Declarer Plays from Dummy

[captyogi]

Declarer has won the Trick in Hand and Suppose to Play from Hand. Dummy has NO Entry. But He Plays card from Dummy and Next Player Plays and the Play Continues.

And Declarer Makes the Contract , Which Can Never Be Made.

 

Is This Play Allowed , I was told that since the Next Player Played the Card means He Accepted the Play and Play Continues.

Whereas there is No Entry to Dummy and Declarer has to Go Down.

 

 

If He is allowed this He Gets Top, then is it not Unfair to other Players.

 

 

Thx n Brgds

 

Yogesh V. Abhyankar

[weejonnie]

Yes Law 53A

 

A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead

Prior to the thirteenth trick17, any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see

Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts

it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the

irregular lead (but see B). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will require that the

lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).

 

HOWEVER There is a partial get-out.

 

 

Law 72

B. Infraction of Law

1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is

willing to accept.

 

So if the player deliberately led from the wrong hand (an infringement of law) then the director can penalise him sufficiently to remove any gain from his actions.

[gordontd]

Declarer has won the Trick in Hand and Suppose to Play from Hand. Dummy has NO Entry. But He Plays card from Dummy and Next Player Plays and the Play Continues.

And Declarer Makes the Contract , Which Can Never Be Made.

 

Is This Play Allowed , I was told that since the Next Player Played the Card means He Accepted the Play and Play Continues.

Whereas there is No Entry to Dummy and Declarer has to Go Down.

 

 

If He is allowed this He Gets Top, then is it not Unfair to other Players.

 

 

Thx n Brgds

 

Yogesh V. Abhyankar

Law 11A allows us to give a split score for these sorts of situations, so that the side that carelessly accepted the lead keeps the table result but the other side does not get the advantage of it.

[gordontd]

Yes Law 53A

 

A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead

Prior to the thirteenth trick17, any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see

Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts

it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the

irregular lead (but see B). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will require that the

lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).

 

HOWEVER There is a partial get-out.

 

 

Law 72

B. Infraction of Law

1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is

willing to accept.

 

So if the player deliberately led from the wrong hand (an infringement of law) then the director can penalise him sufficiently to remove any gain from his actions.

 

72C is more useful here since it doesn't require us to decide whether or not it was deliberate.

[weejonnie]

72C is more useful here since it doesn't require us to decide whether or not it was deliberate.

Yep - Agreed (didn't think of that one)

 

So at the end of the day we have several methods of removing the advantage the the OS obtained - but I can't find one (unless Law 47E) that allows redress for the NOS.

[gordontd]

Yep - Agreed (didn't think of that one)

 

So at the end of the day we have several methods of removing the advantage the the OS obtained - but I can't find one (unless Law 47E) that allows redress for the NOS.

I don't think we particularly want to - I'm happy for them both to get a bad result since both sides have been at least careless.

[sfi]

Yep - Agreed (didn't think of that one)

 

So at the end of the day we have several methods of removing the advantage the the OS obtained - but I can't find one (unless Law 47E) that allows redress for the NOS.

 

72C allows you to adjust the score for both sides. Unlike Gordon I am generally happy to do so in these situations - it seems a harsh penalty for a moment of carelessness that is often (at least subconsciously) directly induced by declarer.

[sanst]

Law 12B2 explicitly forbids the TD to adjust the score “on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side”. Only if there’s some pretty good evidence that the infraction was deliberately made to gain an advantage, you can adjust.

[weejonnie]

Law 12B2 explicitly forbids the TD to adjust the score “on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side”. Only if there’s some pretty good evidence that the infraction was deliberately made to gain an advantage, you can adjust.

Yes - under that law - but 72C says "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."

[VixTD]

So at the end of the day we have several methods of removing the advantage the the OS obtained - but I can't find one (unless Law 47E) that allows redress for the NOS.

There's also law 55C: "When declarer adopts a line of play that could have been based on information obtained through his infraction, Law 16 applies."

 

I assume that's applied if declarer leads from the wrong hand and manages to smoke out the position of a significant high card by seeing who objects or hesitates.

[sanst]

I would stay clear of the “could have been aware” clause. That’s SB’s specialty but is hardly ever used. Here Law 11A is of more importance: “The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non‐offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. If a side has gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law, the Director adjusts only that side’s score by taking away any accrued advantage. The other side retains the score achieved at the table.“ The result is a split score.

