Speak or die

[barmar]

Is the facing and withdrawal of an illegal card the same as facing an opening lead? Since this card cannot be the opening lead, we could say the auction period has not ended by it being shown.

22B1 doesn't say that it has to be a legal opening lead. A lead out of turn isn't legal, but it also ends the auction period -- we deal with rectifying it as part of the play period.

[blackshoe]

If you're trying to have a discussion, this is an absurd way to do so. You might instead say what you think was wrong with what I wrote.

 

OP may have called it an "opening lead", but given that no card from the actual set of cards on lead has been faced, there has been no opening lead.

That, as Jerry Pournelle used to say, turns out not to be the case.

 

Law 41C: Following this clarification period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy’s hand is spread (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn).

 

Law 54A: 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.

The only thing that would not irrevocably begin the play period is a lead by the putative declaring side, which per Law 54F is handled by Law 24. The latter law deals with cards exposed during the auction period.

[jeffford76]

You're right, my statement was not completely correct, as a lead from the wrong hand can become the opening lead. This has no relevance to the case under discussion. The player on lead faced a card that was not a card from the current deal. He might as well have faced his shoe. There has been no opening lead.

[blackshoe]

There has been no opening lead.

I disagree.

[dburn]

Well, the Definitions say that a lead is the first card played to a trick, and that the opening lead is the card led to the first trick. Law 1 defines a card, and what West led met that definition. The fact that it was a card he was not supposed to hold on the current deal does not, in my view, legally prevent it from being regarded as an opening lead.

[pran]

Well, the Definitions say that a lead is the first card played to a trick, and that the opening lead is the card led to the first trick. Law 1 defines a card, and what West led met that definition. The fact that it was a card he was not supposed to hold on the current deal does not, in my view, legally prevent it from being regarded as an opening lead.

Just a small correction:

 

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.

 

So the auction period does not end until an opening lead (by a defender) has been faced.

 

However, I agree that this opening lead does not have to be a card actually supposed to be held by the defender, it may very well be a card the defender held in error and led in good faith.

[gnasher]

Well, the Definitions say that a lead is the first card played to a trick, and that the opening lead is the card led to the first trick. Law 1 defines a card, and what West led met that definition. The fact that it was a card he was not supposed to hold on the current deal does not, in my view, legally prevent it from being regarded as an opening lead.

Law 1 defines a card as being one of "a pack of 52 cards". Something found in another board isn't part of that pack, any more than West's shoe would be.

[Trinidad]

Law 1 defines a card as being one of "a pack of 52 cards". Something found in another board isn't part of that pack, any more than West's shoe would be.

I agree with that, but it may lead to some fun consequences.

 

With South the presumed declarer, East might "accidentally" make an "opening lead" with a card from another deck. South puts his hand down as dummy and now West will make a true opening lead. EW will defend double dummy.

 

It is unlikely that East leading his shoe would have the same effect. ;)

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

"a" pack means any pack, not a specific pack.

 

I keep hoping to avoid "how many angels can dance on the nine of spades" discussion, as are common on blml, in here. Every so often, I'm disappointed. :(

[dburn]

It ain't so, Joe. Law 1 fails (crucially, although the significance of the omission has not been important until now) to stipulate that the 52 cards in a pack should all be different. What West led is a card as prescribed in Law 1, which his shoe would not be. Since it was a card, it was an opening lead.

 

Of course, the trouble stems from the fact that what constitutes a "card" is far from obvious. What, after all, is "the seven of diamonds"?

[jeffford76]

I keep hoping to avoid "how many angels can dance on the nine of spades" discussion, as are common on blml, in here. Every so often, I'm disappointed. :(

 

So who gets to decide when a discussion is interesting and worthwhile and when it counts as angels dancing?

 

Just because you find something obvious and unworthy of discussion doesn't mean the rest of us do.

[blackshoe]

So who gets to decide when a discussion is interesting and worthwhile and when it counts as angels dancing?

 

Just because you find something obvious and unworthy of discussion doesn't mean the rest of us do.

David Stevenson and I get to decide, since we run this forum. However, we do try to avoid drastic action, which is why we almost always let such threads run their course. I would like to point out, however, that our purpose in starting IBLF was to provide a place to discuss practical table rulings, leaving the finer points for blml or rgb or other forums.

