Defender's lead to trick 1

[jillybean]

Defender makes a lead face down to trick1, then puts the card back in his hand and wants to play a different card.

 

Allowed? Which law?

 

ACBL

[Chris3875]

No - unless there has been an irregularity and only upon instruction of the Director

Law 41A

[blackshoe]

Chris is right. Further, if he puts the other card down face up, he's going to have a major penalty card. If he does so after the TD is called, but before the ruling is given, that ruling should include a PP (Law 9B2).

[pran]

Chris is right. Further, if he puts the other card down face up, he's going to have a major penalty card. If he does so after the TD is called, but before the ruling is given, that ruling should include a PP (Law 9B2).

I would consider a PP anyway.

After he has put the first (face down) lead back in his hand there is no way he can prove that he didn't change his lead.

[Zelandakh]

If someone withdraws their card and you suspect that they have drawn a different card (say they placed it at the front of their hand and drew the new one from the back) but they claim it is the same card, is there any way of proving it? It seems that this is an area where you have to go on the trust and honesty of the player involved. Similarly if someone has not changed the card but the opponents accuse them of doing so...

[pran]

If someone withdraws their card and you suspect that they have drawn a different card (say they placed it at the front of their hand and drew the new one from the back) but they claim it is the same card, is there any way of proving it? It seems that this is an area where you have to go on the trust and honesty of the player involved. Similarly if someone has not changed the card but the opponents accuse them of doing so...

The reason for a PP is violation of Law 41A: The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2)

[Zelandakh]

Sorry pran, my comment was made before seeing yours (lunchtime and being busy). I was wondering primarily how blackshoe was going to ascertain that the replacement lead was a penalty card, as well as how chris was deciding whether the new card was not allowed. Similarly, what is best practise if an opponent withdraws their card (and I think they changed it), or if my partner were to do withdraw one (and opponents object), in a club atmosphere with a playing director where calls are generally to be avoided. (Yes I know the proper theoretical answer is that TD calls are never to be avoided but I prefer to be practical).

[jillybean]

Thanks, it was a bit of a mess. Defender on lead made a lead face down, changed his mind

then faced another card. When I said 'you can't do that' he put the second card

back in his hand and faced the original card.

 

So the relevant laws are..

 

41 A. Face-down Opening Lead

After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by

three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed

declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down*.

The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon

instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see

Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be returned to

the defender’s hand.

 

& 47E2

2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played

because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent’s

call or play and before a corrected

explanation without further rectification, but

only if no card was subsequently played to

that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted

after dummy has faced any card.

(b) When it is too late to correct a play under

2(a) above, the Director may award an adjusted

score.

[blackshoe]

Proper procedure, Zel, if you want to be "practical", is for the opponents (nor anyone else) not to call attention to the irregularity. Once such attention is drawn ("opponents object") failure to call the TD is an additional infraction of law. OTOH, if you want to make your own rulings, do whatever you like, and live with the consequences. :ph34r:

 

If the replacement card was face down, then I ask the player if it's the same card. Unless he's obviously lying (unlikely) or I have other evidence (though I"m not sure what that would be) I believe him. If it's face down, no PC (no card was exposed). If it was face up, and I decide it wasn't the original lead, it's a PC. That decision is a matter of TD judgement, based on the evidence available.

[pran]

Sorry pran, my comment was made before seeing yours (lunchtime and being busy). I was wondering primarily how blackshoe was going to ascertain that the replacement lead was a penalty card, as well as how chris was deciding whether the new card was not allowed. Similarly, what is best practise if an opponent withdraws their card (and I think they changed it), or if my partner were to do withdraw one (and opponents object), in a club atmosphere with a playing director where calls are generally to be avoided. (Yes I know the proper theoretical answer is that TD calls are never to be avoided but I prefer to be practical).

I handle a couple of clubs with atmosphere like what you imply here and my reaction in such clubs will normally just be of the instructing nature: "You are not supposed/allowed to do that".

 

Many players do not know the reason for a face-down opening lead (giving partner the opportunity to ask before the correction period has expired) or that it is none of (presumed) declarer's or dummy's business to state "yes, it is your lead" or words to that effect. And my experience is that they appreciate learning something they didn't know. No harm done, only the players have learned something in a friendly atmosphere. No need for any rectification or PP.

 

Serious events are an entirely different situation.

