Opening out of turn - can presumed dummy suggest anything ?

[MinorKid]

[hv=pc=n&s=shat642dakqt943cj&w=sakj96h53dj2caq83&n=sq54hkqj98d8ckt94&e=st8732h7d765c7652&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1s2hp7hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Suppose West has faced the ♠A out of turn, could South summon the director? Could he/she accept the lead by voluntary tabling his cards before North say so?

Before he is permitted by North he insists on tabling his cards, then are there any penalties against the declaring side?

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

001 The violaton the West committed was Opening Lead out of turn which is not a procedural offence. The charges against south was 1. 43A1 summoning the director as (presume) dummy 2. 90B take actions before the director explain all matters. He plead guilty for the second charge.

 

002 The law 43B1 is not explicitly state a presumed dummy rather than a dummy to have no right to summon a director. This point of favour is given to south. Therefore he is acquit to the first charge.

 

003 If it is a casual game, it is fine for south to do so, though I personally not prefer doing it or seeing it happen.

 

004 In a serious game, doing all of this are not ethical, as one can assume that attention will be drawn at once by North/East once the lead is made after such a simple auction.

North is then given options, then the job of rectification is complete.

 

005 Furthermore the part south involving into decision by suggesting himself to spread his hand is against the law 9B & 90B and is subject to procedure penalty.

 

006 North shall make choice solely on his own without assistance. It is north who is responsible to make the most beneficial choice. It is south who create a risk that is bearing to his unscientific final bid.

 

007 Thereby this court dismissed the acceptance of the lead. Without the acceptance this court will allocate score based on damages, advantages and balance of probabilities.

 

008 The choice of North is also dismissed to calculate for probability, the grounds are that 1. Had the OLOOT did not occur north would not be involved into this dilemma and 2. The rejection from north will result in a trump lead which provide the same result.(See 011) 3. The auction , and the ♠A all suggest the lead of spade.

 

009 In normal play the presence of a Spade lead has a high chance and no claims of damages caused by the ♠A could be reasonable.

 

010 Had the lead been the ♣A the decision and responsibility is entirely up to north to understand the situation base on partnership experience and style. As suggested by pran claim of damages is not applicable.

 

011 By evidence presented by representative of South player, they concluded that in a normal case East will lead partner's suit 90% of the time. He will lead a trump against a grand slam 75% of the time. However, he is aware that against this kind of contract based on such kind of auction it may require a special lead but it is unsafe to conduct. He is also aware that a special lead can also be asked for by West's "Lighter's Slam Double", which ask for suits other than partners or trumps.

 

012 West did not signal East of a special lead. A Spade Lead will (90%) be a normal outcome. He may lead a trump for another 10% of the time. Based on this the fines on the scores based on probabilities is dismissed.

 

Disposition

 

013 For the reasons above I restate as a warning that a presumed dummy is also a dummy and is subject to compliance of law 43. I sentenced N/S a 1/4 board penalty for the second offence.

However the table result is symbolically penalized (1%) unfavourable for the possibility of advantage gained by such act.

 

014 The whole case can be appealed. Thank for all counsels effort and contribution.

 

CASE CLOSED

[weejonnie]

When the opening lead is faced South becomes dummy - definitions

 

Dummy may not initiate a call for the Director during play unless another player has drawn attention to an irregularity. (Law 43A1) - this has changed from 'should not' in the new laws and thus a pp should be awarded. If he does call the director then the director will still rectify.

 

If declarer could have seen any of dummy’s cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead and the presumed declarer then becomes declarer. - Law 54C NB it is North that has to accept the lead.

 

So the only 'penalty' for South putting his hand down as dummy is that it will no longer be possible for North to be dummy instead and the opening lead cannot be treated as a major penalty card as it has been accepted. There is nothing to stop South from tabling his hand to ensure that the Spade lead is accepted - provided no one has drawn attention to the irregularity. No doubt HH will regard it as 'excellent dummy play'. BUT

 

If attention has been drawn to the irregularity before South spreads his hand then it is a different matter. (Law 9B)

 

The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. - “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised),” - opening words

 

2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification. (Breach of this will incur a pp 'more often than not').

 

Since there is an irregularity by South, law 72C kicks in

 

C. Awareness of Potential Damage

 

If the Director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that it could well damage the non‐offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). At the conclusion of play the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

 

Although EW are an offending side (lead out of turn), in respect of failing to follow law 9B they are 'non-offending'.

 

So the director will have to rule that part of the time East would have made the killing Club Lead since North may feel that it would be best to prevent East from leading a Spade - in which case, if East might lead a club.

[MinorKid]

Thanks, fully answered. I guess it follows that if north summon the director he will be putting limitation himself (As far as i know, after the director having explained the five choices <See law 54A-D, 50D2(a)(b)>, he cannot be helped with his decision from his partner).

