Leads Out Of Turn at Trick 13

[Pig Trader]

The quotes are from a thread in the IBLF Simple Rulings Forum

 

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.

 

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!

 

Hence this new thread!

 

It is 40 years since I first started playing this game and this is the first time I have ever heard of a lead out of turn at Trick 13. It’s probably also the first time I have ever heard actually calling for dummy’s 13th card to be led.

 

What happens in practice is that as soon as Trick 12 is completed (and assuming no claim has been made) all three players face their remaining card from their hand. Very occasionally, there is some doubt as to who has won the last trick and that is agreed by establishing whose lead it was.

 

If players were to start worrying about claims of leading out of turn at Trick 13, a session of bridge would take significantly longer to play. Players generally feel that at the end of Trick 12, Trick 13 is set in stone, immutable, a done thing.

 

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.

 

I can see a reason. The laws are there to, amongst other things, facilitate a sensible game. Why should a revoke at Trick 12 be different to a revoke at an earlier trick? The answer is because by correcting a revoke at Trick 12, we get a sensible outcome.

 

The difference in the Laws for revokes at Trick 12 to established revokes earlier in the play of a hand give a precedent to having different procedures for irregularities so late in the play of a hand. So we can ask the WBFLC to consider something similar for LOOTs at Trick 13.

 

I see no reason not to add a sentence to the ends of Laws 53A and 55A saying something like “A lead out of turn at Trick 13 may not be accepted”.

 

Thank you! Now we can go back to playing bridge sensibly!

 

Barrie :)

[Phil]

Will read this thread with interest, but perhaps some can discuss the history (or rationale) of "no revokes at T12", since some are using this law as a partial justification for no leads out of turn at T13.

[bluejak]

It is 40 years since I first started playing this game and this is the first time I have ever heard of a lead out of turn at Trick 13.

I would have thought this sentence was enough to make any change in this Law a total waste of time.

[Pig Trader]

The Laws already cater for quite a lot of things that I have only ever come across once and quite a few more that I have never come across. Just because attention to this irregularity has a low frequency, I don't see that as a reason for the Laws not to cater sensibly when it does happen. The book of the Laws runs to over 100 pages and I'm seeking what may well be one additional fairly short sentence!

[bluejak]

It is not just a question of a one-off. It is the idea of producing a special rule when there is a lead out of turn, already perfectly covered by the Laws, and you want to excuse the player from the consequences of his actions because it is trick thirteen, and need a special Law to do so.

 

The Law book is already too complex: it does not need additional useless complexity because sometime someone will do something wrong and you feel he should not suffer for it.

 

Why are people so sympathetic to players who cannot be bothered to follow simple rules?

[jdonn]

It is not just a question of a one-off.  It is the idea of producing a special rule when there is a lead out of turn, already perfectly covered by the Laws, and you want to excuse the player from the consequences of his actions because it is trick thirteen, and need a special Law to do so.

 

The Law book is already too complex: it does not need additional useless complexity because sometime someone will do something wrong and you feel he should not suffer for it.

No one wants to add useless complexity to change a perfect law. I want to add useful complexity to change an imperfect law. :)

 

Why are people so sympathetic to players who cannot be bothered to follow simple rules?

Because I don't like assigning a result that could never have occured simply for the sake of punishing someone whose mistake was not for nefarious reasons.

 

I really don't understand this repeated argument or implication that we should not feel bad for this player since he broke the law. Would you agree with kicking him out of the event based on the same logic? Of course not since that would obviously be too harsh. I believe allowing him to lose a trick that could never have been lost is also too harsh. We know exactly what the only possible result was (which is only true at trick 13, ergo the difference from the other tricks) and in my opinion mistakes that occurred innocently should not change that.

[JoAnneM]

I resent the implication that anytime I have committed an infraction in bridge it was because I "could not be bothered to follow the rules". I have never intentionally committed an infraction in my life. (I am using (I) to include the average bridge player.)

