Declarer wants to change his card

[sasioc]

At trick one, the opening lead is won in declarer's hand. The defender who was third to play has not quit trick 1 when declarer leads to trick 2. When declarer leads to trick two, both defenders point out that the previous trick has not been quit and declarer picks his card back up. After a minute or so, the defender flips her card from trick 1 and declarer leads a different card to trick 2 than the card he first tried to lead - is this allowed? Does he have to play the same card as the one that he tried to play the first time?

[RMB1]

At trick one, the opening lead is won in declarer's hand. The defender who was third to play has not quit trick 1 when declarer leads to trick 2. When declarer leads to trick two, both defenders point out that the previous trick has not been quit and declarer picks his card back up.

 

This is a bit of a mess in the laws, because there is not requirement to wait for everyone to quit trick 1 before someone leads to trick 2. So declarer's lead to trick 2 is played - it may not be picked up and it may not be changed. In time, the other players will quit trick 1, and at some other time they will play to trick 2. It would be misleading for one player to play to trick 2 without having quit trick 1, but that seems to be the only requirement.

[iviehoff]

The defenders were wrong in suggesting that a player who has not quitted his card yet has the power to prevent another player from leading. This, and no more, is what L66A gives them the right to:

 

L66A: "So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced."*

 

In the present case, where the defenders told declarer, wrongly, that he couldn't lead yet, and declarer picked it up, I would say that they had been an agreed table-made ruling that declarer's card was not played. So I would let declarer lead another card, but making very clear to the players why. Players who tell the other side what the rules are should suffer the consequences.

 

Btw, it is dangerous to play a card before you or your partner has quit his card. Once both sides have played to the next trick, a strict reading of L67B suggests that the previous trick with unquitted cards is now defective, with potentially horrible consequences.

[sasioc]

 

In the present case, where the defenders told declarer, wrongly, that he couldn't lead yet, and declarer picked it up, I would say that they had been an agreed table-made ruling that declarer's card was not played. So I would let declarer lead another card, but making very clear to the players why. Players who tell the other side what the rules are should suffer the consequences.

 

Defenders did not tell declarer that he could not lead and they did not say anything about what the rules were or weren't. All that was said was simply "my partner has not quit the previous trick". This could just as easily be interpreted as an explanation for why the defender is not playing to trick 2 yet as it could be interpreted as an instruction to declarer, who picked the card up of his own volition.

[gnasher]

Once both sides have played to the next trick, a strict reading of L67B suggests that the previous trick with unquitted cards is now defective

Are you sure? Law 67B refers to played cards - it makes no mention of whether they have been quitted or not. Law 45A tells us that a card is played by "detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him". In the situation described in the original post, all four players have played to trick 1, so the trick is not defective.

[iviehoff]

OK, declarer has not been explicitly misled, but may have suffered from his own misunderstanding.

 

Nevertheless, declarer committed an irregularity - withdrawing the lead - and the defence did not complain at that point, rather took action before later calling the director. So, by L11,

 

"The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member

of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director.

The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may

have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance

of the relevant provisions of the law."

 

Perhaps the best balance here is to enforce the first lead, but warn the defence that knowledge of declarer's second attempted lead, including sight of the card, is unauthorised information. This information is how the defence have gained by not calling the director at the proper time.

[iviehoff]

Are you sure? Law 67B refers to played cards - it makes no mention of whether they have been quitted or not. Law 45A tells us that a card is played by "detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him". In the situation described in the original post, all four players have played to trick 1, so the trick is not defective.

It is a hotly contested point. Whilst your common sense approach appeals to some, including me, the main legal problem is that the law has no provision for putting a card in its proper place among played cards if is found displaced from that position, other than quitting it at the proper time. Many people no doubt, upon finding it somewhere else, merely put it where it should be, and the opponents do not complain, but strictly the law does not provide for it. Big hitters have argued that according to L67 a trick is defective merely if it doesn't have 4 played cards in it when you check there, once both sides have played to a subsequent trick. Among the many unpleasant things that can happen following that discovery, replacing the card known to have been played to the trick without penalty isn't one of them.

[aguahombre]

Nevertheless, declarer committed an irregularity - withdrawing the lead - and the defence did not complain at that point, rather took action before later calling the director. So, by L11,

And how was the defence supposed to know declarer was withdrawing the lead and might lead something different? If I were a defender, it would not occur to me declarer was withdrawing anything ---merely getting that card off the table to avoid confusion, while an opponent has yet to turn over his card from the previous trick.

