In which situations can the defenders confer over a ruling?

[Vampyr]

I can't believe that this would be the "correct' course of action given what I'm reading here. What am I getting wrong? As I understand it:

 

1) Leading off of dummy is an irregularity, one that can be accepted by defenders

2) Declarer "correcting" their irregularity, without consulting the director, is yet another irregularity, and it's a lead that can be accepted by defenders. Which is to say, they can choose whether to allow declarer to make such a correction after having seen the card. This sucks for declarer, but they had no right to correct the irregularity without calling the director.

3) 9C and 9D combine to say that if any person now calls the director here, defenders cannot lose either of these two rights.

 

So, it seems to me that the only fair resolution is to allow defenders to select either lead to accept, but if the lead out of dummy is accepted then declarer's card is now a card played out of turn.

 

Where am I wrong?

 

As stated above, 573C is rather interesting. Declarer is, after all, permitted to play out of turn, and this is not in common when, for example, declarer is running a suit and discarding losers. So the question is, is the card from declarer’s hand a lead? I don’t believe it can be considered as such, since declarer has already led a card.

[Vampyr]

I must assume that the Director was not called until after RHO plays to the trick (after declarer has made his lead from his own hand)?

 

Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

 

But RHO then just playing his card to the trick is a serious violation of Laws 9B1 and 9B2, he should instead have summoned the Director.

 

The Director could then (and probably would) have cancelled the (now incorrect) "lead" from Declarer and let RHO play his card in turn to the trick.

 

Instead the Director must now use his judgement and find a ruling that best possible protects both sides. Note that both sides are now "at fault"!

 

Really, Sven how often do people call the director when declarer has led out of turn? And how can director cancel a legal card played?

[pran]

Really, Sven how often do people call the director when declarer has led out of turn? And how can director cancel a legal card played?

Almost never, Declarer simply leads from his own hand, and play continues as if there was no irregularity.

 

That is why I wrote:

Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

 

But in the extremely few cases when RHO wants to accept the lead out of turn from Dummy it is most important that he summons the Director.

 

(I think that at least Law 60C allows the Director to cancel the "lead" from Declarer in this situation.)

[Vampyr]

Almost never, Declarer simply leads from his own hand, and play continues as if there was no irregularity.

 

That is why I wrote:

Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

 

But in the extremely few cases when RHO wants to accept the lead out of turn from Dummy it is most important that he summons the Director.

 

(I think that at least Law 60C allows the Director to cancel the "lead" from Declarer in this situation.)

 

Do you really think it is extremely rare that a defender wishes to accept the lead from the wrong hand? Anyway it is not necessary to call the director (see L54B) and doesn’t happen.

 

In any case, I think that declarer’s second card is a premature play, not a lead. He has already led a card to the trick.

[trent58]

I think I can use Law 55B2 by ruling that the lead from dummy is the "correct hand" if the defenders exercise their right to accept it.

 

Making declarer follow with the card they were intending to lead just seems strange and punishing - it's another situation where declarer can't gain an advantage.

 

I would use Law 57 C3. If the lead from Dummy is accepted, then I would judge the declarer's played card is considered premature.

So under 57C3, cannot be retracted. The OS should be prepared to accept such a ruling. Dura lex, sed lex.

[weejonnie]

I would use Law 57 C3. If the lead from Dummy is accepted, then I would judge the declarer's played card is considered premature.

So under 57C3, cannot be retracted. The OS should be prepared to accept such a ruling. Dura lex, sed lex.

Interesting - but it is clear that declarer intended to lead the card from his hand - so 57C3 doesn't apply.

[blackshoe]

Declarer leads from dummy. "You're in your hand" from one or both defenders. What is this? It's simply calling attention to an irregularity (lead out of turn from dummy). What is supposed to happen now? All four players are supposed to ensure that the director is called. What if that doesn't happen right away? Personally, I'd be happy to give all four players a PP, in spite of the 2007 change in Law 9A1{a} from "must" to "should" and especially if it causes arguments at the table or other problems.

[axman]

Almost never, Declarer simply leads from his own hand, and play continues as if there was no irregularity.

 

That is why I wrote:

Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

 

But in the extremely few cases when RHO wants to accept the lead out of turn from Dummy it is most important that he summons the Director.

 

(I think that at least Law 60C allows the Director to cancel the "lead" from Declarer in this situation.)

My impression is that 60C requires that 57C3 is relevant (declarer's OOT play subsequent to the LOOT stands- without regard** to what happens to the LOOT).

 

 

** where correcting a revoke is concerned it is not a matter of the TD cancelling the card because it is a matter of the player substituting a card

[pran]

My impression is that 60C requires that 57C3 is relevant (declarer's OOT play subsequent to the LOOT stands- without regard** to what happens to the LOOT).

Not if the LOOT is withdrawn because then the premature play by declarer is actually a lead.

A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and if legal may not be withdrawn.

[axman]

Not if the LOOT is withdrawn because then the premature play by declarer is actually a lead.

Don't know what your antecedents are. It is notable that if by some route that the OLOOT is rejected 57C3 makes it clear that the subsequent OOT play performs the function of lead. It also is notable that knowing both of declaring side's cards the only possible gain to the defenders to rejecting the lead is when it is important to declarer's RHO which card the LHO plays first.

[pran]

Don't know what your antecedents are. It is notable that if by some route that the OLOOT is rejected 57C3 makes it clear that the subsequent OOT play performs the function of lead. It also is notable that knowing both of declaring side's cards the only possible gain to the defenders to rejecting the lead is when it is important to declarer's RHO which card the LHO plays first.

Law 57C3 says "a premature play(not a lead) by declarer"

 

The effect of this is that when Declarer plays to a trick before his RHO and the lead to that trick was made by LHO or Dummy then Declarer's play may not be withdrawn regardless of which card RHO eventually plays to that trick.

 

However, if this play by Declarer is actually a lead, as is the case when Dummy's LOOT is withdrawn, then Law57C3 explicitly does not apply.

[Vampyr]

Law 57C3 says "a premature play(not a lead) by declarer"

 

The effect of this is that when Declarer plays to a trick before his RHO and the lead to that trick was made by LHO or Dummy then Declarer's play may not be withdrawn regardless of which card RHO eventually plays to that trick.

 

However, if this play by Declarer is actually a lead, as is the case when Dummy's LOOT is withdrawn, then Law57C3 explicitly does not apply.

 

Yes, when it is not withdrawn, declarer’s card is not a lead.

[barmar]

Declarer leads from dummy. "You're in your hand" from one or both defenders. What is this? It's simply calling attention to an irregularity (lead out of turn from dummy).

While that's a correct literal interpretation, in my experience the intent of the speaker is usually that they don't accept the LOOT, unless they quickly amend it with something like "But I accept the lead".

[blackshoe]

IMO, if a defender says "you're in your hand" or the like to declarer, somebody should call the director. If a defender not next to play says "I accept the lead" his partner should play to the trick. If a defender next to play says "I do not accept the lead", dummy should put the card for which declarer called back amongst the yet-to-be-played cards, and declarer should lead from his hand. If dummy, after declarer calls for a card from dummy, says "you're in your hand", somebody should call the director.