[gnasher]

David Stevenson and I get to decide, since we run this forum. However, we do try to avoid drastic action, which is why we almost always let such threads run their course. I would like to point out, however, that our purpose in starting IBLF was to provide a place to discuss practical table rulings, leaving the finer points for blml or rgb or other forums.

But you haven't just let this thread run its course: you've participated in it too. Surely you're not trying to claim that all your posts in this thread have been about practical table rulings?

[pran]

But you haven't just let this thread run its course: you've participated in it too. Surely you're not trying to claim that all your posts in this thread have been about practical table rulings?

Would you please mind stop just there! This is getting boring.

[blackshoe]

Sven's right.

[jeffford76]

David Stevenson and I get to decide, since we run this forum. However, we do try to avoid drastic action, which is why we almost always let such threads run their course. I would like to point out, however, that our purpose in starting IBLF was to provide a place to discuss practical table rulings, leaving the finer points for blml or rgb or other forums.

 

I think that most questions about "practical" table rulings are going to have little to discuss. These are the sorts of things that almost all directors agree on the answer to, so someone will post the correct answer, and a couple people may concur, and there's not much more to say.

 

In general things that generate long discussion are going to be on points where the law is vague, or can be read in multiple ways. In this case, I'm still not sure whether the definition of a pack is intended to mean a specific pack that is used for the deal or any pack (and admittedly at this point I don't think anyone is going to say anything enlightening either way, but if someone thinks they can I wouldn't want to stop them).

 

I'm also not sure why "BLML" is continually used as some kind of bogeyman. Most of the messages of late on BLML have been about the practical application of claim rules at the table, and about whether we would be better off with more prescribed guidelines on what counted as a normal line of play for the purposes of resolving bad claims. That seems like an imminently practical discussion to me.

 

Obviously as the moderator you can allow whatever discussion you wish, but I would request that you use a light touch, particularly in threads where you have been a part of the discussion. It doesn't sit well to have a moderator enter a discussion, and then when they get pushback on their opinion threaten to shut down the topic.

[nige1]

Obviously as the moderator you can allow whatever discussion you wish, but I would request that you use a light touch, particularly in threads where you have been a part of the discussion. It doesn't sit well to have a moderator enter a discussion, and then when they get pushback on their opinion threaten to shut down the topic.

I haven't recently checked, but in the past, posts disagreeing with a moderator were sometimes deleted without warning.

[dburn]

Whether facing a card from a hand you don't actually hold on the deal is an opening lead or not may be regarded as an abstract question, but the situation I described did arise in actual play, and someone had to give a "practical" ruling. He looked at the actual West hand, which would have done nothing but pass in any auction where East had not made an unconditionally forcing bid, and told West to lead from it. This wasn't legal, but it was "practical" enough, and the players accepted it and got on with the game.

 

When he asked me about it, I read the Laws. I observed that the only Law covering cards from a wrong board was Law 17, clearly headed The Auction Period. I know as well as anyone that the headings are not part of the Laws, and that if this was the only Law covering the situation it should be followed as far as it could be followed. I observed that it could give rise to the (to my mind) ridiculous position that different cases would be treated differently depending on who had the wrong cards. As a practical matter, it would be sensible for this Law to be reviewed in the course of preparing the 2017 edition of the Laws. Also, Law 1 should be tightened.

[Trinidad]

David Stevenson and I get to decide, since we run this forum. However, we do try to avoid drastic action, which is why we almost always let such threads run their course. I would like to point out, however, that our purpose in starting IBLF was to provide a place to discuss practical table rulings, leaving the finer points for blml or rgb or other forums.

Please lighten up and look at the left top of your screen. What does it say?

 

It says "BBO Discussion Forums" (emphasis mine). That means that opinions are going to be exchanged, ideally supported by facts, interpretations and good reasoning. It does not say "The medium where David and Ed spread the irrevocable truth about bridge Laws". It is not merely allowed for people to voice opinions, including opinions that are not yours. No, people are supposed to voice their opinions and discuss.

 

Generally speaking, I find the BBO forum members refreshingly mature. With few exceptions, people can debate -sometimes fiercely- while showing a lot of respect for the other side in the debate. This is something very valuable. There are very few places where people are able to discuss constructively and learn from the ideas on the other side. The BBF community contains people that are witty, wise, knowledgeable, serious and intelligent from very different places with very different professional backgrounds and, hence, very different cultures and ways of reasoning. These differences are exactly what makes BBF interesting.

