such calls are extremely scarce.

 

We want to play bridge, we do not want to disturb the play with unneccesary interruptions.

[pran]

The possibility that the options available might be different according to which defender draws attention to declarer's irregularity does not seem right.

Before 2007 the laws was silent on the question of which rectification to use when the defenders had different opinions on whether or not to accept a lead out of turn by the declaring side.

 

This has been settled in the 2007 laws by giving the player in turn to play (after the lead out of turn) the deciding vote.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps Norway should send out teams of missionaries to explain the rules to the rest of us poor unenlightened barbarians. :)

[WellSpyder]

If RHO does not accept the lead he will simply say to declarer: You are in your hand.

If RHO accepts the lead he will just follow suit; he might even add a comment like "you were in your hand, but I accept the lead"

If LHO calls attention to the lead out of turn and wants to either accept or not accept it he will just say so.

And if RHO then has a different desire he will simply state his decision (he has the deciding vote).

It seems to me entirely reasonable (as well as being clearly within the laws!) for RHO to want to draw attention to the irregularity but to want to leave it up to his partner to decide whether or not the lead should be accepted.

[bluejak]

We want to play bridge, we do not want to disturb the play with unneccesary interruptions.

Well, fine, but in the rest of the world we would prefer bridge to be played according to the Laws. I am surprised that Norway does not.

 

Anyway, at least every Norwegian player knows the Law book backwards. In other unenlightened parts of the world [ie, everywhere except Norway], most players do not know the Laws, and if they point out an irregularity and call the TD they would expect him to tell them the Laws, not to tell them he had decided that they should have known what to do.

[pran]

We want to play bridge, we do not want to disturb the play with unneccesary interruptions.

Well, fine, but in the rest of the world we would prefer bridge to be played according to the Laws. I am surprised that Norway does not.

Who said we don't? Not me.

Is this another one of your unfounded accusations?

Anyway, at least every Norwegian player knows the Law book backwards.  In other unenlightened parts of the world [ie, everywhere except Norway], most players do not know the Laws, and if they point out an irregularity and call the TD they would expect him to tell them the Laws, not to tell them he had decided that they should have known what to do.

And who said that Norwegian players know (all) the laws or that a player may not call the director and obtain a correct treatment? Not me.

Is this yet another one of your unfounded accusations?

 

But I am astonished that our general knowledge on such simple and common situations as this is creates so much apparent surprise?

Maybe players outside Norway never lead from the wrong hand so they never learn the laws on that subject?

[PeterE]

I'm quite sure that in Germany at least 1/3 of all players in the top leagues (1st and 2nd division, together 30 teams) do not know all the implications of law in case declarer lead from the wrong side.

 

They simply don't bother to learn the rules and call the TD if it happens - and they have a problem then - or they do not call the TD and live with the outcome.

[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.

But you haven't actually answered either of the quite straightforward questions I asked of you. You avoided them. Here they are again

 

(1) If, as a defender, you observe declarer lead from the wrong hand, how do you call the director to learn of your rights in this situation without it affecting those rights?

 

(2) Can it be correct that the rights of the defenders in relation to an irregularity by declarer depend upon which of them draws attention to the irregularity?

[pran]

But you haven't actually answered either of the quite straightforward questions I asked of you. You avoided them. Here they are again

 

(1) If, as a defender, you observe declarer lead from the wrong hand, how do you call the director to learn of your rights in this situation without it affecting those rights?

 

(2) Can it be correct that the rights of the defenders in relation to an irregularity by declarer depend upon which of them draws attention to the irregularity?

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I avoided questions.

 

1: What is wrong with the defender simply calling the Director?

 

2: Say for clarity that the lead is with Declarer in South and that he actually leads a card from Dummy in North.

 

If East either accepts or rejects the lead then that decision is final.

 

If West either accepts or rejects the lead then East can overrule this decision.

 

But East and West may not in any way consult each other about which decision to make. This in my opinion excludes the possibility for East to call attention to the irregularity and then say to West "you decide".

 

With the Director present at the table he will be the "chairman" directing the situation.

 

What is right is what the laws specify. What is reasonable is a matter of opinion.

[bluejak]

The Laws specify that a player may point out an irregularity, someone should then call the TD, and the TD will offer the players such options as the Laws specify. You have said you are not prepared to follow this course and you wonder why people are questioning you?

[blackshoe]

We have a defined proper procedure (when attention is called to an irregularity, the director should be called, and no one should do (or say) anything until the director rules. Any question of "consulting" or whatever would be obviated if people simply followed the defined procedure. Certainly in a "Simple Rulings" forum no one should be suggesting anything else, regardless of what may be common practice in any particular place.

