lead out of turn at trick 13

[kvar]

[hv=n=shd7c3&w=shd8c6&e=s6hdc2&s=sqhdca]399|300|[/hv]

 

This happened at an ACBL Regional tournament last week. South is playing in a notrump contract. At trick twelve, the lead is in dummy. Declarer calls for a club, and wins in her hand with the Ace. She then says "diamond". West, without any pause, immediately says "accept the lead" and insists on winning the trick. North-South are not happy about this outcome.

It's not clear if Declarer knew which cards were winners and which were losers. Your ruling?

 

Does it make any difference if declarer's spade was the Ace?

[axman]

[hv=n=shd7c3&w=shd8c6&e=s6hdc2&s=sqhdca]399|300|[/hv]

 

This happened at an ACBL Regional tournament last week. South is playing in a notrump contract. At trick twelve, the lead is in dummy. Declarer calls for a club, and wins in her hand with the Ace. She then says "diamond". West, without any pause, immediately says "accept the lead" and insists on winning the trick. North-South are not happy about this outcome.

It's not clear if Declarer knew which cards were winners and which were losers. Your ruling?

 

Does it make any difference if declarer's spade was the Ace?

The D7 is a LOOT accepted by W. The D7 stands and play to the trick progresses as if the D7 was a proper lead. L53A.

 

Declarer's holding is irrelevant. L47F2.

[jdonn]

Wow can west really do that at trick 13? If so let's put a new thread in the forum about laws we want to see changed!

[dburn]

Wow can west really do that at trick 13? If so let's put a new thread in the forum about laws we want to see changed!

I see no particular reason why a defender who can accept a lead from the wrong hand at trick three cannot accept one at trick thirteen. There may be a moral distinction to be drawn, but the Laws do not deal in those.

 

It would be open to declarer to argue that her call of "diamond" merely specified what dummy should discard on the queen of spades. But if declarer really thought that the lead was in dummy and was asking dummy to lead a diamond, then dummy has led a diamond and either defender may accept that lead as the Law provides.

 

I fear that jdonn's suggested list may soon reach epic proportions. For myself, there is nothing in Law 1 to which I would take exception, and Law 77 is also more or less OK. The rest of them, however...

[jdonn]

There may be a moral distinction to be drawn, but the Laws do not deal in those.

The laws can deal with whatever the lawmakers want them to. And yes I think there is a moral problem with allowing a defender to win trick 13 here, where it's clear declarer's error could not have been an attempt to gain.

[peachy]

The lead of diamond from dummy (the wrong hand) was accepted. The diamond lead will be ruled to stand. It does not matter what declarer's last card was. Unfortunate for declarer, but the Laws do not protect us from our mental lapses or senior moments and I should hope they never will.

 

Some might not "approve" [from the standpoint of their moral values] of the acceptance of the diamond lead, but it is legal to accept a lead from the wrong hand so there is nothing wrong in doing so.

 

Bit off topic:

I also think the laws/rulings should generally never consider the intention (or purpose for an infraction or for any other action) because that requires a TD to be a mind reader. It is enough to deal with the actual facts. In the posted case the facts are not in dispute so the ruling is easy.

[aguahombre]

more horsesh...everything was determined at trick twelve. But, the litigators triumph again.

[jeremy69]

The laws can deal with whatever the lawmakers want them to. And yes I think there is a moral problem with allowing a defender to win trick 13 here, where it's clear declarer's error could not have been an attempt to gain.

 

Whatever set of laws you have there will be times when they don't do exactly what you expect them to do or even what you hope they would do. The next set of laws could have a specific exemption from playing from the wrong hand at trick 13 although I wouldn't be in favour of this. Declarer has been careless. EW have benefited as sometimes sides do when they don't particularly deserve it. What's the problem in following the law?

[jdonn]

Why is everyone making this straw-man argument? There is nothing wrong with following the law, I have said it's the law itself I don't like. Disagree on that opinion if you like but rhetorical questions about what is wrong with EW following the law are pointless.

[pran]

Why is everyone making this straw-man argument? There is nothing wrong with following the law, I have said it's the law itself I don't like. Disagree on that opinion if you like but rhetorical questions about what is wrong with EW following the law are pointless.

