What is what?

[aguahombre]

South is supposed to be declarer, but East leads face-up, and South (also brain cramping) starts to put down her hand as dummy ---getting a few cards exposed.

 

1)Does North have a right to stop things, calling attention to the irregularity? He is supposed to be dummy, but is he yet?

 

2)Does the first card hitting the table from South constitute excercising the option to be dummy, whether intended or not?

 

The questions stop here, not wanting to ask what happens if......etc; since maybe the answers to the above make everything else moot.

[pran]

South is supposed to be declarer, but East leads face-up, and South (also brain cramping) starts to put down her hand as dummy ---getting a few cards exposed.

 

1)Does North have a right to stop things, calling attention to the irregularity?  He is supposed to be dummy, but is he yet?

 

2)Does the first card hitting the table from South constitute excercising the option to be dummy, whether intended or not?

 

The questions stop here, not wanting to ask what happens if......etc;  since maybe the answers to the above make everything else moot.

Law 54 A:

After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer.

Question 1: NO, NO

Question 2: Yes

[jdonn]

If north is not dummy any more then why does he not have the right to call attention to the irregularity?

[aguahombre]

If north is not dummy any more then why does he not have the right to call attention to the irregularity?

That was the question. Was he ever really the dummy with dummy restrictions? Maybe once a card hits the table from South there is not even any irregularity to worry about.

 

So, a related question ---South is supposed to be declarer, but before any lead East starts asking questions (maybe thinking he will be on lead, maybe not). Is North considered dummy, yet? And if so, can he call attention to that irregularity?

[pran]

If north is not dummy any more then why does he not have the right to call attention to the irregularity?

North is presumed dummy from the third pass in sequence until the opening lead (by either presumed defender) is faced. When the opening lead is faced by the incorrect presumed defender (East) then it is up to South (presumed declarer) whether North or South is going to be the real dummy.

 

The laws are silent on the question if North (presumed dummy) may call attention to an opening lead by the wrong (presumed) defender, i.e. if North still holds his full privileges as a player or is already subject to the restrictions that apply to Dummy.

 

My personal opinion is that as the question on who is going to be the eventual declarer and dummy is not yet determined North may still call attention to an irregularity subject to be handled under Law 54.

 

edit: Added response to aquahombre: North is definitely not dummy before a faced opening lead has been made by either (presumed) defender - see Definitions:

Dummy — 1. Declarer’s partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced.

[blackshoe]

North becomes dummy when East makes the opening lead face up (definitions). He ceases to be dummy when South exposes his cards (Law 54A). So there is a period between the face up opening lead and South spreading his entire hand during which North is dummy. The restrictions of Laws 42 and 43 would apply to North during that time.

 

South exposing a card is an irregularity here. North is permitted to attempt to prevent it (Law 42B2). The interesting question, to me, is whether North, who ceases to be dummy when South's entire hand is spread, is still subject to Laws 43A1{a} and {b}, which preclude dummy from calling attention to an irregularity or calling the TD on his own. IOW, is the proper time for North to call the TD, or call attention to the irregularity, at the end of play, or may he do so when he becomes declarer? Personally, knowing the law, I wouldn't call until the end of play, but I don't think there should be a problem if North calls the TD, or calls attention to the irregularities, once South starts spreading his hand, since at that point it's too late for anything other than that North becomes declarer.

 

If East starts asking questions, North can call attention to the irregularity. Because no lead has yet been faced, North is not yet dummy. Note that East's questions are irregular only because West has not yet led face down. If North leads face up, there is no clarification period, and East can't ask questions, or request a review of the auction until his turn to play.

[pran]

North becomes dummy when East makes the opening lead face up (definitions). He ceases to be dummy when South exposes his cards (Law 54A).  So there is a period between the face up opening lead and South spreading his entire hand during which North is dummy. The restrictions of Laws 42 and 43 would apply to North during that time.

 

South exposing a card is an irregularity here. North is permitted to attempt to prevent it (Law 42B2). The interesting question, to me, is whether North, who ceases to be dummy when South's entire hand is spread, is still subject to Laws 43A1{a} and {b}, which preclude dummy from calling attention to an irregularity or calling the TD on his own. IOW, is the proper time for North to call the TD, or call attention to the irregularity, at the end of play, or may he do so when he becomes declarer? Personally, knowing the law, I wouldn't call until the end of play, but I don't think there should be a problem if North calls the TD, or calls attention to the irregularities, once South starts spreading his hand, since at that point it's too late for anything other than that North becomes declarer.