 

So, please let the discussions run their course, even if you, e.g., think that leading a shoe is absurd. The discussions will stop by themselves as soon as everything has been said.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I think that most questions about "practical" table rulings are going to have little to discuss. These are the sorts of things that almost all directors agree on the answer to, so someone will post the correct answer, and a couple people may concur, and there's not much more to say.

 

In general things that generate long discussion are going to be on points where the law is vague, or can be read in multiple ways. In this case, I'm still not sure whether the definition of a pack is intended to mean a specific pack that is used for the deal or any pack (and admittedly at this point I don't think anyone is going to say anything enlightening either way, but if someone thinks they can I wouldn't want to stop them).

 

I'm also not sure why "BLML" is continually used as some kind of bogeyman. Most of the messages of late on BLML have been about the practical application of claim rules at the table, and about whether we would be better off with more prescribed guidelines on what counted as a normal line of play for the purposes of resolving bad claims. That seems like an imminently practical discussion to me.

 

Obviously as the moderator you can allow whatever discussion you wish, but I would request that you use a light touch, particularly in threads where you have been a part of the discussion. It doesn't sit well to have a moderator enter a discussion, and then when they get pushback on their opinion threaten to shut down the topic.

Did I threaten to shut down this topic? I don't think so. Perhaps I was misinterpreted.

 

I haven't recently checked, but in the past, posts disagreeing with a moderator were sometimes deleted without warning.

Not, I hope, by me.

 

Please lighten up and look at the left top of your screen. What does it say?

 

It says "BBO Discussion Forums" (emphasis mine). That means that opinions are going to be exchanged, ideally supported by facts, interpretations and good reasoning. It does not say "The medium where David and Ed spread the irrevocable truth about bridge Laws". It is not merely allowed for people to voice opinions, including opinions that are not yours. No, people are supposed to voice their opinions and discuss.

 

Generally speaking, I find the BBO forum members refreshingly mature. With few exceptions, people can debate -sometimes fiercely- while showing a lot of respect for the other side in the debate. This is something very valuable. There are very few places where people are able to discuss constructively and learn from the ideas on the other side. The BBF community contains people that are witty, wise, knowledgeable, serious and intelligent from very different places with very different professional backgrounds and, hence, very different cultures and ways of reasoning. These differences are exactly what makes BBF interesting.

 

So, please let the discussions run their course, even if you, e.g., think that leading a shoe is absurd. The discussions will stop by themselves as soon as everything has been said.

 

Rik

I do try to let things run their course. I also do point out from time to time when I think they've run on long enough, but show no signs of stopping. Perhaps that's a failure on my part, but I've been running discussions like this for a very long time, and if it's a failure, it's an old one learned early on. As for your "it does not say" I think that's a little over the top. Neither David nor I have ever claimed to have all the answers.

 

Oh, and at the left top of my screen it says "Safari". <_<

[blackshoe]

Whether facing a card from a hand you don't actually hold on the deal is an opening lead or not may be regarded as an abstract question, but the situation I described did arise in actual play, and someone had to give a "practical" ruling. He looked at the actual West hand, which would have done nothing but pass in any auction where East had not made an unconditionally forcing bid, and told West to lead from it. This wasn't legal, but it was "practical" enough, and the players accepted it and got on with the game.

 

When he asked me about it, I read the Laws. I observed that the only Law covering cards from a wrong board was Law 17, clearly headed The Auction Period. I know as well as anyone that the headings are not part of the Laws, and that if this was the only Law covering the situation it should be followed as far as it could be followed. I observed that it could give rise to the (to my mind) ridiculous position that different cases would be treated differently depending on who had the wrong cards. As a practical matter, it would be sensible for this Law to be reviewed in the course of preparing the 2017 edition of the Laws. Also, Law 1 should be tightened.

I don't see anything here with which to disagree. B-)

[ArtK78]

I haven't recently checked, but in the past, posts disagreeing with a moderator were sometimes deleted without warning.

 

Even worse can be having your post cut off in mid

[blackshoe]

heh

[jeffford76]

Did I threaten to shut down this topic? I don't think so. Perhaps I was misinterpreted.

 

It is hard not to interpret a statement by a moderator that a particular direction of discussion is not appropriate as an implicit threat even if it wasn't intended that way. I agree that you have made no explicit statement.

 

I also realize that this discussion of moderation is orthogonal to the interesting OP and discussion, so I will not comment any more about the moderation in this thread.