I would like to hear; if Law 53 should not apply to lead out of turn to trick 13, why not also to trick 12 (or even to trick 11, or to earlier tricks)?

 

And I really cannot see what is so special about trick 13 that Law 53 should not apply to leads out of turn to it?

 

Would you deny declarer making his contract if the only way he can do that is with a lead out of turn to trick 13 by a defender, and this defender indeed committed such an irregularity?

[jdonn]

Why is everyone making this straw-man argument? There is nothing wrong with following the law, I have said it's the law itself I don't like. Disagree on that opinion if you like but rhetorical questions about what is wrong with EW following the law are pointless.

I would like to hear; if Law 53 should not apply to lead out of turn to trick 13, why not also to trick 12 (or even to trick 11, or to earlier tricks)?

Because, as aguahombre alluded to, there are no more material decisions to be made by any players (well apparently other than whether to lead from the hand that actually contains the lead). That seems like a significant difference to me.

[iviehoff]

There are all sorts of irregularities that are plainly inadvertent and make no difference to anyone, but the law then hands a free benefit to the NOS. But in general there is a good reason for this.

 

Consider the following real example which sadly once occurred to me. While playing out a long suit from table, I inadvertently reversed the order of my first discard and last follow from hand. Made no difference to anyone or anything, apart from the fact that it was a revoke that handed the opposition a free trick, which they quite properly imposed on me (disguising their glee behind a veneer of apology).

 

But, in general, there is a good reason why we have such laws. Frequently irregularities do cause damage, so we have sanctions. If we then have a rule that says "apart from those irregularities that in practice cause no damage" we then have yet another layer of judgment to add into our rulings.

 

Now in the case of leads out of turn, it probably is practical to have a law that says "a lead out of turn at trick 13 is always rectified" because it doesn't involve any judgment to apply, because the play at trick 13 is automatic. Its rather like a revoke at trick 12, in that respect. The question is, if we start making every adjustments and exceptions like this for every rare situation where the laws look wrong, do our laws become too unwieldy?

[pran]

There are all sorts of irregularities that are plainly inadvertent and make no difference to anyone, but the law then hands a free benefit to the NOS.  But in general there is a good reason for this.

 

Consider the following real example which sadly once occurred to me.  While playing out a long suit from table, I inadvertently reversed the order of my first discard and last follow from hand. Made no difference to anyone or anything, apart from the fact that it was a revoke that handed the opposition a free trick, which they quite properly imposed on me (disguising their glee behind a veneer of apology).

 

But, in general, there is a good reason why we have such laws.  Frequently irregularities do cause damage, so we have sanctions.  If we then have a rule that says "apart from those irregularities that in practice cause no damage" we then have yet another layer of judgment to add into our rulings.

 

Now in the case of leads out of turn, it probably is practical to have a law that says "a lead out of turn at trick 13 is always rectified" because it doesn't involve any judgment to apply, because the play at trick 13 is automatic.  Its rather like a revoke at trick 12, in that respect.  The question is, if we start making every adjustments and exceptions like this for every rare situation where the laws look wrong, do our laws become too unwieldy?

And neither you nor jdonn appeared fit to answer my question:

 

Shall NOS be denied the possibility of a favour by accepting LOOT to trick 13, a possibility NOS has with LOOT to any other trick?

 

If so, why is such a denial reasonable?

[Rossoneri]

An interesting thought occured to me. Consider the following hypothetical situation at trick 13:

 

What if declarer thought that the card in his hand was a loser (when it actually is a winner) and the the card in dummy a winner (when it actually isn't), and try to lead out of turn from dummy?

[pran]

An interesting thought occured to me. Consider the following hypothetical situation at trick 13:

 

What if declarer thought that the card in his hand was a loser (when it actually is a winner) and the the card in dummy a winner (when it actually isn't), and try to lead out of turn from dummy?

Nothing hypothetical about that. If NOS accepts the LOOT they get the trick. (And Declarer can be ashamed of himself ;) )

[iviehoff]

And neither you nor jdonn appeared fit to answer my question:

Because it is utterly clear that under the present laws, Axman's analysis is correct.

[jdonn]

And neither you nor jdonn appeared fit to answer my question:

 

Shall NOS be denied the possibility of a favour by accepting LOOT to trick 13, a possibility NOS has with LOOT to any other trick?

 

If so, why is such a denial reasonable?