 

If East starts asking questions, North can call attention to the irregularity. Because no lead has yet been faced, North is not yet dummy. Note that East's questions are irregular only because West has not yet led face down. If North leads face up, there is no clarification period, and East can't ask questions, or request a review of the auction until his turn to play.

If we are going to be technical we must be technical all the way:

 

While North at the very moment East makes a faced opening lead out of turn becomes Dummy with the implication that all restrictions on Dummy immediately apply to him then, at the very moment South exposes his first card North becomes Declarer and South becomes Dummy with the same implication that North is no longer subject to any of the restrictions on Dummy. Such restrictions from now on instead apply to South (only).

 

This leads us to the following theory:

 

North is all the time free to try preventing South from committing any irregularity, for instance the irregularity of beginning to expose his cards after a faced opening lead out of turn by East. Technically this is not calling attention to East's irregularity, at least not if North uses a minimum of care when selecting his words for this legal action.

 

As far as Law 54 is conceerned I consider this to be a case of splitting hairs and that we can safely allow North to not only stop his partner from accidentally exposing his cards but to do this in a way that immediately calls attention to the opening lead out of turn.

 

I would not be surprised if after presenting the situation to WBFLC they would come out with a decision along such lines.

 

Forbidding presumed Dummy calling attention to a Law 54 situation during the brief period between the exposures of the opening lead and presumed Declarer's first card does not make sense to me when there can be no doubt that he is free to call such attention both before and after this period.

[blackshoe]

…at the very moment South exposes his first card North becomes Declarer…

No. I thought so too, at first, but a careful reading of Law 54A shows that North becomes dummy after South exposes his whole hand.

 

As for the rest, we seem to be in agreement.

[jdonn]

If north is not dummy any more then why does he not have the right to call attention to the irregularity?

North is presumed dummy from the third pass in sequence until the opening lead (by either presumed defender) is faced. When the opening lead is faced by the incorrect presumed defender (East) then it is up to South (presumed declarer) whether North or South is going to be the real dummy.

 

The laws are silent on the question if North (presumed dummy) may call attention to an opening lead by the wrong (presumed) defender, i.e. if North still holds his full privileges as a player or is already subject to the restrictions that apply to Dummy.

 

My personal opinion is that as the question on who is going to be the eventual declarer and dummy is not yet determined North may still call attention to an irregularity subject to be handled under Law 54.

 

edit: Added response to aquahombre: North is definitely not dummy before a faced opening lead has been made by either (presumed) defender - see Definitions:

Dummy — 1. Declarer’s partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced.

I have read your post very carefully several times now, and can not figure out whether you contradicted your first post or simply didn't answer the question. It's definitely one of the two. The only thing I'm pretty sure of is that you are ruling on the basis of a term that as far as I can tell you have made up.

[pran]

…at the very moment South exposes his first card North becomes Declarer…

No. I thought so too, at first, but a careful reading of Law 54A shows that North becomes dummy after South exposes his whole hand.

 

As for the rest, we seem to be in agreement.

Law 54 A:

After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer.

 

I have a problem seeing how this matters? Once South has exposed his first card (to be precise: In an action of spreading his hand) Law 54A requires him to spread his entire hand.

[pran]

If north is not dummy any more then why does he not have the right to call attention to the irregularity?

North is presumed dummy from the third pass in sequence until the opening lead (by either presumed defender) is faced. When the opening lead is faced by the incorrect presumed defender (East) then it is up to South (presumed declarer) whether North or South is going to be the real dummy.

 

The laws are silent on the question if North (presumed dummy) may call attention to an opening lead by the wrong (presumed) defender, i.e. if North still holds his full privileges as a player or is already subject to the restrictions that apply to Dummy.

 

My personal opinion is that as the question on who is going to be the eventual declarer and dummy is not yet determined North may still call attention to an irregularity subject to be handled under Law 54.

 

edit: Added response to aquahombre: North is definitely not dummy before a faced opening lead has been made by either (presumed) defender - see Definitions:

Dummy — 1. Declarer’s partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced.

I have read your post very carefully several times now, and can not figure out whether you contradicted your first post or simply didn't answer the question. It's definitely one of the two. The only thing I'm pretty sure of is that you are ruling on the basis of a term that as far as I can tell you have made up.

Sorry? Would you care to elaborate, I am not sure I understand.

 

Unless it is the fact (agreed) that originally I simply indicated how I would apply the laws without paying too much attention to detailed technicalities.

