[swanway]

English Bridge Union

This incident happened recently in our club.

North is in 4S and East is due to make the opening lead. However, West makes the opening lead of the AH out of turn. South (dummy) says 'I accept the lead' and he starts to put his cards down. He is stopped and the Director is called. Obviously South cannot accept the lead. North is then given the five options. Is there a penalty of some kind against South our would it be just a warning. Does North still have the option of accepting the lead and asking South to play the hand?

[RMB1]

swanway, on 2011-November-18, 12:30, said:

North is then given the five options. Is there a penalty of some kind against South our would it be just a warning. Does North still have the option of accepting the lead and asking South to play the hand?

I suggest this is similar to Law 45F (Dummy Indicates Card). North retains all his options but if the action suggested by dummy has damaged the opponents then the TD awards an adjusted score.

[blackshoe]

It may be similar, but you need laws to support it, and no law, afaics, addresses this specific problem.

The LOOT is itself an infraction. I would give a PP(Warning) unless East has already got one or more of those for this offense, in which case I'd give him the PP(MPs) I already promised him.

South isn't dummy yet, but his desire to accept the lead and be dummy is UI to North. Again, his actions are an infraction which might draw a PP(W) - I don't think a PP in MPs is appropriate. I think I would read Law 73C to North, then give him his five options. If his choice damages opps, then as Robin says an assigned adjusted score.

Oh, South's exposed cards during the auction are subject to Law 24. Left out until the correct opening lead is faced, then picked up (and probably put right back down). That South has those cards is AI to EW.

[axman]

swanway, on 2011-November-18, 12:30, said:

English Bridge Union

This incident happened recently in our club.

North is in 4S and East is due to make the opening lead. However, West makes the opening lead of the AH out of turn. South (dummy) says 'I accept the lead' and he starts to put his cards down. He is stopped and the Director is called. Obviously South cannot accept the lead. North is then given the five options. Is there a penalty of some kind against South our would it be just a warning. Does North still have the option of accepting the lead and asking South to play the hand?

Dummy has exposed a card after the auction and there was an OLOOT. The lead is accepted [L54C], dummy is spread, and declarer plays second to the trick. Dummy has participated in breach of L43 and should be assessed a stiff PP [half a board seems about right, but conditions could merit more].

[blackshoe]

54C does not apply, 24 applies.

[bluejak]

What has dummy done that is so bad that a 50% of a top penalty is warranted?

[pran]

Several incorrect comments here:

1: West facing the AH is indeed an opening lead out of turn, it terminates the clarification period and Law 54 applies.

2: Dummy's statement that he accepts the opening lead is a violation of Law 43A1 and void, but Law 54C applies as North "could have seen" the cards that South subsequently exposes after this opening lead, and North must accept this opening lead from West with himself as declarer.

There is no obvious reason for penalizing West (or East) unless it would appear that he deliberatly committed his irregularity, but South should receive at least a warning and possibly a PP for violation of Law 43.

[gartinmale]

Quick side question (matchpoints, North America).

I was in 3NT once when my right hand opponent led a spade out of turn. As I had a spade tenace in my hand and was worried about the suit, it seemed like the best option to exercise was to require lefty to lead a spade, so I asked for this option.

Lefty was void in spades.

The director ruled that I had already selected an option, so that lefty was on lead with no penalty (and could lead anything), and that the information that lefty was void in spades was authorized to everyone. I made the hand and got a good score, but have wondered since if this was correct.

[bluejak]

Yes, it is.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-November-18, 16:59, said:

Several incorrect comments here:

1: West facing the AH is indeed an opening lead out of turn, it terminates the clarification period and Law 54 applies.

2: Dummy's statement that he accepts the opening lead is a violation of Law 43A1 and void, but Law 54C applies as North "could have seen" the cards that South subsequently exposes after this opening lead, and North must accept this opening lead from West with himself as declarer.

There is no obvious reason for penalizing West (or East) unless it would appear that he deliberatly committed his irregularity, but South should receive at least a warning and possibly a PP for violation of Law 43.

It would help if we would specify which laws apply when we "make a ruling" here. I missed Law 22B1: "The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2 above, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn, then see Law 54.) the interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the clarification period." So Sven is correct, Law 24 does not apply, and declarer must accept the lead (Law 54C). Dummy goes down, and declarer plays the second card to the trick from his hand (Law 54B1). If he plays first from dummy instead, that play stands unless it was a revoke (Law 54B2).