Do you have trouble reading? I answered your question.

[peachy]

more horsesh...everything was determined at trick twelve. But, the litigators triumph again.

The NOS triumph because declarer made a mistake. The Law is crystal clear, not sure what litigators you are talking about.

 

If you prefer the law said something different, there is a forum for that. But unless and until there is a different law, the TD is obligated to rule in accordance with the EXISTING laws and specifically not allowed to modify or waive legal penalty or rectification when one is clearly defined, even if it seems to be overly advantageous or disadvantageous to either side.

[blackshoe]

There is no duty on the lawmakers or the director to protect a player from his own mistakes. Nor, IMO, should there be.

[aguahombre]

As pointed out, Declarer is in hand. There is one card left. There are no mistakes left to be made. There is nothing left to do. If the Laws allow anything else but declarer's one remaining card to be led, then the laws need fixing.

 

Logical extention of the fact that he can't concede a trick that he can't lose.

[pran]

And neither you nor jdonn appeared fit to answer my question:

 

Shall NOS be denied the possibility of a favour by accepting LOOT to trick 13, a possibility NOS has with LOOT to any other trick?

 

If so, why is such a denial reasonable?

Do you have trouble reading? I answered your question.

No, but frankly I don't see Because, as aguahombre alluded to, there are no more material decisions to be made by any players (well apparently other than whether to lead from the hand that actually contains the lead). That seems like a significant difference to me. as a relevant answer to my question, it looks more like an irrelevant statement.

 

Law 53 joins several other laws on the principle that NOS has the freedom to accept an irregularity by opponents if this can be expected favourable for NOS. Your "reply" does not in any way even indicate any relevant reason why this freedom should be denied NOS in the case of LOOT to trick 13 or why such denial is reasonable.

[pran]

As pointed out, Declarer is in hand. There is one card left. There are no mistakes left to be made. There is nothing left to do. If the Laws allow anything else but declarer's one remaining card to be led, then the laws need fixing.

 

Logical extention of the fact that he can't concede a trick that he can't lose.

Well,

 

unless I have misunderstood something very important there is one thing left to do: Play out the last trick!

 

Very few laws prohibit a player from committing an irregularity; two come to my mind right now: Law 35 and Law 62D. (There might be others which I have overlooked at the moment.)

 

So any player "can" lead to trick 13, but unless the correct player leads we have a situation that calls for the Director to rule on. And he must rule according to the laws, the first of which to be tried is law 53.

[gordontd]

There is one card left. There are no mistakes left to be made.

Yes there are - the mistake that was in fact made in the original post.

[jdonn]

And neither you nor jdonn appeared fit to answer my question:

 

Shall NOS be denied the possibility of a favour by accepting LOOT to trick 13, a possibility NOS has with LOOT to any other trick?

 

If so, why is such a denial reasonable?

Do you have trouble reading? I answered your question.

No, but frankly I don't see Because, as aguahombre alluded to, there are no more material decisions to be made by any players (well apparently other than whether to lead from the hand that actually contains the lead). That seems like a significant difference to me. as a relevant answer to my question, it looks more like an irrelevant statement.

 

Law 53 joins several other laws on the principle that NOS has the freedom to accept an irregularity by opponents if this can be expected favourable for NOS. Your "reply" does not in any way even indicate any relevant reason why this freedom should be denied NOS in the case of LOOT to trick 13 or why such denial is reasonable.

Yes it does. Quite clearly. Apparently you think "relevant" and "reasonable" mean the same thing as "agrees with pran".

 

I mean you are just being so stupidly ridiculous it's a giant LOL. You put "reply" in quotation marks as though my reply is not a reply because you don't think it's relevant!

[jdonn]

There is no duty on the lawmakers or the director to protect a player from his own mistakes. Nor, IMO, should there be.

The laws do that all the time. For example when a player makes a mistake in claiming he his still protected from losing tricks he couldn't have lost through non-ridiculous play (I forget the exact wording but you know what I mean). In the problem under discussion the laws wouldn't even have to go that far, as they wouldn't protect a player from ridiculous play but merely from illegal play.

 

I mean why don't we just go all the way. Let's make a law that says if you open the bidding out of turn the opponents have the right to request a 24 imp gain on the board. Why shouldn't the player pay for his mistake?