 

The irregularity only became known when declarer led something else after putting his original choice in the played position.

[iviehoff]

And how was the defence supposed to know declarer was withdrawing the lead and might lead something different?

If the NOS don't call the director before taking action, it would appear that under Law 11 the offending side nevertheless retains such protections as exist in Law 11 from the late call, regardless of NOS's ignorance as to whether it was an irregularity or not.

 

It seems to me that putting a played card back in your hand is always an irregularity, and waiting to see if there was a benign motive for it is a bit naive. But nevertheless sometimes we do protect players who don't know to call the director and are trusting that the opposition are playing properly. It depends upon the nature of the players themselves and what the director thinks is going on.

[aguahombre]

If the NOS don't call the director before taking action, it would appear that under Law 11 the offending side nevertheless retains such protections as exist in Law 11 from the late call, regardless of NOS's ignorance as to whether it was an irregularity or not.

 

It seems to me that putting a played card back in your hand is always an irregularity, and waiting to see if there was a benign motive for it is a bit naive. But nevertheless sometimes we do protect players who don't know to call the director and are trusting that the opposition are playing properly. It depends upon the nature of the players themselves and what the director thinks is going on.

Firstly, the NOS didn't take any action (OP); secondly, we don't even know from OP that declarer put the card back in his hand.

 

The only things we do know are that Declarer officially led to the next trick, then subsequently tried to lead a different card, he can't do that, and OP asked whether he can do that. We don't even know whether they called the director at that point, or at all.

[barmar]

The NOS took action: they pointed out that the previous trick hadn't been quitted. It seems obvious that their point was that declarer's lead was premature, even though there's nothing in the Laws prohibiting it. We've had long arguments in other threads about this -- while there's no legal prohibition, many think it's inappropriate, or at least impolite, to lead before the previous trick has been quitted; keeping your card face up is a common way of indicating that you want to think before the next trick.

 

The OP said "declarer picks his card back up" and then "leads a different card to trick 2". If he didn't put the original card back in his hand, what do you think happened to it?

[bluejak]

The NOS took action: they pointed out that the previous trick hadn't been quitted.

Isn't this drawing attention to an irregularity? Should the TD not have been called?

[aguahombre]

What was the irregularity? Leading to the next trick before the opponents wanted him to?

 

Leaving a card upturned from the previous trick does not make the previous trick incomplete. It merely reserves one's right to inspect that trick for a little while.

[bluejak]

Yes.

 

If you are a normal player, not a TD, nor a reader of IBLF or BLML or whatever, you would believe that a player may not lead while the previous trick is still face up. To be honest, I am not sure it is legal myself. So if you point it out, are you not pointing out something you believe to be an irregularity?

[aguahombre]

incorrectly believing an irregularity has ocurred is certainly reason to call for the director. But, that doesn't mean the opponents had an obligation to call the director when one had not occurred. Nor, does a player forfeit his right to a ruling about the change of lead on this occasion merely because of someone's mistaken opinion that declarer's previous lead was an irregularity.

[barmar]

wheels within wheels

[iviehoff]

The NOS took action: they pointed out that the previous trick hadn't been quitted.

That was before the irregularity of picking the lead back up. The action they took subsequent to that (undoubted) irregularity was, after a long pause, to quit the trick they had pointed out was not, at that earlier time, quitted.

[iviehoff]

Isn't this drawing attention to an irregularity? Should the TD not have been called?

It depends what you think he said it for. If, as OP suggests could have been the case, it was the defender explaining that he wasn't going to play until his partner had quitted his card, then it wasn't drawing attention to an irregularity. It would have been much better if the defender had said what he meant, rather than just mentioning the unquitted card.

 

But certainly declarer picking his card up was an irregularity, but not one that was drawn attention to until after the card had been quitted, by which time it is late enough for Law 11 to be applicable.

[sasioc]

This occurred in a competition where it is safe to assume that everyone has some understanding of laws and ethics and a reasonable understanding of their rights. I posted this because when it happened I had no idea what the rules were at all and would like to know for future reference. As defender it did not occur to me that declarer might lead a different card when the first was withdrawn - as has been suggested, I assumed he was just trying to put it out of the way/ make the previous trick clear. The director was called when the second lead to trick 2 appeared. If I'd realised declarer might consider playing a different card I would certainly have called earlier but it did not occur to me that this might happen!