[Siegmund]

Attempting to answer the question about comparing LOOT at T13 with a revoke at T12, here is how I see it:

 

For most revokes, we apply an automatic penalty, which sometimes (pre-2007, often) exceeded the damage caused by the revoke itself. At trick 12, without a huge open-ended problem of what advantage your partner might take of seeing the revoke or the confusion in declarer's mind... we simply allow NOS the best possible outcome of the hand had the revoke not happened (no automatic penalty, but NOS can still change its cards played after the revoke, and NOS can tell offender's partner which of two cards to play if the revoke was in the first half of trick 12.)

 

It is not clear to me what happens if you gain a trick from your opponent's trick 12 revoke, which you would have to give back to your opponent if you called the director. We have a standard notion that you are not obligated to call attention to an irregularity if doing so hurts your own side (e.g. your own side's pre-trick-12 established revoke; and we tolerate people who accept leads/bids out of turn by simply playing on rather than stopping first to call the director.)

 

For most leads out of turn by declarer, we apply no automatic penalty, but do allow NOS to decide whether to accept it or not.

 

I am comfortable with saying that we should continue treating LOOT at trick 13 the same as earlier LOOTs since no automatic penalty is involved. Some people may not be.

[Pig Trader]

The opening post on the original thread had an example where declarer called for a card from dummy at T13 when his hand had won the previous trick. What made it particularly unusual was that few declarers ever call for dummy's last card. Even if the lead is in dummy, declarer will usually simply show the card in his own hand.

 

Now, if, everytime my RHO is declarer, and everytime declarer faces his last card without actually calling for dummy's last card when dummy had won T12, I were to interrupt the proceedings and tell declarer that I accept the LOOT, then I would get a bit of a reputation and everyone would make sure that the play to T13 goes carefully and time-wastingly in rotation to avoid me playing silly b*****s and arguing the toss of whether there was a LOOT or not and telling me to get a life.

 

If anyone were to tell me that I had led out of turn at T13, I would know to say that I hadn't led but that I was claiming without a claim statement. In practice that's pretty much what people do.

 

I'm sorry but in my opinion, neither bluejak nor anyone else has even begun to put any sensible argument why the Laws should allow the concept of a LOOT at T13.

[jjbrr]

If you ever spend any time reading poker forums and debates about poker rules and laws and such, you know that there are a million different ways to angleshoot to try to win hands that you don't deserve. Things like picking up your hand and moving it towards the muck to induce the winning hand to think the hand is over. If winner mucks too quickly, the law says his hand is dead and the loser wins the pot.

 

Everyone hates the angleshooting jerks who do stuff like this. Technically it is legal, but it completely ruins the game because something innocent like trying to muck quickly to speed up the game gets punished.

 

Any decision that doesn't involve declarer winning trick 13 would make me pretty sick.

[Siegmund]

Pig Trader's argument is the best case against allowing LOOTs at T13 that I've heard.

 

I think that particular problem can simply be avoided by considering declarer's attention when he faces his last card without comment -- earlier in the deal, exposing his hand is likely to be ruled a claim, for instance, rather than as dropping all his cards face up or leading two cards out. I can still rule that the faced card without comment at trick 13 is a claim (or concession, as the case may be) of the last trick, played in turn.

 

I think that specifically calling for the card is in something of a different category, clearly indicating declarer doesn't know what he's doing (but I didn't see the original thread discussion, so can't directly address the case that gave rise to it.)

[dan_ehh]

I think this is a very good idea.

[axman]

Pig Trader's argument is the best case against allowing LOOTs at T13 that I've heard.

 

I think that particular problem can simply be avoided by considering declarer's attention when he faces his last card without comment -- earlier in the deal, exposing his hand is likely to be ruled a claim, for instance, rather than as dropping all his cards face up or leading two cards out. I can still rule that the faced card without comment at trick 13 is a claim (or concession, as the case may be) of the last trick, played in turn.

 

I think that specifically calling for the card is in something of a different category, clearly indicating declarer doesn't know what he's doing (but I didn't see the original thread discussion, so can't directly address the case that gave rise to it.)