[blackshoe]

I handle a couple of clubs with atmosphere like what you imply here and my reaction in such clubs will normally just be of the instructing nature: "You are not supposed/allowed to do that".

 

Many players do not know the reason for a face-down opening lead (giving partner the opportunity to ask before the correction period has expired) or that it is none of (presumed) declarer's or dummy's business to state "yes, it is your lead" or words to that effect. And my experience is that they appreciate learning something they didn't know. No harm done, only the players have learned something in a friendly atmosphere. No need for any rectification or PP.

 

Serious events are an entirely different situation.

I would have thought this was a given. :blink:

[McBruce]

The real question here, which the OP has missed completely, is "when is a face-down opening lead deemed made?" I haven't been able to find an answer to this question in the Laws or the tech files, but I have hearsay evidence from a club director through an experienced TD that the ACBL way is to treat an opening lead as made the split second it is detached from the leader's hand.

 

This seems crazy to me.

 

I think that for a lead to be deemed a face down opening lead it should at least be face down.

 

The original lead in question, according to the defender, was never face down: he tried to take it back when he realized he had pulled the wrong card. As long as the card was not held in a position for partner to see it, and with no guidance in the Laws or (after a quick look later) the ACBL Tech files to guide me, I saw no reason to deem this a change of mind or a face down opening lead. The mess came when I tried to find out whether the card could have been seen by opening leader's partner; declarer immediately said "yes, because I could see it," naming the card.

 

So, yes, there was a mess here. And I might have gotten it wrong, if the ACBL insists on a silly definition of what constitutes a FDOL. But I certainly didn't get a lot of help from the declarer, who began by trying to make the ruling ("you can't do that"), flustering the defender into exposing the second card, then answering a different question than the one I asked ("was the original lead in a position for the leader's partner to see it?"), naming the card, then demanding that I read Law 41, which isn't really the main point here.

 

What we need is official word about what constitutes a face down opening lead in the ACBL. And if the card need not be face down, then the terminology should be adjusted. Some players don't sort their cards until the bidding ends, and made several such "leads" while doing so. Others might have sorted their hand wrong and find that an attempt to correct after the bid-box cards go back is going to be seized upon as a FDOL by a Secretary Bird declarer.

[pran]

The real question here, which the OP has missed completely, is "when is a face-down opening lead deemed made?" I haven't been able to find an answer to this question in the Laws or the tech files, but I have hearsay evidence from a club director through an experienced TD that the ACBL way is to treat an opening lead as made the split second it is detached from the leader's hand.

 

This seems crazy to me.

 

I think that for a lead to be deemed a face down opening lead it should at least be face down.

 

The original lead in question, according to the defender, was never face down: he tried to take it back when he realized he had pulled the wrong card. As long as the card was not held in a position for partner to see it, and with no guidance in the Laws or (after a quick look later) the ACBL Tech files to guide me, I saw no reason to deem this a change of mind or a face down opening lead. The mess came when I tried to find out whether the card could have been seen by opening leader's partner; declarer immediately said "yes, because I could see it," naming the card.

 

So, yes, there was a mess here. And I might have gotten it wrong, if the ACBL insists on a silly definition of what constitutes a FDOL. But I certainly didn't get a lot of help from the declarer, who began by trying to make the ruling ("you can't do that"), flustering the defender into exposing the second card, then answering a different question than the one I asked ("was the original lead in a position for the leader's partner to see it?"), naming the card, then demanding that I read Law 41, which isn't really the main point here.

 

What we need is official word about what constitutes a face down opening lead in the ACBL. And if the card need not be face down, then the terminology should be adjusted. Some players don't sort their cards until the bidding ends, and made several such "leads" while doing so. Others might have sorted their hand wrong and find that an attempt to correct after the bid-box cards go back is going to be seized upon as a FDOL by a Secretary Bird declarer.

Well now, this is an entirely different case.

 

OP explicitly specified a face down opening lead, now we learn that the opening lead was indeed faced and that the question was whether it was really made or not.

 

I believe there is a universally accepted rule that if an opponent can name a card exposed by a player then that card shall unconditionally be deemed to having been in a position where it could be seen by that player's partner.

 

Which means that this card shall be treated as a card exposed prior to the play period(Law 24). When the offender becomes a defender this card then becomes a major penalty card and must be played at the first legal opportunity.