[iviehoff]

As defender it did not occur to me that declarer might lead a different card when the first was withdrawn - as has been suggested, I assumed he was just trying to put it out of the way/ make the previous trick clear. The director was called when the second lead to trick 2 appeared. If I'd realised declarer might consider playing a different card I would certainly have called earlier but it did not occur to me that this might happen!

Generally speaking cards that must be played stay faced; if faced cards are picked up, generally speaking it is because theya re cards that don't have to be played: whether a penalty card that ceases to be a penalty card in the applicable circumstances, or a card permitted to be withdrawn in the relevant circumstances, or a card that has been faced but not played for whatever reason that happened, there are avariety of possibilities. You were correct that he is not allowed to withdraw the card in this situation. Where you were perhaps naive was in thinking that after picking it up he would then play it again. In picking it up without getting any complaint, he presumed that he had been allowed to withdraw it, or that it was treated as never played - because that would be normal for a card picked up.

[blackshoe]

Generally speaking cards that must be played stay faced; if faced cards are picked up, generally speaking it is because theya re cards that don't have to be played: whether a penalty card that ceases to be a penalty card in the applicable circumstances, or a card permitted to be withdrawn in the relevant circumstances, or a card that has been faced but not played for whatever reason that happened, there are avariety of possibilities. You were correct that he is not allowed to withdraw the card in this situation. Where you were perhaps naive was in thinking that after picking it up he would then play it again. In picking it up without getting any complaint, he presumed that he had been allowed to withdraw it, or that it was treated as never played - because that would be normal for a card picked up.

 

A card faced on the table may only be picked up on the instruction of the director.

 

Any time you aren't sure what the rules are, call the TD. That's why he's there.

[bluejak]

incorrectly believing an irregularity has ocurred is certainly reason to call for the director. But, that doesn't mean the opponents had an obligation to call the director when one had not occurred. Nor, does a player forfeit his right to a ruling about the change of lead on this occasion merely because of someone's mistaken opinion that declarer's previous lead was an irregularity.

I am unconvinced that the opponents knew that no irregularity had occurred.

 

It all seems very strange to me: if there is any question whether an irregularity has occurred, surely it is not up to the players to decide?

[bixby]

I am unconvinced that the opponents knew that no irregularity had occurred.

 

It all seems very strange to me: if there is any question whether an irregularity has occurred, surely it is not up to the players to decide?

 

This suggestion, while theoretically correct under the Laws, overlooks the fact that in real life there are numerous situations in which it is customary to point out an irregularity without calling the Director.

 

If someone places a quitted card incorrectly, facing the wrong way, do you call the Director? I've never seen anyone do that. Players just point out that the card is pointed incorrectly, the mistake is corrected, and play continues. In real life, it would be considered absurd to call the Director for this form of irregularity. Anyone who did would be branded as the Secretary Bird of all Secretary Birds.

 

My sympathies are with the OPer. If declarer led to trick 2 while I, as defender, still had my card facing up for trick 1, I wouldn't call the Director, I would just point out that trick 1 wasn't finished and expect declarer to wait until everyone was finished with trick 1. If I were declarer in this same scenario, I would be stunned if someone called the Director (I wouldn't object or anything, but I would be stunned). It was only when the declarer changed his card for trick 2 that something happened that merited calling the Director.

[blackshoe]

Your example (someone placing a card in the wrong direction in their quitted tricks) is flawed, as it is among the class of irregularities for which the law provides specific guidance that players may do something when faced with them. Law 46 is another such example. Declarer not calling for a card from dummy in the correct form ("X of [suit]") is an irregularity, all of Law 46B tells players how to handle it, they handle it, there's rarely a need for the TD. However, there are other irregularities in a different class - the director is really needed to make sure those irregularities are handled correctly. In such cases, custom notwithstanding, if the NOS do not call the TD, they risk losing their right to rectification. Worse, sometimes they compound the problem. They may, for example, impose an incorrect rectification. A possible example of this might be treating a minor penalty card as if it were major.

 

In the case at hand, the laws do not address the problem. Because of that lack, leading while not everyone has quitted the previous trick is not, technically, an irregularity. However, declarer picking up his played card and putting it back in his hand is an irregularity. It is also one of that class of irregularity which will require the director to make sure it is handled correctly. So the assertion that nothing worthy of a director call occurred until declarer changed his card is incorrect.

[bluejak]

Like everyone else, I often do not call the TD when there is some sort of irregularity. But I live with the consequences on the rare occasions where there are some. I work on the principle that either you call the TD or you don't: you do not call the TD later.