The argument may well be the Best Argument but that does not make it a valid argument [which it is not]. Either L45 is to be satisfied or it is not [not that it is particularly well constructed- which it is not] but it is that law's provision that is the determining factor in deciding the played status of declarer's 13th card.

[Phil]

This game still requires focus for every single trick.

 

Imagine in the example that started this whole debate if the beer was good, and the club wasn't. More like Jeremy's example, I would require the opponents to refuse the lead of the diamond at T13.

 

The 'always claim at T13' argument is moot. Claiming is already allowed. We are talking about cases (and it happens to almost everyone) where declarer loses their way somehow, gets confused and leads from the wrong hand or forgets the card is good.

[aguahombre]

If you ever spend any time reading poker forums and debates about poker rules and laws and such, you know that there are a million different ways to angleshoot to try to win hands that you don't deserve. Things like picking up your hand and moving it towards the muck to induce the winning hand to think the hand is over. If winner mucks too quickly, the law says his hand is dead and the loser wins the pot.

 

Everyone hates the angleshooting jerks who do stuff like this. Technically it is legal, but it completely ruins the game because something innocent like trying to muck quickly to speed up the game gets punished.

 

Any decision that doesn't involve declarer winning trick 13 would make me pretty sick.

Agree with the last sentence, and agree with the annoyance at the poker ploy described above the last sentence.

 

Not sure I would go as far as to compare the opponents' attempt to take advantage of a technicality in the OP case with the "angle-seeking jerks" of poker.

 

I would simply disagree with the posters who would try for the trick, disagree that it is their duty to take advantage in this case, and agree that if it could happen, the rules about trick thirteen should be changed.

[bluejak]

I resent the implication that anytime I have committed an infraction in bridge it was because I "could not be bothered to follow the rules".  I have never intentionally committed an infraction in my life.  (I am using (I) to include the average bridge player.)

There is no such implication.

 

I "could not be bothered to follow the rules" is normal human behaviour, being casual, and highly ethical players expect to lose thereby.

 

" intentionally committed an infraction in my life" would be cheating, which is a whole different ball game.

 

:angry:

 

I'm sorry but in my opinion, neither bluejak nor anyone else has even begun to put any sensible argument why the Laws should allow the concept of a LOOT at T13.

Players lead out of turn at any trick. Thus you need a Law to cover it.

 

B)

 

If I lead out of tun, and as a result am losing the trick, I expect not to be given the trick back. When people say

 

I would simply disagree with the posters who would try for the trick, disagree that it is their duty to take advantage in this case, and agree that if it could happen, the rules about trick thirteen should be changed.

or similar, it is and should be nothing to do with claiming a trick. A declarer who leads out of turn and expects to be given the trick is very petty indeed, and no ethical declarer would wait for his opponents to "claim" anything.

 

Do people here really not expect to play to the rules and lose a trick when the Laws say they lose a trick? Forget opponents: players who commit infractions should expect to be punished, not expect to weasel their way out of it by any method.

[Echognome]

One could argue for a slightly different change... "Play ceases after trick 12. Each player turns over their cards to trick 13 and the trick is won or lost as normal."

[dan_ehh]

Do people here really not expect to play to the rules and lose a trick when the Laws say they lose a trick?  Forget opponents: players who commit infractions should expect to be punished, not expect to weasel their way out of it by any method.

Bluejak, this is a forum which discusses ideas about possible changes to the laws.

 

Bridge is a game, and in games there is nothing which is a priori correct or incorrect. The rules are revised every once in a while and there is no reason to assume this specific change is wrong.

 

I think the same logic which prompted the law which deals with revokes at trick 12 applies here, and so I think this is a good addition. You may disagree, but you should provide a better argument than "you committed an infraction therefore you should suffer". There are quite a lot of infractions which do not lead to any penalties and in my opinion leading out of turn at trick 13 should be one of them.

 

Also, I would like to remind you that "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. " (I'm sure you recognise the quote)

[Pig Trader]

One could argue for a slightly different change... "Play ceases after trick 12.  Each player turns over their cards to trick 13 and the trick is won or lost as normal."

