Leading question

[dburn]

West leads ♣7 against 3NT by South which he thinks has been passed out. Unfortunately East has doubled, so this is a card prematurely led during the auction. However, everybody passes.

 

After West leads ♣7 again, can declarer compel East to play his highest (or his lowest) club to the trick?

[RMB1]

Duplicate bridge or rubber bridge?

[dburn]

Duplicate bridge or rubber bridge?

Either or both.

[blackshoe]

You are asking if Law 57 applies after a card is exposed during the auction by a player who later becomes a defender. No.

[RMB1]

After one attempt at delaying tactics, I will try to address the question.

I'll stick to duplicate bridge because I do not have the rubber laws to hand.

 

Such a restriction on East only appears possible from Law 57A.

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.

Has West "lead[] to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick"? No, there was no current trick for East to play to.

 

Has West "play[ed] out of turn before his partner has played"? It could be argued; but I would say No, there was no one's turn to play when West played (lead), so it was not out of turn.

 

I do not think Law 57 applies, so my answer is No.

 

No doubt someone has some good reason to think otherwise.

[Pict]

It rarely makes sense to contribute to a very technical question if you are not an expert in the Laws.

 

However, it seems that a natural interpretation is that any 'penalty' is paid when the hand is passed out.

 

There remains UI from the lead, ignorant of the the double. So if declarer felt damaged by that, there are remedies for damage not covered adequately by other Laws.

[dburn]

I do not think Law 57 applies, so my answer is No. 

 

No doubt someone has some good reason to think otherwise.

Oh, no particularly "good" reason. But...

 

When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends.

 

If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50), then:

A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card... Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (for example in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card... A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping.

So, West has to lead ♣7 and the Director has to turn to Law 57, where he finds that:

 

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.

Now, Robin argues that since it was no one's turn to play a card during the auction, West's lead of ♣7 was not out of turn. But if you do anything when it is not your turn, you ipso facto do it out of turn (the Definitions say only that "turn" is "the correct time at which a player is due to call or play").

 

This position actually arose a few hours ago. Probably the Lawmakers did not intend that the draconian provisions of Law 57 should apply, but if they didn't, they have in my view done a rather poor job of saying so.

 

I suppose it might be argued that Law 57 doesn't apply because at the time West led out of turn, he was not a defender (the auction had not finished). But the Definitions say only that a "defender" is "an opponent of (presumed) declarer"; at the point at which West led, he (and everybody else) presumed that South was the declarer, so this argument is... well, tenuous at best and untenable at worst.

[Siegmund]

I understand L57 to apply only when a defender, at his turn to play, can see a card that could not legally be exposed until after his turn to play has gone by -- either a defender is supposed to play 1st/2nd to a trick and his partner who is supposed to play 3rd/4th to it plays too fast, or a defender is supposed to play 3rd/4th to a trick his partner is winning, and his partner reveals his intended next lead before the previous trick is complete. In either case, it refers only to a restriction on how the defender completes that incomplete trick, NOT to the following trick.

 

Even if we didn't have separate laws to handle cards exposed during the auction, L57 would not apply here, because the person with the exposed c7 is going to play first.

 

WTP? (I'm sure dburn has something sneaky up his sleeve, but I sure don't see it.)

 

As a side note, I can't remember ever applying L57 at the table, in 15 years of directing one or two games a week.

[axman]

West leads ♣7 against 3NT by South which he thinks has been passed out. Unfortunately East has doubled, so this is a card prematurely led during the auction. However, everybody passes.

 

After West leads ♣7 again, can declarer compel East to play his highest (or his lowest) club to the trick?

Is it safe to assert that during the auction there is no trick? I thought that the point of the query was to draw attention to the dribble contained in L24B since by definition a card exposed during the auction is not a played card let alone a lead. For instance, this has the effect that a card intentionally exposed below an honor does not impose an enforced pass upon partner.

 

Now, while L50 points to L57, because the PC was not a played card the issue is mute concerning a play penalty upon partner- even though it feels like it was a lead.

