Leading question

[gordontd]

Since South is presumed to be the declarer,

Not by three-quarters of the table.

 

It is this that I think distinguishes it from the situations in the Laws (rather than the definitions) that talk of "presumed declarer" & "presumed dummy".

[dburn]

Since South is presumed to be the declarer,

Not by three-quarters of the table.

 

It is this that I think distinguishes it from the situations in the Laws (rather than the definitions) that talk of "presumed declarer" & "presumed dummy".

In fact, or so I gather, West had led and North was about to put the dummy down when East said "hang on - the auction isn't over". Whether or not South knew this is not recorded, but it may well have been that South was the "presumed declarer" by everyone at the table except East (and even East presumed that South was about to be the declarer).

 

Supplementary question: what would have happened if after West had led, North had in fact tabled the (presumed) dummy?

[axman]

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".

There are some who would purport that L41A specifies that a [the first lead} trick begins subsequent the auction ending pass as distinct from some other location in time. Such, as for in this case, there not yet having been an auction ending pass there is no provision for a trick to legally begin yet. As a consequence, exposing a card whatever else it might be, it is not yet part of a trick.

 

It has been suggested that a linchpin issue resolves about the existence of the presumed declarer. Whether or not this is so it is worth considering the point in time that the presumed declarer comes into existence. It has been suggested that PD comes into existence when a card is exposed irrespective whether the auction has legally concluded. It would follow that exposing a card when removing the cards from the board makes the RHO the presumed declarer.. but that is logically improper. Consider that N and E both expose their card prior to the conclusion to the auction so that W is the PD and N is the PD.

[pran]

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".

No, the seven of clubs was a card exposed during the auction for which Law 24 applies. The Director should have ruled that this card must remain faced until the end of the auction and that East must pass when next it is his turn to call (and Law 23 may apply).

 

At the end of the auction period South is presumed declarer, the seven of clubs becomes a major penalty card and as West is the correct player to make the opening lead he must lead this penalty card.

 

End of problems.

[pran]

Since South is presumed to be the declarer,

Not by three-quarters of the table.

 

It is this that I think distinguishes it from the situations in the Laws (rather than the definitions) that talk of "presumed declarer" & "presumed dummy".

The main reason why the law uses the clause presumed is that if misinformation during the auction by the presumed declaring side is revealed during the clarification period the director can use Law 21B1a and allow the (presumed) defender last to pass to replace this pass with a different call and let the auction continue.

 

Eventually the original presumed declaring side can very well end up as the defending side!

[pran]

Supplementary question: what would have happened if after West had led, North had in fact tabled the (presumed) dummy?

He would have had all his thirteen cards exposed during the auction, a situation for which Law 24 applies.

[pran]

There are some who would purport that L41A specifies that a [the first lead} trick begins subsequent the auction ending pass as distinct from some other location in time.  Such, as for in this case, there not yet having been an auction ending pass there is no provision for a trick to legally begin yet.  As a consequence, exposing a card whatever else it might be, it is not yet part of a trick.

 

It has been suggested that a linchpin issue resolves about the existence of the presumed declarer.  Whether or not this is so it is worth considering the point in time that the presumed declarer comes into existence.  It has been suggested that PD comes into existence when a card is exposed irrespective whether the auction has legally concluded.  It would follow that exposing a card when removing the cards from the board makes the RHO the presumed declarer..  but that is logically improper.  Consider that N and E both expose their card prior to the conclusion to the auction so that W is the PD and N is the PD.

Law 22:

A. End of Auction

The auction ends when:

...........

2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract (but see Law 19D).

 

B. End of Auction Period

 

1. The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn then see Law 54). The interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the Clarification Period.

 

Notice the existence of the Clarification Period between the end of the Auction and the end of the Auction Period.

 

Also notice that any card exposed (whether or not led) before the end of the Auction as defined in Law 22A is a card exposed during the auction and cannot end the Auction period.

[dburn]

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".

No, the seven of clubs was a card exposed during the auction for which Law 24 applies. The Director should have ruled that this card must remain faced until the end of the auction and that East must pass when next it is his turn to call (and Law 23 may apply).

 

At the end of the auction period South is presumed declarer, the seven of clubs becomes a major penalty card and as West is the correct player to make the opening lead he must lead this penalty card.

 

End of problems.

The Director did rule that the seven of clubs remained face up until the end of the auction; he did rule that East had to pass at his next turn; and he wondered afterwards whether West could deliberately lead out of turn in order to stop East pulling if either opponent redoubled. When I suggested that he look at Law 23, his mind was at rest on this point.

 

South duly became declarer, and the seven of clubs was duly led (this time at West's actual turn to lead). Unfortunately, this was the beginning rather than the end of the problems.