So in this case it w'd work for south to say "ok i take it from here, table your cards" or just to table his hand before north shout for the D. :rolleyes:

[pran]

Thanks, fully answered. I guess it follows that if north summon the director he will be putting limitation himself (As far as i know, after the director having explained the five choices, he cannot be helped with his decision from his partner).

So in this case it w'd work for south to say "ok i take it from here, table your cards" or just to table his hand before north shout for the D. :rolleyes:

South facing his cards or taking any other action is an irregularity which obviously (to South) could well damage the other side.

I think the Director should apply Law 72C in cases like this.

[Vampyr]

South was the supposed t be the dummy, sees a card led and faces his hand. He should not be penalised for following this correct procedure, nor should it be suggested that his partner is stupid enough to select a poor option,; therefore South's action has not damaged the other side,

[pran]

South was the supposed t be the dummy, sees a card led and faces his hand. He should not be penalised for following this correct procedure, nor should it be suggested that his partner is stupid enough to select a poor option,; therefore South's action has not damaged the other side,

1: Wouldn't you be surprised (being the presumed dummy) if your left opponent presented a faced opening lead?

2: South knows from his own hand that the lead was favourable to his own side, but he also knows that North can hardly be aware of this.

 

South can further foresee that if correct procedures are followed then there will be a 50/50 chance for North to make an unfortunate decision (by prohibiting a spade lead from East).

Thus South had every reason to (illegally) act as he did.

[weejonnie]

South was the supposed t be the dummy, sees a card led and faces his hand. He should not be penalised for following this correct procedure, nor should it be suggested that his partner is stupid enough to select a poor option,; therefore South's action has not damaged the other side,

As I said - if attention is not drawn to the irregularity then South will not be penalised. His partner may not be stupid, but he is ignorant. He does not know if South is void in Spades, Clubs, Hearts or two of them. South would have bid the same with the black voids interchanged (he could be bluffing about a spade void).

 

Now then - suppose the Ace of clubs was led. South cannot draw attention to the irregularity (again), but in this case he is defintely NOT going to table his hand, in the hope that North will forbid a club lead.

[MinorKid]

Conclusion:

 

South can (before anyone aware that the Lead is out of turn)

- spread his hand

- ask north to table his cards.

 

South cannot

- draw attention that the Lead is out of turn

- call director

 

As for the ruling it seems a little unfair to NS that the options lies on north. In my opinion it may be south who chooses the options as the bidding indicates that south has the captaincy throughout the auction. As in the case of OLOOT dummy could become declarer and declarer could be dummy so i can't see why the rights among them could not be exchanged.

[pran]

Conclusion:

 

South can (before anyone aware that the Lead is out of turn)

- spread his hand

- ask north to table his cards.

 

South cannot

- draw attention that the Lead is out of turn

- call director

 

As for the ruling it seems a little unfair to NS that the options lies on north. In my opinion it may be south who chooses the options as the bidding indicates that south has the captaincy throughout the auction. As in the case of OLOOT dummy could become declarer and declarer could be dummy so i can't see why the rights among them could not be exchanged.

Conclusion:

Inventing new laws, are we?

[Vampyr]

Conclusion:

 

South can (before anyone aware that the Lead is out of turn)

- spread his hand

- ask north to table his cards.

 

South cannot

- draw attention that the Lead is out of turn

- call director

 

As for the ruling it seems a little unfair to NS that the options lies on north. In my opinion it may be south who chooses the options as the bidding indicates that south has the captaincy throughout the auction. As in the case of OLOOT dummy could become declarer and declarer could be dummy so i can't see why the rights among them could not be exchanged.

 

How would you choose when and why to exchange?

[barmar]

As for the ruling it seems a little unfair to NS that the options lies on north. In my opinion it may be south who chooses the options as the bidding indicates that south has the captaincy throughout the auction. As in the case of OLOOT dummy could become declarer and declarer could be dummy so i can't see why the rights among them could not be exchanged.

There's nothing in the Laws about "captaincy". Declarer is determined based solely on the bids, not their meanings according to partnership agreements, and everything proceeds from there.

[barmar]

South was the supposed t be the dummy, sees a card led and faces his hand. He should not be penalised for following this correct procedure, nor should it be suggested that his partner is stupid enough to select a poor option,; therefore South's action has not damaged the other side,

It's not "correct procedure" to face dummy after an opening lead out of turn, only after a proper opening lead.

[MinorKid]

As I said - if attention is not drawn to the irregularity then South will not be penalised. His partner may not be stupid, but he is ignorant. He does not know if South is void in Spades, Clubs, Hearts or two of them. South would have bid the same with the black voids interchanged (he could be bluffing about a spade void).

 

Now then - suppose the Ace of clubs was led. South cannot draw attention to the irregularity (again), but in this case he is defintely NOT going to table his hand, in the hope that North will forbid a club lead.

 

You are right.

[MinorKid]

How would you choose when and why to exchange?

 

Maybe we can't exchange this by law, north still have to choose himself. so i suggest to resolve the damage caused by OLOOT at the end of play.