 

In my later comment to blackshoe I was technical to the smallest detail all the way and believe I showed that this did not at all (essentially) matter.

 

And what question have I failed to answer? (overlooked?)

 

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

I have a problem seeing how this matters? Once South has exposed his first card (to be precise: In an action of spreading his hand) Law 54A requires him to spread his entire hand.

The question is "when does South become dummy". Out of context, one would expect the answer to be "when an opening lead is faced". But in the context of this hand, South becomes dummy when North becomes declarer, and because Law 54A is worded the way it is, North becomes declarer after South's whole hand is on the table. Sure, if there is TD involvement before that event, he will rule that the whole hand must be faced, but that's irrelevant. If the Law would specify that North becomes declarer at the facing of South's first card, it would say "If the prospective declarer faces a card, he becomes dummy and must face his whole hand". But that is not what it says.

 

It may not matter much, and it's certainly not worth pages of argument, but it is what it is.

[pran]

I have a problem seeing how this matters? Once South has exposed his first card (to be precise: In an action of spreading his hand) Law 54A requires him to spread his entire hand.

The question is "when does South become dummy". Out of context, one would expect the answer to be "when an opening lead is faced". But in the context of this hand, South becomes dummy when North becomes declarer, and because Law 54A is worded the way it is, North becomes declarer after South's whole hand is on the table. Sure, if there is TD involvement before that event, he will rule that the whole hand must be faced, but that's irrelevant. If the Law would specify that North becomes declarer at the facing of South's first card, it would say "If the prospective declarer faces a card, he becomes dummy and must face his whole hand". But that is not what it says.

 

It may not matter much, and it's certainly not worth pages of argument, but it is what it is.

I don't really see any practical difference between:

 

If the prospective declarer faces a card, he becomes dummy and must face his whole hand

 

and:

 

If the prospective declarer faces a card, he must face his whole hand and becomes dummy.

[campboy]

North is all the time free to try preventing South from committing any irregularity, for instance the irregularity of beginning to expose his cards after a faced opening lead out of turn by East. Technically this is not calling attention to East's irregularity, at least not if North uses a minimum of care when selecting his words for this legal action.

While North is certainly permitted to try to prevent South from committing an irregularity, that does not help him. Law 54A says that South "may spread his hand", so to do so is not an irregularity.

Forbidding presumed Dummy calling attention to a Law 54 situation during the brief period between the exposures of the opening lead and presumed Declarer's first card does not make sense to me when there can be no doubt that he is free to call such attention both before and after this period.

On the contrary, it seems critical to me: it determines whether North may prevent South from accidentally accepting the lead. Once South gets as far as spreading his hand it is too late.

[pran]

North is all the time free to try preventing South from committing any irregularity, for instance the irregularity of beginning to expose his cards after a faced opening lead out of turn by East. Technically this is not calling attention to East's irregularity, at least not if North uses a minimum of care when selecting his words for this legal action.

While North is certainly permitted to try to prevent South from committing an irregularity, that does not help him. Law 54A says that South "may spread his hand", so to do so is not an irregularity.

Forbidding presumed Dummy calling attention to a Law 54 situation during the brief period between the exposures of the opening lead and presumed Declarer's first card does not make sense to me when there can be no doubt that he is free to call such attention both before and after this period.

On the contrary, it seems critical to me: it determines whether North may prevent South from accidentally accepting the lead. Once South gets as far as spreading his hand it is too late.

From "INTRODUCTION TO THE 2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE":

The Laws are designed to define correct procedure

and

“may” do (failure to do it is not wrong),

“does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized)

 

From "Definitions": Irregularity — a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.

 

Where in the laws is Declarer's option to spread his cards after an opening lead out of turn defined as correct procedure?

[aguahombre]

Where in the laws is Declarer's option to spread his cards after an opening lead out of turn defined as correct procedure?

Well, 54a, which you quoted above, seems to say that it is a not-so-subtle way of exercising one's option to be the dummy.

 

It is a procedure which accomplishes the mission(whether knowingly or not). Do we care if it is defined somewhere as "correct"?

 

edit: what I meant was, it is provided for in 54a and seems like a quick way of moving along after the "incorrect" opening lead.

Edited September 5, 2010 by aguahombre

[pran]

Where in the laws is Declarer's option to spread his cards after an opening lead out of turn defined as correct procedure?

Well, 54a, which you quoted above, seems to say that it is a not-so-subtle way of exercising one's option to be the dummy.