Just to make sure I've got it right, when an opening lead out of turn is faced by the wrong defender (but not by putative dummy or declarer, see Law 22B1 above), the clarification period ends, and putative dummy is at least temporarily dummy, subject to Laws 42 and 43. He may cease to be dummy if declarer chooses to let him play the hand (assuming declarer has that choice; it seems he didn't here).

Question: Does invocation of Law 54C lead necessarily to Law 54B? Could not declarer still choose to make dummy declarer (Law 54A)? Yes, in this case that means that some of (new) declarer's cards were exposed. Does that matter? If 54C leads inevitably to 54B, which law says so?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-18, 23:11, said:

[...]
Question: Does invocation of Law 54C lead necessarily to Law 54B? Could not declarer still choose to make dummy declarer (Law 54A). Yes, in this case that means that some of (new) declarer's cards were exposed. Does that matter? If 54C leads inevitably to 54B, which law says so?

Law 54B is silent (and has been silent at least since 1987) on the question whether presumed Declarer may choose to let his partner become Declarer only by immediately spreading his hand (Law 54A) or also after being told his options by the Director.

Traditionally (most?) directors have always ruled that all options in Laws 54A, 54B and 54D are available to presumed Declarer after he has been told his (five) options so long as he is not bound by Law 54C to accept the opening lead out of turn.

Information about actual cards held by partner is unauthorized to presumed Declarer until Dummy is faced in the regular way. Therefore I consider Law 54C to prohibit presumed Declarer from selecting any of his options other than accepting the opening lead out of turn with himself as Declarer once he possesses such UI.

[Fluffy]

I find it unfair for EW that south is allowed to pick the option he wanted from the 5 when it was not his turn to decide, but laws ain´t fair I guess.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-19, 14:52, said:

I find it unfair for EW that south is allowed to pick the option he wanted from the 5 when it was not his turn to decide, but laws ain´t fair I guess.

South is dummy; he isn't allowed to pick any options. I took a quick glance through the thread looking for a reference to "south" that should have been to "north" but didn't find one. Maybe I missed it.

I did move the discussion between Sven and I to a new thread.

[campboy]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-19, 14:52, said:

I find it unfair for EW that south is allowed to pick the option he wanted from the 5 when it was not his turn to decide, but laws ain´t fair I guess.

It isn't allowed, it's illegal and as others have said a PP could be given. While it's true that an illegal action from South can result in this option being chosen, that wouldn't be the case for any of the remaining four options if he happened to want one of them.

[Fluffy]

yes, but he was happy with west leading ♥A and that´s what is going to happen. He got what he wanted by breaking the laws. A PP might be enough to even the things for him, but EW are damaged.

[blackshoe]

Are they? How so?

[Fluffy]

because a player not allowed to pick an option from the 5 has taken the one he thinks its the most advantageous for his side, and hence the most disadvantageous for them.

[blackshoe]

"He thinks" is not damage. There may well be damage, but "he thinks" isn't enough. If there's damage, the TD can adjust the score.

Do you think dummy orchestrated this deliberately?

[Fluffy]

not at all, I think he saw ♥A and he was happy to see it coming and accepted it inmediatelly thinking it was his right to choose, perhaps he has unprotected ♥K or whatever, but when someone accepts something like this so quick it is normally to his advantage.

For example, I often accept insufficient calls to my advantage to gain space, this might sound ridicoulous to you, but I accept them as quickly as I can or else I will see the inssufficent call raised one level before I can say a word. Pros bringing TD to the table is something very badly taken by the crowd, and even if I bring it, our TDs quality is such that 50% of the time they don´t even ask me if I want to accept it!

[blackshoe]

Then you ask the TD to read his ruling from the book.

"It is normally to his advantage" is not "He thinks..."

We rule according to the law. If that seems "unfair", you need to think again, because it isn't. As I said, if EW are damaged, an assertion not based on evidence here*, then the TD can adjust the score.

You don't issue PPs to "even things", you issue a PP because there has been an infraction sufficiently bad or frequent that a deterrent from doing it again is needed.

*Don't forget that the law has a specific definition of "damage" (see Law 12).