'Your lead'

[sanst]

[hv=pc=n&s=s653hqjda54cqt987&w=sqt9h9876d876ca43&n=sk4hakt2dkqjt9cj2&e=saj872h543d32ck65&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1np2np3nppp]399|300[/hv]

The bidding over, North turns to East and says 'Your lead'. East puts ♠2 open on the table and South starts to expose his hand, but at card #8 says 'This ain't right, I'm the declarer and West should lead'. The director is called. What should be his decission?

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=s653hqjda54cqt987&w=sqt9h9876d876ca43&n=sk4hakt2dkqjt9cj2&e=saj872h543d32ck65&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1np2np3nppp]399|300[/hv]

The bidding over, North turns to East and says 'Your lead'. East puts ♠2 open on the table and South starts to expose his hand, but at card #8 says 'This ain't right, I'm the declarer and West should lead'. The director is called. What should be his decission?

OLOOT accepted so complete the play.

 

Once play is completed he should use Law 23 and rule that North when committing the irregularity of telling East to lead "could have known" that this irregularity would be advantageous for North/South in protecting them from a damaging spade lead by West.

 

Therefore the final result should be adjusted to 3NT-3.

[blackshoe]

"I'm the declarer…"

 

Not anymore. Law 54A.

 

Was the opening lead made face down or face up?

[sanst]

"I'm the declarer…"

 

Not anymore. Law 54A.

 

Was the opening lead made face down or face up?

Face up.

[campboy]

OLOOT accepted so complete the play.

Nope.

 

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.

[blackshoe]

If we apply 47E I guess we tell East to pick up his card, West that knowledge that his partner has that card is authorized to him (Law 16D) and South that knowledge of East's card is unauthorized to him. Then we tell South to pick up his cards, and tell EW that knowledge of South's cards is authorized to them (Law 16D again). Then we tell 'em to get on with the play, West leading face down (if you don't remind him at this point, he'll probably lead face up. That may or may not be a problem).

 

I might still be inclined to give a PP to East, if only a warning, about his leading face up.

 

How do we know that 47E supersedes 54A?

[pran]

OLOOT accepted so complete the play.

Nope.

Indeed Yes!

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.

 

If we apply 47E I guess we tell East to pick up his card, West that knowledge that his partner has that card is authorized to him (Law 16D) and South that knowledge of East's card is unauthorized to him. Then we tell South to pick up his cards, and tell EW that knowledge of South's cards is authorized to them (Law 16D again). Then we tell 'em to get on with the play, West leading face down (if you don't remind him at this point, he'll probably lead face up. That may or may not be a problem).

 

I might still be inclined to give a PP to East, if only a warning, about his leading face up.

 

How do we know that 47E supersedes 54A?

It doesn't. Law 54A applies specifically to faced opening leads and is therefore more specific than Law 47E.

 

(Also don't overlook that Law 47E says "may" while Law 54A is unconditional once declarer has exposed at least one card.)

 

I would not bother about any PP to East in this case (and definitely not anything more that a mild warning). North's irregularity is so much more grave that I instead might consider a PP on him in addition to the adjusted score.

 

I stand by my ruling 3NT-3.

[blackshoe]

I stand by my ruling 3NT-3.

Where's the selfie? :D

[campboy]

How do we know that 47E supersedes 54A?

Because 47E says there is no further rectification. In the case of an OLOOT, Law 54 is the rectification in question that there is no of.

 

If 47E didn't supersede the laws governing rectification of leads/plays out of turn, it would be completely pointless.

[blackshoe]

I like Sven's reasoning better. Sorry, Campboy. ;)

[mgoetze]

I might still be inclined to give a PP to East, if only a warning, about his leading face up.

I think if a TD gave a PP everytime someone led face up he could hand out more PPs in a single tournament than were issued in every tournament I've ever attended combined.

[blackshoe]

Cool! Maybe he'll end up in the Guinness Book of Records! B-)

[pran]

Because 47E says there is no further rectification. In the case of an OLOOT, Law 54 is the rectification in question that there is no of.