 

Be aware that making the opening lead face up rather than face down has the effect of suspending the clarification period causing the play period to begin immediately. If any consequence at all this will be a disadvantage for the defending side which loses some of their rights in case of irregularities by the (eventually) declaring side during the auction.

 

I believe there is much more to be said on this story, but I shall hold it right here.

 

Interested parties might study Law 11A which says: 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.

[McBruce]

I believe there is a universally accepted rule that if an opponent can name a card exposed by a player then that card shall unconditionally be deemed to having been in a position where it could be seen by that player's partner.

 

Bunk. Not only have I never heard of such a rule, I can point out countless ways in which a card, say West's, can be held so that South can see it but East cannot. Your 'rule' simply encourages players to blurt out cards that in fact may never have been held in a position for the other defender to see them.

[McBruce]

OP explicitly specified a face down opening lead, now we learn that the opening lead was indeed faced and that the question was whether it was really made or not.

 

You've misunderstood this part. The card was retracted before being placed in the normal face down position, once the opening leader saw it was the wrong one, according to the leader. Declarer's version was that the card was placed face down, then retracted and after declarer commented that 'you can't do that,' the opening leader substituted a different card face up. Leader denied that the card had been placed on the table face down and the partner of the leader agreed with this.

[jillybean]

The opening leader (LHO) pulled a card from his hand and moved it to a position face down on the table, he then retracted the card, put it back in his hand. If it matters, if you ask me how long it was 'held in this position' I would say less than a second to a second. Again if it matters, there was no suprise, oh!, it was clearly a change of mind rather than inadvertent. At this stage neither dummy, rho or I have seen the card.

 

Declarer pulls another card from his hand, this time making a face up lead. At some time while the 1st card being put back in his hand and the second card being faced, I say "you can't do that"

 

Declarer replaces the second card to his hand and now places another card (presumably the 1st card) face up on the table.

 

The director is called.

 

I told McBruce exactly what had happened,

1 lead made face down then retracted

2 2nd card placed face up

3 3rd card placed face up.

 

When asked, both dummy & I told McBruce that we had seen both the 2nd and 3rd card. RHO of course did not see the original card played as opening lead, it was face down, noone did. I beleive the question whether RHO actually saw any card is irrelevant, the infraction occured when LHO retracted his opening lead. The rest of it is just noise although what to do with 2 faced cards is another question.

 

I accepted McBruce's ruling and then later he came to me and said another director said he may have got it wrong and we agreed that I would post the case here and he would post on the ACBL forum.

[jillybean]

You've misunderstood this part. The card was retracted before being placed in the normal face down position, once the opening leader saw it was the wrong one, according to the leader. Declarer's version was that the card was placed face down, then retracted and after declarer commented that 'you can't do that,' the opening leader substituted a different card face up. Leader denied that the card had been placed on the table face down and the partner of the leader agreed with this.

 

I don't recall either the opening leader or his partner denying that the card had been led, I only recall them both saying the card could not be seen.

 

Let's not turn this into a bun fight. I think it's a case where there is something to learn and perhaps if it occurs again it can be better handled by all involved and the players can go away a little wiser.

[jillybean]

So, yes, there was a mess here. And I might have gotten it wrong, if the ACBL insists on a silly definition of what constitutes a FDOL. But I certainly didn't get a lot of help from the declarer, who began by trying to make the ruling ("you can't do that"), flustering the defender into exposing the second card, then answering a different question than the one I asked ("was the original lead in a position for the leader's partner to see it?"), naming the card, then demanding that I read Law 41, which isn't really the main point here.

 

I see it's already turned into a bun fight.

 

If saying 'you can't do that' is either making my own ruling or "flustering the defender" will you please tell me what I should say when an infraction is occurring or has occurred? The call for the director was made immediately after the second face up lead was made, perhaps 1-2 seconds after I had said 'you can't do that'.

 

I asked twice for you to read from the law book, I never mentioned law 41 but when asked which law I wanted you to read I said "defenders opening lead". I think its a bit of a over reaction to change this to "demanding that I read law41"

[McBruce]

I don't recall either the opening leader or his partner denying that the card had been led, I only recall them both saying the card could not be seen.

 

Let's not turn this into a bun fight. I think it's a case where there is something to learn and perhaps if it occurs again it can be better handled by all involved and the players can go away a little wiser.