[Vampyr]

It's not "correct procedure" to face dummy after an opening lead out of turn, only after a proper opening lead.

 

Is this really an infraction, though?

[weejonnie]

Is this really an infraction, though?

I dont think so - there is nothing in the laws that says you mustn't- see law 54C which presumably deals with this case.

 

"C. Declarer Must Accept Lead

 

If declarer could have seen any of dummy’s cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead and the presumed declarer then becomes declarer."

[Vampyr]

I dont think so - there is nothing in the laws that says you mustn't- see law 54C which presumably deals with this case.

 

"C. Declarer Must Accept Lead

 

If declarer could have seen any of dummy’s cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead and the presumed declarer then becomes declarer."

 

Therefore I say no penalty. Perhaps the defenders will lead face down next time.

[barmar]

I dont think so - there is nothing in the laws that says you mustn't- see law 54C which presumably deals with this case.

 

"C. Declarer Must Accept Lead

 

If declarer could have seen any of dummy’s cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead and the presumed declarer then becomes declarer."

That Law is explaining what to do if dummy exposes his cards, not giving dummy license to do so. Just as there's a law that says what to do after a call out of rotation, but that doesn't mean COOT is legal.

 

Unfortunately, the Laws don't seem to spell out this particular case as being explicitly illegal. This is kind of like the previous edition, which never explicitly stated that bids MUST supercede the previous bid, so some people interpreted that as saying that insufficient bids were not an infraction.

[MinorKid]

May north require lead from the correct leader and allow any lead (Leaving the Ace as a penalty card.) but then ask director to apply law 16C2 if something goes wrong?

Does this right forfeits if north had chosen a restriction?

[pran]

May north require lead from the correct leader and allow any lead (Leaving the Ace as a penalty card.) but then ask director to apply law 16C2 if something goes wrong?

Does this right forfeits if north had chosen a restriction?

When a player has selected one of his specific options after an opponent's irregularity the case is closed even if his selection turns out unfortunate.

[VixTD]

I ran a club TD training day at the weekend, and when we were discussing opening leads out of turn, I mentioned this case at the end, to show them how not every situation is straightforward.

 

After much thought, I think I agree with Pran. If dummy tabled their cards after a lead out of rotation, I wouldn't blame or penalise them; it's not an infraction, but it is an irregularity, and I would allow them to play the hand and then consider awarding an adjusted score under law 72C.

[Vampyr]

I ran a club TD training day at the weekend, and when we were discussing opening leads out of turn, I mentioned this case at the end, to show them how not every situation is straightforward.

 

After much thought, I think I agree with Pran. If dummy tabled their cards after a lead out of rotation, I wouldn't blame or penalise them; it's not an infraction, but it is an irregularity, and I would allow them to play the hand and then consider awarding an adjusted score under law 72C.

 

Pran has said it was illegal. How is that not an infraction?

[axman]

That Law is explaining what to do if dummy exposes his cards, not giving dummy license to do so. Just as there's a law that says what to do after a call out of rotation, but that doesn't mean COOT is legal.

 

Unfortunately, the Laws don't seem to spell out this particular case as being explicitly illegal. This is kind of like the previous edition, which never explicitly stated that bids MUST supercede the previous bid, so some people interpreted that as saying that insufficient bids were not an infraction.

 

When rules are constructed well, they provide a balanced inducement to adhere to them. I will offer some analysis. The instant of exposure of dummy's card has both created dummy, and, Dummy has participated in the play by selecting the penalty to the opponent's infraction. Such participation breaches 43A, even though it falls within the remedies otherwise available to declarer; yet, it suggests a search for an answer to the question, 'is it right, as in, is it a wise rule to not penalize the dummy?'

 

If the rule is conceived well, it balances the harm considering the future permutations. For instance, the infraction could be a strategic mistake of which the NOS might take advantage. And, say dummy interferes thereby sending the advantage to the dust bin, what administrator ought to interfere with the NOS's wisdom? And then there is the other side, namely, when dummy's behavior has the fortuitous happenstance of choosing the remedy that a. declarer would not have taken and b. gains a high score. Is that score unfair? Considering that the OS broke the rules and caused the situation, is it so wrong that they achieve the worst of it... by that route?

[VixTD]

Pran has said it was illegal. How is that not an infraction?

I think that it would be illegal to do it intentionally, but how would you ever tell if the action was intentional or not? As you suggested, it's quite plausible that South was expecting to put their hand down as dummy as soon as the opening lead was faced. They did so, but just didn't notice in time that the lead was from the wrong side. Maybe Pran and I don't agree in every detail, but I meant that I agree the TD should allow play to continue and adjust the score under law 72C.

[barmar]

If they were expecting to put their hand down as dummy as soon as the opening lead is faced, surely they were also expecting RHO to be the defender making that opening lead.

 

Unless these are the same newbies who perpetrated the multiple-revoke errors in a couple of other threads.