 

You see, the seven of clubs was a card exposed prior to the play period, but it had also been prematurely led. Law 57 makes no mention at all of whether the play out of turn is a premature lead to the first trick (a lead is, of course, a play), or whether it is a card exposed during the auction period, or whether it is Mrs Bun the Baker's Wife. Law 57 just says that

 

"When a defender... 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..."

 

Two constructive suggestions might be made to the WBFLC some time before 2018:

 

First, as was suggested by a contributor here, the words "to the current trick" should be inserted after "before his partner has played" in Law 57 (otherwise, in theory at any rate, a lead by a defender when it is declarer or dummy's turn to lead will incur the penalty prescribed by the rest of Law 57).

 

Second, the Definition of a defender should be replaced by "an opponent of the player who has made the final bid in the auction; he becomes a defender following the final pass of the auction".

[pran]

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".

No, the seven of clubs was a card exposed during the auction for which Law 24 applies. The Director should have ruled that this card must remain faced until the end of the auction and that East must pass when next it is his turn to call (and Law 23 may apply).

 

At the end of the auction period South is presumed declarer, the seven of clubs becomes a major penalty card and as West is the correct player to make the opening lead he must lead this penalty card.

 

End of problems.

The Director did rule that the seven of clubs remained face up until the end of the auction; he did rule that East had to pass at his next turn; and he wondered afterwards whether West could deliberately lead out of turn in order to stop East pulling if either opponent redoubled. When I suggested that he look at Law 23, his mind was at rest on this point.

 

South duly became declarer, and the seven of clubs was duly led (this time at West's actual turn to lead). Unfortunately, this was the beginning rather than the end of the problems.

 

You see, the seven of clubs was a card exposed prior to the play period, but it had also been prematurely led. Law 57 makes no mention at all of whether the play out of turn is a premature lead to the first trick (a lead is, of course, a play), or whether it is a card exposed during the auction period, or whether it is Mrs Bun the Baker's Wife. Law 57 just says that

 

"When a defender... 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..."

 

Two constructive suggestions might be made to the WBFLC some time before 2018:

 

First, as was suggested by a contributor here, the words "to the current trick" should be inserted after "before his partner has played" in Law 57 (otherwise, in theory at any rate, a lead by a defender when it is declarer or dummy's turn to lead will incur the penalty prescribed by the rest of Law 57).

 

Second, the Definition of a defender should be replaced by "an opponent of the player who has made the final bid in the auction; he becomes a defender following the final pass of the auction".

Really - PLEASE!

 

Once the Director made a correct ruling on the seven of clubs using Law 24 he should notice that this law leads him directly to Law 50 when the offender becomes a defender.

 

There is no link from neither Law 24 nor Law 50 to Law 57 so why can't he just follow the procedures for major penalty cards as specified in Law 50?

 

Law 50 is very clear and should be easy to use (except possibly for some questions on UI from penalty cards). There is in my honest opinion no excuse for any director to go astray on disposal of penalty cards.

 

And honestly I see very little reason for the changes to the laws that you indicate. Anyway this is not the forum for suggesting changes in the laws.

[dburn]

There is no link from neither Law 24 nor Law 50 to Law 57

Really? In my copy of the Laws, these words appear:

A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card...

Admittedly this makes little sense, for a card prematurely led by a defender is also a penalty card. But as I have remarked before, just because something makes no sense this does not mean it is not the Law. By the same token, just because someone makes no sense this does not mean he is not a Director.

[pran]

There is no link from neither Law 24 nor Law 50 to Law 57

Really? In my copy of the Laws, these words appear:

A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card...

Admittedly this makes little sense, for a card prematurely led by a defender is also a penalty card. But as I have remarked before, just because something makes no sense this does not mean it is not the Law. By the same token, just because someone makes no sense this does not mean he is not a Director.

This reference in the Law 50 preamble is irrelevant for the case we discuss as the card in question here is already explicitly declared in Law 24 to become a major penalty card (if, and) at the moment the offender becomes a defender (not earlier!).

 

What remains with the application of law 50 is the disposition of this penalty card

[campboy]

There is no link from neither Law 24 nor Law 50 to Law 57

Really? In my copy of the Laws, these words appear:

A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card...

Admittedly this makes little sense, for a card prematurely led by a defender is also a penalty card. But as I have remarked before, just because something makes no sense this does not mean it is not the Law. By the same token, just because someone makes no sense this does not mean he is not a Director.

This reference in the Law 50 preamble is irrelevant for the case we discuss as the card in question here is already explicitly declared in Law 24 to become a major penalty card (if, and) at the moment the offender becomes a defender (not earlier!).

Again, this is simply wrong. Law 24 does not contain the word "major".