 

It is a procedure which accomplishes the mission(whether knowingly or not). Do we care if it is defined somewhere as "correct"?

 

edit: what I meant was, it is provided for in 54a and seems like a quick way of moving along after the "incorrect" opening lead.

It sure is a fast way of moving along, but it is still not "correct procedure".

I think we should care, and I think presumed dummy should be fully allowed to prevent presumed declarer from unintentionally accepting the opening lead out of turn by irregularly just start spreading his cards.

 

What reaction if any would you find correct against a presumed dummy who in this situation stops presumed declarer from spreading his cards with the words: "Don't expose your cards, you are declarer!" :rolleyes:

[jdonn]

Sorry? Would you care to elaborate, I am not sure I understand.

Perhaps you just changed your mind after your very first post, as in that one you said north can not call the director to point attention to the irregularity as he is now dummy, and in every later post you seem to be saying north is not yet dummy so he can call the director.

 

The made up term I was referring to was "presumed dummy".

[Pict]

I'll be really disappointed if this is not easy from the OP as Pran pointed out very clearly.

 

There may be harder scenarios, don't know.

[aguahombre]

I'll be really disappointed if this is not easy from the OP as Pran pointed out very clearly.

 

There may be harder scenarios, don't know.

Yeh, well, I think I got my answers to the questions as I asked them. As usual, the OP (me) left out things in order to simplify matters and achieve a hypothetical discussion.

 

The real facts are that I was North on an auction which seems to frequently cause leads out of turn.

 

1M-1N (F1R)

2N-3N....where Opener is the only one actually showing a NT hand.

 

I was the only one at the table who knew North was the "presumed" dummy, apparently.

 

East: "mine?"

West: "Yes"

South: silent

North: busy entering the contract in the Bridgepad.

 

I looked up and saw East's lead on the table and South's first suit on the table ---and decided to just play the damned thing (last board of the session). Everyone else left the table still oblivious to what had happened :rolleyes:

[blackshoe]

Heh. Nothing wrong with that. Even if you're allowed to call attention to an irregularity, you're not required to do so.

 

Your original questions were:

 

1. Can North call attention to the irregularity(ies)? Sven: No. Me: No.

2. Is North dummy at the point he notices the problem? Sven: No. Me: Yes, because only part of South's hand has been spread at this point. This is a minor detail.

3. Does South's first card hitting the table constitute his exercising the option to be dummy, will-he, nil-he? Sven: Yes. Me: Yes.

 

There've been a couple of others posting, but they seem to be in agreement with either Sven or I.

 

The "real facts" scenario is why one defender should never answer the other's question whether he is on lead. And why I would like to see the bidding cards remain on the table until the opening lead is faced (by the proper defender) in the ACBL.

[campboy]

From "INTRODUCTION TO THE 2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE":

The Laws are designed to define correct procedure

and

“may” do (failure to do it is not wrong),

“does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized)

 

From "Definitions": Irregularity — a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.

 

Where in the laws is Declarer's option to spread his cards after an opening lead out of turn defined as correct procedure?

While the introduction merely says that "failure to do it is not wrong" I would imagine the writers think it goes without saying that doing it is not wrong either. There are lots of other laws which say that a player "may" do something (without saying that he does it), and I cannot imagine that you would consider all these actions irregularities. Furthermore, unless law 54C applies, all of declarer's options are decribed as things he "may" do. Which, if any, of them do you consider not to be irregularities?

[blackshoe]

It is not always clear to me, where the laws use the word "may", whether it is used in the sense of probability, or of permission. Or whether it makes a difference. :unsure:

[pran]

It is not always clear to me, where the laws use the word "may", whether it is used in the sense of probability, or of permission. Or whether it makes a difference. :unsure:

It is my understanding, and I am pretty sure that "may" expresses permission

 

"May" certainly does not define "correct procedure" but rather a permissible exception from "correct procedure".

 

Example: "Correct procedure" during the auction is to make calls in rotation and otherwisse keep quiet. However each player is permitted to ("may") ask certain questions etc. on specific conditions. This does not imply that interrupting the auction with such questions whenever allowed is "correct procedure".

[campboy]

Do you really think it is an irregularity to ask the meaning of opponents' auction? Do you really think that when a player has multiple options following an opponent's infraction it is an irregularity to select any of them? Don't be ridiculous.

 

I should think it is obvious that the laws say a player does something to indicate that it is correct procedure and that failing to do it is incorrect procedure, but use "may" when neither doing it or not is incorrect. This is completely in line with the section from the introduction you quoted.