Call for a card not in dummy and next hand follows

[campboy]

I think pran is right. The laws define "lead" as "the first card played to a trick". No other card has been played to this trick. So the play out of turn (and we all seem to agree it was played) was a lead, even though the player did not intend it to be. I don't like it, but that is what the laws say.

[pran]

I think pran is right. The laws define "lead" as "the first card played to a trick". No other card has been played to this trick. So the play out of turn (and we all seem to agree it was played) was a lead, even though the player did not intend it to be. I don't like it, but that is what the laws say.

The moral of all this is of course:

 

Pay attention, do not act on what declarer says he wants to do but wait till it is actually done.

[lamford]

The laws define "lead" as "the first card played to a trick". No other card has been played to this trick.

You could argue that it does not become a trick until other cards are played to it, as "trick" is defined as "consisting unless flawed of four cards". And I do not buy the argument that this is a flawed trick of one card! There never will be a trick beginning with the lead of the QC in this example. I think that the QC is a penalty card unless the TD designates otherwise. It was played prematurely before dummy had placed a card in the played position. And I think jallerton's (dissewogified) solution is probably the correct one.

[campboy]

You could argue that it does not become a trick until other cards are played to it, as "trick" is defined as "consisting unless flawed of four cards". And I do not buy the argument that this is a flawed trick of one card! There never will be a trick beginning with the lead of the QC in this example. I think that the QC is a penalty card unless the TD designates otherwise. It was played prematurely before dummy had placed a card in the played position. And I think jallerton's (dissewogified) solution is probably the correct one.

You could, but by that argument it would be impossible to lead out of turn in any situation.

[Vampyr]

You could, but by that argument it would be impossible to lead out of turn in any situation.

 

It seems to me that for a card to be considered led, there must have been an intention to lead it.

[blackshoe]

Upthread, I went through the entire process of ruling, specifying at each step which law I was applying. Would you please do that, Sven, for your interpretation? All this vague hand-wavy "everybody knows what the law is" stuff is giving me heartburn. B-)

[lamford]

You could, but by that argument it would be impossible to lead out of turn in any situation.

No, it would just show that there was an inaccurate definition of "lead" in the Laws. It should read "the first card played to a trick or a single card placed on the table with the intention of commencing a trick."

[campboy]

No, it would just show that there was an inaccurate definition of "lead" in the Laws. It should read "the first card played to a trick or a single card placed on the table with the intention of commencing a trick."

We have to work with the definition that is actually in the laws, not the one that we would like to be there. I agree that your definition would be a great improvement.

[Aardv]

I am ruling under Law 84. 84B tells us what to do "If the case is clearly covered by a Law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity". Well this one isn't clearly covered. So I go to 84D "He seeks to restore equity".

[blackshoe]

Aardv, I don't think that's enough. In particular, how do you "restore equity" in the middle of the play?

[pran]

Upthread, I went through the entire process of ruling, specifying at each step which law I was applying. Would you please do that, Sven, for your interpretation? All this vague hand-wavy "everybody knows what the law is" stuff is giving me heartburn. B-)

The sequence of irregularities and corresponding application of laws is:

1: Declarer calls from dummy a card that is not in dummy.

Both Laws 45B and 46B4 appears applicable, but as L46B4 is clearly the more spcific of the two it takes precedence.

Ruling: The (spoken) call is void and no card has been played from dummy.

2: East plays his ♣Q intending to "follow suit". However, as no card has been played from dummy he is not following suit to anything, he is playing the first card to the trick. This play is therefore a first play (AKA "lead") out of turn, and Law 56 applies. This Law directs us to Law 54D, and from thereon the ruling should be straight forward.

 

Law 23 could be applicable on either, or even both irregularities, but as the situation has been described I find this very unlikely.

[lamford]

We have to work with the definition that is actually in the laws, not the one that we would like to be there. I agree that your definition would be a great improvement.

Well, under the definition in the Laws, there can never be a lead unless there is a trick. Therefore, the QC is just an exposed card. So are all LOOTs!

[barmar]

Don't the laws already require us to distinguish a lead to the next trick from a fifth card played to the previous trick? If we can tell that difference, can't we similarly tell the difference between "following" to the voided lead and leading?

[blackshoe]

This play is therefore a first play (AKA "lead") out of turn

Per which law?

[aguahombre]

Aardv, I don't think that's enough. In particular, how do you "restore equity" in the middle of the play?

By doing what Aardv advocates...and using the Law he cites. It might be "Solomonic", but I don't think following an available path (Law 84) can be against the Laws.

 

We might prefer to follow the letters of different laws to punish the guy who held the Club Queen for a transgression he shouldn't have had to contend with in the first place. Or, we might go with Aardv and get on with our lives.

[blackshoe]

We might prefer to follow the letters of different laws to punish the guy who held the Club Queen for a transgression he shouldn't have had to contend with in the first place.

Whaddya mean "we", kemo sabe?

[pran]

This play is therefore a first play (AKA "lead") out of turn

Per which law?

44A

[blackshoe]

This play is therefore a first play (AKA "lead") out of turn

Per which law?

44A

Nope. 44A just says that when a player leads to a trick he may play any card in his hand. It doesn't say the ♣Q in this case is a lead.

[pran]

Nope. 44A just says that when a player leads to a trick he may play any card in his hand. It doesn't say the ♣Q in this case is a lead.

Sorry, I should have included

Lead The first card played to a trick.

[GreenMan]

I think we would all be happy if the Laws carried some provision for a situation where someone plays a card because an opponent misled him or her. It's clear by now that they do not. Surely this is why L84 exists, because the Law writers did not anticipate every possible situation ahead of time? Why tie ourselves (and the FLB) in knots?

[pran]

I think we would all be happy if the Laws carried some provision for a situation where someone plays a card because an opponent misled him or her. It's clear by now that they do not. Surely this is why L84 exists, because the Law writers did not anticipate every possible situation ahead of time? Why tie ourselves (and the FLB) in knots?

They do if a player is genuinly misled:

A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.

and

a. A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponents 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 (a) the Director may award an adjusted score.

[Bbradley62]

Then, does "no further rectification" mean there is no UI to anyone?

[pran]

Then, does "no further rectification" mean there is no UI to anyone?

Literally yes, but Law47 of 1987 included the following section F:

If a card retracted under section C, D or E preceeding gave substantial information to the offending side, the Director may award an adjusted score.

 

I believe that this section has been deleted as being superfluous because the Director already has such powers. Clearly a side that has misled opponents to commit a play out of turn shall not gain from seeing the card incorrectly played and subsequently retracted.

[aguahombre]

Then, does "no further rectification" mean there is no UI to anyone?

It would seem not to matter whether the information is called AI or UI if there is no further rectification.

 

(edit) Sven cross posted a different angle above; but I wonder if the TD really has powers to disregard "no rectification".

 

Hopefully, the side which caused the appearance of an opponent's card cannot gain from it...but, last time I checked, no meant no.

[pran]

It would seem not to matter whether the information is called AI or UI if there is no further rectification.

Presumed declarer or dummy mistakenly tells RHO that it is his turn to play. RHO plays a card which is then retracted and restored to RHO's closed hand.

 

Is knowledge of the fact that RHO has this card authorized or unauthorized information: a} to LHO, b} to Declarer?

 

My understanding is that the laws do not immediately bother, but expect the Director to award an adjusted score if he subsequently finds that this knowledge has had serious impact on the play.