[Pict]

I'd say, as I implied before.

 

There is clearly no common sense link to Law 57.

 

But dburn says 'yes there is a link' - it is a nonsense link that no-one want's to pursue, but there is a link.

 

Well, for this one time I have to agree with Bluejak, dburn is retailing nonsense.

[dburn]

I'd say, as I implied before.

 

There is clearly no common sense link to Law 57.

 

But dburn says 'yes there is a link'  - it is a nonsense link that no-one want's to pursue, but there is a link.

 

Well, for this one time I have to agree with Bluejak, dburn is retailing nonsense.

There is no question of whether one "wants" or "does not want" to pursue a link that plainly exists in the Laws (despite pran's remarkable assertion that it does not). If one is to give a ruling as a Director, one is in duty bound to explore every reference from any Law to any other Law, and refer to the Definitions if there is room for doubt.

 

Moreover, what one emphatically must not do as a Director is to state on one's own initiative "this is a nonsense link that I do not want to pursue". After all, Scripture has it that:

 

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

Again: this case was not one with which I had to deal at first hand, nor was it one that I made up to demonstrate my own "cleverness" or otherwise; whether in the actual case Law 57 was or was not invoked did not matter in the slightest; but the case appeared to me to contain certain points of interest.

 

Maybe it doesn't. But, to misquote William Windham, I wish I was as sure of anything as bluejak and pran are of everything.

[nige1]

Dburn's suggested clarification could have been posted to another forum -- which would allow vigilant legislators to apply it immediately :D

 

Dburn's main concern, however, is the practical application of existing law to a simple case. He attempts to unravel the meaning of current law, assuming that legislators intend what they write.

 

IMO, as far as rules are concerned, the player's interpretation is at least as important as the director's. In most games, players are expected to abide by the words of published rules, not the views of those who believe themselves privy to the law-makers different intentions.

[blackshoe]

A card was exposed during the auction. Where shall we start? It seems obvious to start with Law 24. This law tells us what to do with such a card: leave it face up on the table until the auction period ends. Okay, then what?

If the offender becomes declarer or dummy, the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender, every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50), then:

I'll get to "then" in a minute, but first, why is there a reference to Law 50 here? Well, ordinarily, Law 50 tells us what to do with a penalty card. It says

A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the director designates otherwise (see Law 49, and Law 23 may apply).

Now, Laws 49 and 23 are not germane to this discussion. So this part of the law gives the TD authority to "designate otherwise", in which case the discussion is over. So, let's say he doesn't do that (most of the time he probably shouldn't, anyway). Now what? Well, the "lead" is the first card played to a trick. The "opening lead" is the card led to the first trick. Certainly the player in this case thought he was leading. But was he? Consider the timeline of a hand. First we have some preliminaries (counting your cards, sorting) during which the "auction period" begins. There is no "play" during this period — that occurs during the play period. The auction period ends when the opening lead is faced, but before that, the auction has to end, and that requires three consecutive passes, which hasn't happened here. The offender in this case exposed his card, so maybe this is a face up lead. So let's see what Law 57 tells us.

When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick…

Clearly this law requires both a "current trick" and a "next trick". But if there's a trick at all it cannot be both the current trick and the next trick. Besides, the play period has not started yet. So Law 57 cannot apply. Or so it seems to me.

 

The Law may be poorly organized or poorly worded, or both, but that does not mean that in making practical TD rulings we should spent a significant portion of our time spinning our wheels or discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That phenomenon is why I left blml. I think dburn brought up a valid point, but I also think that we've spent more than enough time on it here, and that the practical, if not the literal, answer is that Law 57 doesn't apply. We should apply Law 24(B in this case). I would think TDs should be trained to do it this way, and not look to Law 57 until after the play period begins.

[OleBerg]

Hi all,

 

pesonally I love nitpicking, but this is beyond silly.

 

 

The start of Law 50:

 

"A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57)"

 

Obviously means: "A card prematurely exposed (as opposed to a card that has actually been led. If the card has actually been led you should not use this Law, use Law 57 instead.)

 

 

This is logical in itself, especialy as () has been used. As "see law 57" is inside the (), it refers to the text inside the (), not the text outside.

 

Furthermore, it is the only logical intepretation in the context of the bridge-laws.

[campboy]

"A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57)"

 

Obviously means: "A card prematurely exposed (as opposed to a card that has actually been led. If the card has actually been led you should not use this Law, use Law 57 instead.)

 

 

This is logical in itself, especialy as () has been used. As "see law 57" is inside the (), it refers to the text inside the (), not the text outside.

Your point being? The card in question was prematurely led (that is the exact same phrase which is used in law 24), so we certainly should "see law 57". Once we see it, however, we might decide that it does not apply.