 

Today my partner led the ♠Q from her hand. "You're in dummy" says her LHO. She immediately calls for a low spade from dummy. After the hand, I said to her "you do know that you were not required to lead a space from dummy, right?" Nope. No clue. Not only did she think she had to lead the low spade, she thought she had to play the Queen on it. Turned out not to matter, but I wonder how many times, in how many different places, the declaring side gets screwed because no one called the director. :P :)

[bluejak]

Not just the declaring side. Lots of players "know" they do not have to lead the same suit, so when told they are in hand, thy just lead what they like from hand - and if accepting the lead out of turn would have helped hte defence they often do not know they can. And they never will if when they say "You are in your hand" not even the TD tells them they can accept the lead out of turn.

[iviehoff]

1: What is wrong with the defender simply calling the Director?

Because, according to you, West will only retain his rights stated in the laws if he manages to call the director before his partner does. So basically he needs to know his rights in advance, according to you. To me it seems basically bizarre that West loses his rights because it was his partner rather than him who called the director, merely because he was first to realise that there was an irregularity.

 

Whilst obviously it would be wrong for a player pointedly to indicate that he wants his partner to choose, the rest of us seem to think that it is possible for East to ask for a ruling without doing that.

 

If I'm East, I don't find anything unethical about thinking to myself "Well I don't have a strong opinion myself so I don't wish to choose: my partner is legally empowered to choose so I'll give him space to. And I am not actually legally required to choose, since the default position is that the lead will be retracted, so I can quite properly simply sit here refusing to choose." But what would be wrong would be "I'll see what partner has to say on the matter, because then I will have additional information to choose myself and overrule him if necessary." East is not guilty until proven innocent, so why should the TD assume that East is behaving in the latter manner without evidence for it?

[VixTD]

2: Say for clarity that the lead is with Declarer in South and that he actually leads a card from Dummy in North.

 

If East either accepts or rejects the lead then that decision is final.

 

If West either accepts or rejects the lead then East can overrule this decision.

If West rejects the lead, but East wants to accept it, we seem to come up against a contradiction in the laws.

 

One defender has required declarer to retract the lead so declarer withdraws the card led in error and leads from the correct hand (L55B2), but then again the defenders have chosen differently so East's decision (to accept the lead) shall prevail (L55A).

 

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.

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.

[blackshoe]

55B does not come into play until you decide, under 55A, which defender's desire shall govern. There is no contradiction.

[VixTD]

55B does not come into play until you decide, under 55A, which defender's desire shall govern. There is no contradiction.

Nonsense. That's not what it says at all. One defender has required a retraction, so 55B2 applies. Both defenders have expressed different opinions as to whether the lead should be accepted or not, so 55A applies as well. These lead to contradictory conclusions.

 

You can create practical solutions to this kind of problem by deciding which way to rule when the laws come into conflict with each other (this is preferable to going round and round in circles), but don't invent spurious "priorities" which are not mentioned in the book, or pretend the laws say something they don't just to wish the problem away.

[bluejak]

I am sorry, VixTD, I do not understand your problem. Please explain where I am going wrong.

 

There is a lead out of turn from one of declarer's hands. This is pointed out and the TD summoned, or maybe not.

 

Now, one of three things happens. Most of the time, a defender accepts the lead under L55A, and it is accepted, or a defender rejects the lead under L55A and it is rejected which leads to L55B2. Occasionally they disagree, and L55A tells the TD what to do, leading to it being accepted, or rejected which leads to L55B2.

 

Now, that seems clear enough to me, so please tell me where you think I have gone wrong?

[lamford]

I mostly agree with bluejak here, but there would be no ambiguity if 55B said:

 

<snip> and if either defender requires him to retract such lead (except as provided by 55A) <snip>

 

This is clearly what is intended, and I regard VixTD's view of what it means as non-mainstream.

 

And I am sure that this is not the only example of needing to decide on which Law takes priority.

[Vampyr]

It is interesting that the phrase "without consultation" has been removed, and that both defenders are allowed to express their opinions. This opens up some interesting possibilities.

 

Let's say a pair have agreed to play different carding signals after declarer's lead out of turn. Now LHO in this example may accept or reject the lead, without his decision being binding. This must be legal according to 40B3.

 

So his acceptance or rejection of the lead will be based on which carding method he wishes partner to use. So far, so good. But if LHO rejects the lead and RHO accepts it, though, carding will be normal (I believe that to do otherwise would be illegal communication), but RHO will probably be able to work out LHO's problem.

 

Somehow this doesn't seem right.