 

Personally I have great sympathy for treating the exposure of a card during the waning moments of the auction [where all subsequent calls are pass] as a play of a card to a trick rather than merely a PC. Where any play penalty upon partner is first predicated upon the putative partner’s turn being skipped [which in burn’s case it wasn’t].

[campboy]

Ah, now it depends. At what point exactly did West attempt to lead? If South had already passed, West certainly didn't play out of turn, since it was his turn (his turn to call, rather than to play, admittedly, but the definition in the lawbook doesn't distinguish).

 

If South had not yet passed, then West's action was out of turn. Does it constitute "play", though? The definition of that in the front of the book is a bit unclear -- what "first card"? The "first card" to what?

[bluejak]

I do not understand where Law 57 comes into it. None of the possibilities in it seem to have happened.

[dburn]

Ah, now it depends. At what point exactly did West attempt to lead? If South had already passed, West certainly didn't play out of turn, since it was his turn (his turn to call, rather than to play, admittedly, but the definition in the lawbook doesn't distinguish).

 

If South had not yet passed, then West's action was out of turn. Does it constitute "play", though? The definition of that in the front of the book is a bit unclear -- what "first card"? The "first card" to what?

South bid 3NT, West passed, North passed, East doubled, West led.

 

Thus West attempted to lead at South's turn to call - he thought East has passed, not doubled, so that the auction was over.

 

If it [the seven of clubs in this instance] is ... any card prematurely led...

...then it is a lead, which is per the Definitions "the first card played to a trick". The fact that no one else is going to play to this trick yet is neither here nor there - West has led a card when it was not his turn to do so, and therefore...

 

I do not understand where Law 57 comes into it. None of the possibilities in it seem to have happened.

When a defender... plays out of turn before his partner has played...

...West has certainly played out of turn before his partner has played, since per the Definitions a "play" is (inter alia) "the contribution of a card from one’s hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead."

[pran]

I do not understand where Law 57 comes into it. None of the possibilities in it seem to have happened.

True,

 

But everything is possible when the Devil reads the Holy Bible.

[WellSpyder]

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,

It seems clear to me that this should be interpreted as saying "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 to the current trick,"

 

In fact, I think this is so clear, that some of those commentating have just assumed this - hence the query about why Law 57 is relevant at all.

 

dburn, on the other hand, is suggesting the two conditions could be entirely separate. I agree the grammer allows this interpretation. But I don't think it makes sense in terms of the penalty (rectification?) prescribed, which should also be interpreted as applying to the current trick.

 

So why not just interpret the law as it is intended, and forget about trying to impose inappropriate penalties in unrelated circumstances?

[campboy]

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,

It seems clear to me that this should be interpreted as saying "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 to the current trick,"

 

In fact, I think this is so clear, that some of those commentating have just assumed this - hence the query about why Law 57 is relevant at all.

Heh, that interpretation didn't even occur to me. Now that you suggest it, it seems quite likely that that is what they meant, but what they wrote is not even ambiguous.

 

So why not just interpret the law as it is intended, and forget about trying to impose inappropriate penalties in unrelated circumstances?

 

While it is obvious what the intended ruling is here, I do find it helpful to be challenged about what I am assuming when reading the laws, and what is actually said -- I certainly would never have noticed this without David pointing it out, and it took me an embarrassingly long time to get it even once he had. And it is certainly worth discussing how the wording could be improved in future editions, such as by adding the phrase you have in italics.

[bluejak]

I see. The suggestion is that a lead out of turn should be dealt with under Law 57. Well, it is not. It does not matter if a clever reading of the Law suggests this is a possibility: that is a matter for a different forum. But the practice of the matter is that Law 57 is not used for leads out of turn, whether during the auction or otherwise.

[dburn]

I see. The suggestion is that a lead out of turn should be dealt with under Law 57. Well, it is not. It does not matter if a clever reading of the Law suggests this is a possibility: that is a matter for a different forum. But the practice of the matter is that Law 57 is not used for leads out of turn, whether during the auction or otherwise.

This wasn't a "clever" reading of the Law. This was a reading of the Law that involved considering at each stage what the words of the Law meant.

