Jump to content

Defender's lead to trick 1


jillybean

Recommended Posts

I didn't ask the right question, let me try again :)

Why shouldn't the opening leader detach a card, place it face down, or nearly face down, put it back in her hand and then detach another before making her opening lead?

Yes, this could transmit unauthorized information that opening leader has more than one viable lead, or doubt about the actual lead. This unauthorized information is also available when OL detaches a card and puts it back in her hand without tabling it.

 

Consider the OL of a singleton. If OL detaches a card, replaces it, and then selects another lead, OL's partner can be pretty sure that OL is not leading a singleton and looking for a ruff. Again, this would apply whether or not the lead hit the table.

 

I think you make a valid point that the detaching is probably more important than the hitting the table. I thought I read a rule, or maybe a guideline, in ACBL recently that a detached OL is the same as a tabled face down OL, that is, OL cannot change his mind unless it is without pause for thought as in a mechanical error of pulling the wrong card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I read a rule, or maybe a guideline, in ACBL recently that a detached OL is the same as a tabled face down OL, that is, OL cannot change his mind unless it is without pause for thought as in a mechanical error of pulling the wrong card.

Without a reference, it's difficult to say what impact this thought of yours may have on rulings in North America. Absent some indication that this is indeed how the ACBL wants us to interpret the law, I'm sticking with this: the lead is not made until it is on the table (Law 41A).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without a reference, it's difficult to say what impact this thought of yours may have on rulings in North America. Absent some indication that this is indeed how the ACBL wants us to interpret the law, I'm sticking with this: the lead is not made until it is on the table (Law 41A).

 

Indeed. I can't find reference. I was hoping my comment would spark someone else's memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah ok, I have always been very careful to choose my lead before detaching a card. If it makes no difference if I detach a card or not then I can do more thinking with a card in my hand and simply put it back if I change my mind.

 

The law may be better written as:

A face-down lead may be withdrawn only before the question period or upon

instruction of the Director after an irregularity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you make a valid point that the detaching is probably more important than the hitting the table. I thought I read a rule, or maybe a guideline, in ACBL recently that a detached OL is the same as a tabled face down OL, that is, OL cannot change his mind unless it is without pause for thought as in a mechanical error of pulling the wrong card.

Phew, a voice of reason :). This seems to be most sensible way of applying the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jillybean, if all you wanted was agreement with your opinion, that's fine. I won't get into that issue.

 

However, if you want a real reason as to why, I think it's simply 'hysterical raisins' - i.e. that's just the way they decided to word it when they brought in face-down opening leads. There needs to be a point (well, there doesn't, really, but the lawmakers chose to put in a point) where the lead, even though not seen by anyone, has been made.

 

As for the UI from pulling a card, putting it back, taking another, vs. putting a lead face-down and pulling it back, to lead another - sure, that's the same, and the TD should be called on the UI, if you think it may be relevant. But that's *another issue* to whether the lead's been made and *is allowed to be* changed. We deal with UI all the time.

 

As a companion case, the ACBL has regulations on when a bid is made using bidding boxes. Much of the world thinks our regulation is hugely inappropriately friendly to the "bidder" (it was written that way to get people comfortable with bidding boxes. I think we can say now that everyone is at least as comfortable with boxes as with spoken bidding, and no longer do we need to be generous about "this new tool"; but it hasn't been considered important enough to change), and the UI implications from "that bid hasn't been made" are many and often. BUT - when it's in position X, even though everyone who was watching knows what it was, it wasn't made, and can be "changed", passing lots of UI; when it's in position Y, it was, and can't be changed save for "inadvertent call". Where the line is, is a matter of regulation or law.

 

If the TD, after questioning and perhaps seeing with demonstrations, judges that the original face-down card was led, then that's one case. If he (in this case) judges that it was not led, then it's another case. That's his job, and he does it to the best of his ability. Barring video replay of every table, and *lots* of niggling corner-case regulation, you're going to get that, and you're going to get "wrong" rulings occasionally (which look "obviously right" to the other side).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the purpose of this sentence in law41A "The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity" ?

I suspect the answer is really quite simple - there needs to be a way of determining when you have actually made your lead. It's not sufficient to say "when you turn it over" because there needs to be a Clarification Period first. And how do we know when the Clarification Period begins if you're free to change your selected face-down lead? The only alternative would be to allow you to faff around, changing your face-down card at will, and finally announce "I'm ready [at last]" or some such mechanism for embarking on the Clarification Period. This obviously would be unsatisfactory for all sorts of reasons (including all the UI you could transmit), so it's best to go with a straightforward "you make one choice and take it from there".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and finally announce "I'm ready [at last]"

"Any questions partner?" is traditional where I come from. The current Law does not support this as the beginning of the Clarification Period, it begins when the faced down lead is made. I have not personally found any problems with the Law as it stands other than, occasionally, a player putting their lead back in their hand when partner does ask a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Any questions partner?" is traditional where I come from.

As it is here. The idea was to highlight the contrast between current practice and what would have to apply in a different scenario ("The only alternative ...") - I'm sorry if the differentiation didn't come across clearly enough for you.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errr yeah, I know the laws says that a face down lead is a lead. What I am trying to ascertain is why does this law exist, why shouldn't I put the card back it my hand and lead another card?

That's different. If that is your question then this is the wrong forum. No wonder I have misunderstood you.

 

Mind you, I cannot see any advantage to being allowed to change your lead anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's different. If that is your question then this is the wrong forum. No wonder I have misunderstood you.

 

Mind you, I cannot see any advantage to being allowed to change your lead anyway.

There may be some confusion here.

 

Certainly if I lead face down, then I can't later change my lead.

 

If while deciding on which card to lead can I place a card on the table in front of me (but don't lead it), think for a while longer, change my mind and then lead a different card face down?

 

Obviously there are UI implications here, but I can give UI over my opening lead in a number of other ways, but is that allowed? Or do the laws define that if a card is face down it is ipso facto a face down opening lead?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly if I lead face down, then I can't later change my lead.

 

If while deciding on which card to lead can I place a card on the table in front of me (but don't lead it), think for a while longer, change my mind and then lead a different card face down?

 

Obviously there are UI implications here, but I can give UI over my opening lead in a number of other ways, but is that allowed? Or do the laws define that if a card is face down it is ipso facto a face down opening lead?

How are we supposed to tell the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I continue to think that the idea that a FDOL is made once it is detached is nuts, but we continue to await word from the ACBL forum, where the post has been viewed 20 times but no response has yet appeared.

 

Any word yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...