 

If 47E didn't supersede the laws governing rectification of leads/plays out of turn, it would be completely pointless.

Don't confuse leads out of turn with opening leads out of turn.

Law 47 applies to the former (general case), Law 54 to the latter (special case).

[campboy]

Don't confuse leads out of turn with opening leads out of turn.

Law 47 applies to the former (general case), Law 54 to the latter (special case).

Nonsense. Law 47 is not about leads out of turn at all; it is about situations where a card may be withdrawn.

 

One of these is when a player has been incorrectly informed that it is his turn. Law 54A is not more specific than 47E, because 54A considers the general (and common) case of an OLOOT rather than the special (and rare) case where it is because the player has been incorrectly informed.

[pran]

Nonsense. Law 47 is not about leads out of turn at all; it is about situations where a card may be withdrawn.

 

One of these is when a player has been incorrectly informed that it is his turn. Law 54A is not more specific than 47E, because 54A considers the general (and common) case of an OLOOT rather than the special (and rare) case where it is because the player has been incorrectly informed.

May I remind you that

1. 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.

 

2. 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.

and

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.

Law 47E concerns the general case of a lead out of turn while Law 54A only applies when the lead out of turn is also an opening lead. Already that alone makes Law 54A more specific than Law 47E.

 

But in addition Law 47E2 explicitly forbids any retraction of an OLOOT after dummy has faced any card. And according to Law 54A declarer becomes dummy if (and when) he exposes any of his cards in an act of spreading his hand as dummy.

[sanst]

Sorry about confusing te issue, but E put his card face down on the table and then turned it face up, as is normal when your partner doesn't have a question.

I don't think that E is an offender for exposing his lead. Law 47E seems to say so.

Has anybody considered the last sentence of Law 47E1: "A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances."

[pran]

Sorry about confusing te issue, but E put his card face down on the table and then turned it face up, as is normal when your partner doesn't have a question.

I don't think that E is an offender for exposing his lead. Law 47E seems to say so.

Has anybody considered the last sentence of Law 47E1: "A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances."

The purpose of this sentence is to make it absolutely clear that LHO may not "accept" the lead out of turn when the offender prefers to retract his lead out of turn in these circumstances.

 

However in the current situation we have an opening lead out of turn and a (presumed) declarer who subsequently began facing his hand. That is a case for Law 54A, not 47E.

[sanst]

The purpose of this sentence is to make it absolutely clear that LHO may not "accept" the lead out of turn when the offender prefers to retract his lead out of turn in these circumstances.

 

However in the current situation we have an opening lead out of turn and a (presumed) declarer who subsequently began facing his hand. That is a case for Law 54A, not 47E.

Law 47E1: 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.

The conditions in this law where met: E led because he was mistakenly informed by N. So there is no 'simple' LOOT. Putting down his hand by S is arguably accepting, which this law forbids. E and S should pick up their cards, W leads and both the lead of E and what he has seen of the hand of the dummy is AI for him and UI for NS.

[blackshoe]

This is bringing back to my mind Edgar Kaplan's "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it." I thought we'd decided he was wrong about that. :blink:

[pran]

This is bringing back to my mind Edgar Kaplan's "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it." I thought we'd decided he was wrong about that. :blink:

He was indeed wrong in that respect despite his other qualities.

But I am quite confident that Kaplan would never have dreamt of using Law 47E here, it almost destroys the board beyond being playable instead of having the player play out the board in a next to normal way.

 

However, the Director must be aware of Law 23 on the action taken by North and award an adjusted score after play is complete!

[VixTD]

I agree with Pran on his application of laws 47 and 54, and I'm sure you could make law 23 stick (North could know it would be advantageous for the lead to come to the strong hand, or perhaps he's a better declarer than South), but I wonder if you couldn't rule under law 12A1 if there was no way North could have been aware. If North happens to get a good result from telling the wrong opponent to make a lead, it seems a bit rough to let the score stand, even if East shouldn't have fallen for it. Perhaps East is not a non-offender, as law 12A1 requires. (I know that law 12A1 should only be applied where there's no other law that empowers the TD to award an adjusted score for damage, and we have found two laws that apply here, 47 and 54, but these laws don't address the question of damage.)