 

Is it "the practice of the matter" for Directors to ignore what the Law says? If so, where is this "practice" documented?

[pran]

I see.  The suggestion is that a lead out of turn should be dealt with under Law 57.  Well, it is not.  It does not matter if a clever reading of the Law suggests this is a possibility: that is a matter for a different forum.  But the practice of the matter is that Law 57 is not used for leads out of turn, whether during the auction or otherwise.

Well, Law 57 does indeed apply when a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played a card to the current trick.

 

Law 57 also applies when a defender plays a card to the current trick before his partner when his partner was in turn to play first of the two to the trick.

(e.g. North leads to a trick. Before East plays West plays a card to the trick. Law 57 applies on what card East can be requested to play or forbidden from playing to the trick)

[pran]

I see.  The suggestion is that a lead out of turn should be dealt with under Law 57.  Well, it is not.  It does not matter if a clever reading of the Law suggests this is a possibility: that is a matter for a different forum.  But the practice of the matter is that Law 57 is not used for leads out of turn, whether during the auction or otherwise.

This wasn't a "clever" reading of the Law. This was a reading of the Law that involved considering at each stage what the words of the Law meant.

 

Is it "the practice of the matter" for Directors to ignore what the Law says? If so, where is this "practice" documented?

Normal practice for Directors is to having been trained in the laws, understand the laws and use the laws.

 

I took me quite an effort to understand the alleged problem with Law 57. Maybe because I have used this law without any problem since 1980 (and even before that).

[axman]

I see. The suggestion is that a lead out of turn should be dealt with under Law 57. Well, it is not. It does not matter if a clever reading of the Law suggests this is a possibility: that is a matter for a different forum. But the practice of the matter is that Law 57 is not used for leads out of turn, whether during the auction or otherwise.

Supposedly the point L57 is that great harm can arise from a POOT that gives pard information prematurely and thus a remedy should be supplied. I mention supposedly because the law does little to [a] describe the problem and does little to remedy it.

 

For instance ‘When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick’ seems to say that if defender has played to the ‘current trick’ and then leads to the next trick prior to pard playing to the current trick the condition for penalty is satisfied.

 

But, what about when it is an <opponent> that leads to the next trick and then the defender plays to ‘the’ next trick prior to pard playing to the current trick- as distinct from leading to the next trick.

 

For another instance: ‘ When a defender …. plays out of turn before his partner has played,’ notably, this condition occurs only some time during the first trick as distinct from T2 thru T13.

 

For another instance: and what about dropped cards? Don’t they acheive the same damage as plays- yet the law57 misses them completely.

 

And if justice is to be the objective, shouldn’t [at the least] the retracted card become a PC after the opponent chooses his penalty- rather than prior?

[bluejak]

I see.  The suggestion is that a lead out of turn should be dealt with under Law 57.  Well, it is not.  It does not matter if a clever reading of the Law suggests this is a possibility: that is a matter for a different forum.  But the practice of the matter is that Law 57 is not used for leads out of turn, whether during the auction or otherwise.

This wasn't a "clever" reading of the Law. This was a reading of the Law that involved considering at each stage what the words of the Law meant.

 

Is it "the practice of the matter" for Directors to ignore what the Law says? If so, where is this "practice" documented?

Of course it is a 'clever' reading of the Law. This forum is designed to help people with their rulings. Of course with imperfect Laws you can find problems if you look for them, and it is very clever to try to get people to rule wrong. There is even a forum where this sort of thing is very suitable: BLML.

 

But the intent of law 57 is perfectly clear, and taking the wording and manufacturing a situation when you know it does not apply to prove to the world how clever you are is doing no favours to anyone who wants to know how to rule. Sure, it proves you are clever with the English language, but we knew that anyway. It also proves that you do not want to help TDs around the world, and that has become pretty obvious from many of your postings.

 

Obviously I can hardly ban you for just being supremely unhelpful, but I would ask politely that if this is your idea of fun that you go elsewhere to exhibit it. You know perfectly well that the situation you postulate is not a Law 57 case, so please do not come to this forum to try to pretend it is.