 

I dunno, maybe a bun fight would be entertaining. What does it involve? :)

 

The OL and his partner denied that the original card had been led (by which I mean 'placed face down in a position to indicate a FDOL') the first time. It certainly was led after the OL retracted his second, face-up lead, and replaced it with the third card, which we all must hope was the same as the unexposed first card. So I can see how my question could be answered yes and no. Anyway, the ACBL TD forum has an account of the incident and my request for information on what constitutes a FDOL. We may know by July: things move slower there.

[jillybean]

I think you may find that the OL and his partner's understanding of the question "was the card led?" was, had the card been flipped over?

 

Bun fight (I'm British remember)

 

Q I can’t find the origin of the phrase bun fight, though I suspect P G Wodehouse might be responsible. Could you help, please?

A P G Wodehouse has been responsible for several things, most notably the best comic writing in English, but we’re fairly sure he didn’t invent this one. Who did is lost in the anonymity of slang history, but it seems to have first appeared in the late nineteenth century, a bit early for Wodehouse.

If it sounds to you like a Victorian children’s nursery at teatime, that surely must be the original allusion behind it. Imagine children having tea, inevitably squabbling over the buns, teacakes, muffins and — this being a British expression — crumpets. Two similar expressions are known from the middle of the nineteenth century: crumpet-scramble and muffin-worry; these haven’t survived.

Interestingly, some of the early uses of bun-fight (these days, also often bunfight) borrowed the idea of afternoon tea in the nursery but left out the fighting: it could refer to the most decorous of engagements, such as those one was invited to by elderly aunts of the Wodehousian persuasion, at which squabbling over food was inconceivable. Then, as now, a bun-fight could more generally be any occasion at which food was served, it often being a sarcastic term describing rather formal ones for which guests had to dress up. In 1994, a newspaper report told of a British MP who turned up improperly dressed (in a lounge suit) at an engagement that was described as the “annual bunfight of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, at which black tie and decorations are de rigueur”.

Another sense of bun-fight, also still with us, borrowed the fight sense but left out the food. Often this refers to a heated altercation, but one that the describing observer feels is of no importance, rather like the nursery squabble that started the expression off.

[blackshoe]

As far as I can see, a face down opening lead is treated in the same way as a face up opening lead, the only difference being that it is made face down. Also, I am not going to rule that cards a player puts face down on the table are leads when he is clearly sorting his hand. If some SB declarer doesn't like that, tough.

 

I would have read your declarer the riot act, and then given him some combination of DP and PP for failure to follow the instructions of the TD, attempting to take the law into his own hands, and whatever else I can think of.

[jillybean]

As far as I can see, a face down opening lead is treated in the same way as a face up opening lead, the only difference being that it is made face down. Also, I am not going to rule that cards a player puts face down on the table are leads when he is clearly sorting his hand. If some SB declarer doesn't like that, tough.

 

I would have read your declarer the riot act, and then given him her some combination of DP and PP for failure to follow the instructions of the TD, attempting to take the law into hisher own hands, and whatever else I can think of.

FYP

 

What instructions did I not follow and how did I attempt to take the law into my own hands?

 

I am not sure what "Also, I am not going to rule that cards a player puts face down on the table are leads when he is clearly sorting his hand. If some SB declarer doesn't like that, tough." has to do with this ?

[gnasher]

I don't think there's any ambiguity in the rules.

 

Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing* it ...

* The opening lead is first made face down ...

 

... the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down ...

 

So for it to constitute a lead it has to (a) have been detached from his hand for the purpose of leading it, and (b) be face down. If he detached it for some other purpose, he hasn't led it. If it's not yet face-down, he hasn't led it.

 

The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity.

 

So once it meets the conditions of having been led, it can't be withdrawn.

[gnasher]

Obviously there's some disagreement about exactly what occurred and what was said, but one thing is apparent: the director gave a ruling without consulting the Law book.

 

That's OK as long as you're familiar with the relevant laws. However, if you rule without referring to the written Laws, and are then asked by a player to read out the Law under which you ruled, you should be able to find it immediately, and its contents should not come as a surpise to you.

[McBruce]

Obviously there's some disagreement about exactly what occurred and what was said, but one thing is apparent: the director gave a ruling without consulting the Law book.

 

That's OK as long as you're familiar with the relevant laws. However, if you rule without referring to the written Laws, and are then asked by a player to read out the Law under which you ruled, you should be able to find it immediately, and its contents should not come as a surpise to you.

 

Assumes facts not in evidence. None of the above happened.