 

Anyway, where I do disagree with Pran is in his actual adjustment. Three undertricks seems far too generous to EW, unless this is a North American ruling. Doesn't a heart lead look more natural from West, after which South can make nine tricks. I'd give some percentage of -3, but certainly less than 50.

[lamford]

I know that law 12A1 should only be applied where there's no other law that empowers the TD to award an adjusted score for damage, and we have found two laws that apply here, 47 and 54, but these laws don't address the question of damage.)

Where the other laws fail to provide rectification for an infraction, I think Law 12A1 should apply. I know that gordontd feels that if the other laws have failed to provide redress for one or more infractions, that is just bad luck, and the TD cannot adjust the score because the remedy provided by those laws was insufficient. Brian Senior, representing the players, thinks that equity should always be restored and you should NEVER be able to gain from an infraction. Gordontd can speak for himself and correct me if he is being misquoted, but he did offer the opinion (on another case) that there are examples in the Laws of somebody losing out as a result of an infraction, and if the offender could not reasonably have known that is just bad luck. I think this is the wrong interpretation of Law 12A1.

[pran]

I agree with Pran on his application of laws 47 and 54, and I'm sure you could make law 23 stick (North could know it would be advantageous for the lead to come to the strong hand, or perhaps he's a better declarer than South), but I wonder if you couldn't rule under law 12A1 if there was no way North could have been aware. If North happens to get a good result from telling the wrong opponent to make a lead, it seems a bit rough to let the score stand, even if East shouldn't have fallen for it. Perhaps East is not a non-offender, as law 12A1 requires. (I know that law 12A1 should only be applied where there's no other law that empowers the TD to award an adjusted score for damage, and we have found two laws that apply here, 47 and 54, but these laws don't address the question of damage.)

 

Anyway, where I do disagree with Pran is in his actual adjustment. Three undertricks seems far too generous to EW, unless this is a North American ruling. Doesn't a heart lead look more natural from West, after which South can make nine tricks. I'd give some percentage of -3, but certainly less than 50.

I would use Law 23 on the ground that North quite likely wanted to secure a lead up to instead of through ♠Kx

 

So my adjustment is based on West finding this lead, resulting in 5 tricks in spades and 2 in clubs for three down.

 

(In Law 23 rulings I do not look for mitigating circumstances and BTW I use European ruling)

[VixTD]

I would use Law 23 on the ground that North quite likely wanted to secure a lead up to instead of through ♠Kx

 

So my adjustment is based on West finding this lead, resulting in 5 tricks in spades and 2 in clubs for three down.

 

(In Law 23 rulings I do not look for mitigating circumstances and BTW I use European ruling)

The wording of law 12 is rather untidy here. In North America (and in Europe many years ago) they adjust under law 12C1(e), under which the non-offenders, at least, got the most favourable likely result had the infraction not occurred. The offenders got the worst result that was at all probable, but it doesn't say whether this includes scenarios in which the infraction occurred.

 

Now that we (in Europe) give weighted scores under 12C1(c), don't we adjust to a mixture of likely outcomes had the irregularity not occurred? Surely we do. Had there been no irregularity, West would be very unlikely to lead a spade (or a club), and South would bag nine tricks. Are you really suggesting we adjust to what would happen if West knew North wanted East to lead, and that East would have led ♠2? Or do you really think a spade is a standout lead on that auction from that hand, with no extraneous information?

[lamford]

Had there been no irregularity, West would be very unlikely to lead a spade (or a club), and South would bag nine tricks.

I disagree with that. I think that a club is out of the question, and it is close between a spade and a heart. I think we should poll ten peers of West and ask them what they would lead and assign a weighted score accordingly. And no, we do not tell them about North's ill-chosen remark. If it is pairs, I would lead a heart, but at teams I would lead the ten of spades. You need far less in spades than in hearts to beat the contract.