[nige1]

I see.  The suggestion is that a lead out of turn should be dealt with under Law 57.  Well, it is not.  It does not matter if a clever reading of the Law suggests this is a possibility: that is a matter for a different forum.  But the practice of the matter is that Law 57 is not used for leads out of turn, whether during the auction or otherwise.

This wasn't a "clever" reading of the Law. This was a reading of the Law that involved considering at each stage what the words of the Law meant.

Is it "the practice of the matter" for Directors to ignore what the Law says? If so, where is this "practice" documented?

Of course it is a 'clever' reading of the Law.  This forum is designed to help people with their rulings.  Of course with imperfect Laws you can find problems if you look for them, and it is very clever to try to get people to rule wrong.  There is even a forum where this sort of thing is very suitable: BLML.

But the intent of law 57 is perfectly clear, and taking the wording and manufacturing a situation when you know it does not apply to prove to the world how clever you are is doing no favours to anyone who wants to know how to rule.  Sure, it proves you are clever with the English language, but we knew that anyway.  It also proves that you do not want to help TDs around the world, and that has become pretty obvious from many of your postings.

Obviously I can hardly ban you for just being supremely unhelpful, but I would ask politely that if this is your idea of fun that you go elsewhere to exhibit it.  You know perfectly well that the situation you postulate is not a Law 57 case, so please do not come to this forum to try to pretend it is.

An attempt to uphold gnasher's internet standards? :)

[dburn]

You know perfectly well that the situation you postulate is not a Law 57 case, so please do not come to this forum to try to pretend it is.

Let me tell you how this "clever" reading of the Law actually came about.

 

A match was played at TGRs the other night during which the exact situation I have described occurred (except that the final contract was redoubled by North).

 

The host on duty acted as Director and, after following the path I have described through Laws 24, 50 and 57, found himself in considerable doubt as to whether Law 57 applied; a literal (not a "clever") reading indicated that it should, but common sense suggested that it should not. This reading, whether "clever" or otherwise, was not in any case mine.

 

Fortunately, East's clubs were KQJ108 and dummy had ♣A9xx, so East's highest and lowest clubs were functionally equivalent - it did not matter whether South could ask for either of them or not. (Unfortunately, at least from the point of view of the defenders, the contract had nine top tricks anyway.)

 

The quondam Director discussed the situation with me the following day, and I agreed with him that the words of the Law did not say (or at any rate, might not say) what the people who wrote them intended them to say.

 

So, I posted the question here. I did not know then and do not know now whether this is a Law 57 case, and I am not remotely convinced by the argument "it isn't because it isn't". Nor am I particularly impressed by the latest attempt at bluster and bullying perpetrated by bluejak.

[Free]

Let me ask you the following: who is a defender during the auction?

 

During the auction there are no defenders, no declarer and no dummy. So law 57 doesn't apply.

[dburn]

Let me ask you the following: who is a defender during the auction?

 

During the auction there are no defenders, no declarer and no dummy.  So law 57 doesn't apply.

That is a good question, and one that I had initially hoped would resolve the matter in favour of the "common sense" interpretation.

 

But as I have already remarked, the Definitions (perhaps foolishly) state that a defender is "an opponent of (presumed) declarer". Since South is presumed to be the declarer, and since West is South's opponent, West is (at any rate for the purposes of Law 57) a defender.

 

The situation is not helped by the fact that the Definitions say of "Declarer" that he is:

 

"the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn)."

 

and of the opening lead that it is:

 

"the card led to the first trick".

 

Well, the seven of clubs was the card led to the first trick, even though it was initially led before the auction was over. Law 54A isn't much help, since East didn't lead anything - face down or otherwise. Of course, if West had only led his card face down as he should have done, none of this would have happened, but...

 

Again, this is not a case I have made up to show how clever I am, or to show how stupid the WBFLC is. This is a case that actually happened, where someone making an honest and diligent attempt to follow the Law as written reached a conclusion repugnant to common sense. But it is emphatically not sufficient for anyone to say "that doesn't make sense, so it can't be the Law".