[gordontd]

Law 11A allows us to give a split score for these sorts of situations, so that the side that carelessly accepted the lead keeps the table result but the other side does not get the advantage of it.

It has been pointed out to me that I have contradicted myself here, with something else I have already said and will say again!

 

Although we should all be alive to the possibility of the new Law 11, there are two reasons why it should not apply here:

1. The player, by following to the lead out of turn, is actually excercising their right to rectification, albeit unwittingly, so this right cannot be forfeited; and
   
2. The player's action in following to the lead was not necessarily in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law, but was simply unthinking.
   

So I'm joining (almost) everyone else in adjusting for both sides using L72C, and I'll just have to admit I can't be nasty to both sides here!

[sanst]

It has been pointed out to me that I have contradicted myself here, with something else I have already said and will say again!

 

Although we should all be alive to the possibility of the new Law 11, there are two reasons why it should not apply here:

1. The player, by following to the lead out of turn, is actually excercising their right to rectification, albeit unwittingly, so this right cannot be forfeited; and
   
2. The player's action in following to the lead was not necessarily in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law, but was simply unthinking.
   

So I'm joining (almost) everyone else in adjusting for both sides using L72C, and I'll just have to admit I can't be nasty to both sides here!

What do you mean, “not necessarily “? That’s not part of the text of Law 11 and it’s an impossible condition. Everbody can know the text of the Laws, since these are in the public domain, but most players have hardly any knowledge thereof. If it is imperative for the application of Law 11 that the player is of necessity in ignorance of the relevant conditions, then you are in the domain of the impossible and that law would be a dead letter.

[gordontd]

What do you mean, “not necessarily “? That’s not part of the text of Law 11 and it’s an impossible condition. Everbody can know the text of the Laws, since these are in the public domain, but most players have hardly any knowledge thereof. If it is imperative for the application of Law 11 that the player is of necessity in ignorance of the relevant conditions, then you are in the domain of the impossible and that law would be a dead letter.

“Not necessarily” is not the same as ”necessarily not”.

[lamford]

When I have adjusted under 72C I have, for better or for worse, always restored the result to what would have happened without the infraction which will invariably be the same result for both sides. I don't think any error after the infraction should be punished, nor can I find anywhere which suggests that it should be.

[pescetom]

When I have adjusted under 72C I have, for better or for worse, always restored the result to what would have happened without the infraction which will invariably be the same result for both sides. I don't think any error after the infraction should be punished, nor can I find anywhere which suggests that it should be.

 

As a player I would be happy with that. But could you or somebody please explain with an example what the laws mean by "If a side has gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law, the Director adjusts only that side’s score by taking away any accrued advantage."?

[lamford]

As a player I would be happy with that. But could you or somebody please explain with an example what the laws mean by "If a side has gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law, the Director adjusts only that side’s score by taking away any accrued advantage."?

Others may correct me, but I think that is, under 11A, for action taken after an irregularity which has been noticed and for which the TD should have been summoned, rather than as here, following to a lead from the wrong hand, where the irregularity has not been pointed out. An example which comes to mind is where an MPC occurs but the players continue without calling the TD.

[weejonnie]

Others may correct me, but I think that is, under 11A, for action taken after an irregularity which has been noticed and for which the TD should have been summoned, rather than as here, following to a lead from the wrong hand, where the irregularity has not been pointed out. An example which comes to mind is where an MPC occurs but the players continue without calling the TD.

Or being told they have to pass when partner bids out of rotation. It seems to me that the NOS lose any benefit they get from taking advantage of the ignorance of the OS, but the OS keep their losses as a pertinent reminder that next time they call the TD. Of course the OS might be the one that committed the infraction and the NOS the ones 'conned' out of due rectification

[pran]

Or being told they have to pass when partner bids out of rotation. It seems to me that the NOS lose any benefit they get from taking advantage of the ignorance of the OS, but the OS keep their losses as a pertinent reminder that next time they call the TD. Of course the OS might be the one that committed the infraction and the NOS the ones 'conned' out of due rectification

Law 11A: Ignorance is relevant only on action taken by an ignorant player.

NOS keep whatever benefit they get from such action by a player on OS.

[sanst]

“Not necessarily” is not the same as ”necessarily not”.

Maybe not, but it’s irrelevant since the term is not in Law 11.

[gordontd]

Maybe not, but it’s irrelevant since the term is not in Law 11.

It was in my post that you took exception to, appearing to misunderstand it in the process.