I like that. Very neat, because this is precisely what I see happening in practice wherever I play or TD bridge, and this is the way that I believe that bridge should be played. :P

[jdonn]

Do people here really not expect to play to the rules and lose a trick when the Laws say they lose a trick?  Forget opponents: players who commit infractions should expect to be punished, not expect to weasel their way out of it by any method.

Bluejak, this is a forum which discusses ideas about possible changes to the laws.

 

Bridge is a game, and in games there is nothing which is a priori correct or incorrect. The rules are revised every once in a while and there is no reason to assume this specific change is wrong.

 

I think the same logic which prompted the law which deals with revokes at trick 12 applies here, and so I think this is a good addition. You may disagree, but you should provide a better argument than "you committed an infraction therefore you should suffer". There are quite a lot of infractions which do not lead to any penalties and in my opinion leading out of turn at trick 13 should be one of them.

 

Also, I would like to remind you that "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. " (I'm sure you recognise the quote)

Common sense! I couldn't take any more of the extraordinary claim that people want a law changed because they don't want to follow the laws. No, they just prefer laws they think are good to laws they think are bad. That is why this forum exists, to suggest such things.

[bluejak]

Do people here really not expect to play to the rules and lose a trick when the Laws say they lose a trick?  Forget opponents: players who commit infractions should expect to be punished, not expect to weasel their way out of it by any method.

Bluejak, this is a forum which discusses ideas about possible changes to the laws.

 

Bridge is a game, and in games there is nothing which is a priori correct or incorrect. The rules are revised every once in a while and there is no reason to assume this specific change is wrong.

 

I think the same logic which prompted the law which deals with revokes at trick 12 applies here, and so I think this is a good addition. You may disagree, but you should provide a better argument than "you committed an infraction therefore you should suffer". There are quite a lot of infractions which do not lead to any penalties and in my opinion leading out of turn at trick 13 should be one of them.

 

Also, I would like to remind you that "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. " (I'm sure you recognise the quote)

Yes, but the idea of a change to allow an infraction to be unpunished in a very very rare situation for no apparent reason seems an unnecessary Law change. Note that the next post suggests something different, and that is different. I still think it a waste of time, but at least it is not a suggestion of a Law to make something illegal but not punish it.

 

As for your quote, everyone quotes that with great meaning: everyone forgets the word "primarily". The primary reason is equity: the secondary is punishing infractions. The quote does not mean you should not punish infractions.

[Vampyr]

One could argue for a slightly different change... "Play ceases after trick 12.  Each player turns over their cards to trick 13 and the trick is won or lost as normal."

You could do this. This would make it even easier for dozy defenders (or declarers) to miss whose lead it actually was.

 

But anyway, I don't understand the reasoning behind this post, or in fact this entire thread.

 

The only reason given is that, at trick 13, there are no more decisions to be made (leaving aside the fact that this is not the case before a card is led). The same thing applies to many other situations -- perhaps any time a defender's hand is totally irrelevant (and his partner has a complete count on the hand), this defender should not be penalised for a revoke?

 

I think that going down this road is very dangerous. And a practical reason is that a silly Law change in this situation would require the opponents to notice the infraction or be breaking the Law themselves.

[jdonn]

Yes, but the idea of a change to allow an infraction to be unpunished in a very very rare situation for no apparent reason seems an unnecessary Law change.

It's comments like this that so often make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. Disagree with people all you want, but you don't have to pretend they (and everything they have said) don't exist any time they disagree with you.

[bluejak]

I do not pretend they do not exist. I read the arguments: if logical fine: if I find them wrong I say so. I do not understand what you mean that it is difficult to argue with me because of this.

 

Look at the last post by Vampyr: no-one has written anything in this thread that seems to me to disagree with anything she says, so you slag me off rather than disagree with me. Ok, but it makes you difficult to argue with, not me.

 

In 1985, an opponent did something slightly unfair - or so his partner thought - and I got a bad board. The situation has never recurred. Do you think that that is an "apparent reason" for a Law change? If you do, I think you need to justify it. If you do not, then this thread is entirely similar.