[ahydra]

The auction just finished, both defenders make an opening lead in different suits at the same time (face down but then turning face up when their partner doesn't say anything). What's the ruling on this? Does it matter if one of the defenders was slightly ahead of the other?

I could only find Law 49 for this (or maybe the law about a simultaneous play being deemed subsequent to a legal play, hence the defender who wasn't on lead is forced to revoke??), and that's the ruling that was given at the table. But then someone mentioned that declarer should have a choice of accepting either opening lead, which doesn't sound right.

ahydra

[Vampyr]

ahydra, on 2013-April-04, 16:41, said:

The auction just finished, both defenders make an opening lead in different suits at the same time (face down but then turning face up when their partner doesn't say anything). What's the ruling on this? Does it matter if one of the defenders was slightly ahead of the other?

If one was slightly ahead of the other, the first card exposed is led, whether legally or illegally. I guess it depends on how exact you think "simultaneous" (L58) means.

Quote

I could only find Law 49 for this (or maybe the law about a simultaneous play being deemed subsequent to a legal play, hence the defender who wasn't on lead is forced to revoke??)

Yes, this is correct. The card led in error becomes a major penalty card.

Quote

and that's the ruling that was given at the table. But then someone mentioned that declarer should have a choice of accepting either opening lead, which doesn't sound right.

It's not. Have "someone" read L58A:

Quote

Simultaneous Plays by two Players

A lead or play made simultaneously with another
player’s legal lead or play is deemed to be subsequent to it

[aguahombre]

Actually, Flader was correct in the ACBL Bulletin which is the source of this thread. The question was submitted by a local Utah club director just to make sure she had ruled correctly, and she had. The real opening leader's card is the one led, and the other is a penalty card. Declarer does not get to choose.

[ahydra]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-04, 19:21, said:

Actually, Flader was correct in the ACBL Bulletin which is the source of this thread. The question was submitted by a local Utah club director just to make sure she had ruled correctly, and she had. The real opening leader's card is the one led, and the other is a penalty card. Declarer does not get to choose.

I wasn't aware of any mention of this in a bulletin - it came up last night at the club!

ahydra

[aguahombre]

Interesting that it is nearly word for word from our March 2013 Bulletin (p38)...including a player alleging that Declarer could pick one of the cards as the lead.

Law 58 covers simultaneous leads or plays. Also, a face-down lead is still a lead, but if the incorrect lead doesn't get turned over, then it doesn't become a penalty card.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-05, 04:14, said:

Interesting that it is nearly word for word from our March 2013 Bulletin (p38)...including a player alleging that Declarer could pick one of the cards as the lead.

Law 58 covers simultaneous leads or plays. Also, a face-down lead is still a lead, but if the incorrect lead doesn't get turned over, then it doesn't become a penalty card.

Law 54 said:

When an opening lead out of turn is faced and offender’s partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted.

This law takes precedence over Law 58 when (simultaneously) one defender makes a faced opening lead and the other defender makes a face down opening lead.

[bluejak]

For most people in England, they turn their card up when partner tells them to. This would obviate problems like this one.

It always seems unfortunate when a player leads face down, partner does nothing, and eventually they turn it up. Apart from problems like the one in the OP, it just seems so rude.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 13:23, said:

For most people in England, they turn their card up when partner tells them to. This would obviate problems like this one.

It always seems unfortunate when a player leads face down, partner does nothing, and eventually they turn it up. Apart from problems like the one in the OP, it just seems so rude.

This seems like a recommendation for a change in Law41B, requiring partner of the opening leader to order the card to be faced. We sometimes take "No, questions." to be such a command, but never considered waiting for specific orders when nothing is being asked.

[blackshoe]

The problem with this emphasis on "instruction from partner" is this bit from Law 41B:

Quote

Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction or request an explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3)

The emphasis is mine. I grant you I've never seen declarer ask at this point, but I also know that most players, at least those around here, aren't aware that they can ask questions here as declarer.

[aguahombre]

Good point. I could have added that, but my tongue was painfully pressed against my cheek and I forgot.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-18, 20:40, said:

The problem with this emphasis on "instruction from partner" is this bit from Law 41B:


The emphasis is mine. I grant you I've never seen declarer ask at this point, but I also know that most players, at least those around here, aren't aware that they can ask questions here as declarer.

I don't understand what the problem is. Leader leads face down and now cannot ask any questions. Declarer can ask when he wants and is irrelevant. Leader's partner now asks what she wants and then allows leader to turn the card up. Leader's partner sitting there like a wet fish with the whole table waiting for Godot is an unnecessary annoyance.

It is quite common for declarer to ask questions before the opening lead is faced. I often do. Of course, questions are asked far more frequently in England than in the ACBL where they all assume they know what opponents are doing.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2013-April-19, 08:25, said:

I don't understand what the problem is. Leader leads face down and now cannot ask any questions. Declarer can ask when he wants and is irrelevant. Leader's partner now asks what she wants and then allows leader to turn the card up. Leader's partner sitting there like a wet fish with the whole table waiting for Godot is an unnecessary annoyance.

It is quite common for declarer to ask questions before the opening lead is faced. I often do. Of course, questions are asked far more frequently in England than in the ACBL where they all assume they know what opponents are doing.

Yeah, that last bit is the problem - declarer is not irrelevant, because he can ask at this point, and most folks here don't know that, and I'm not sure they'd ever ask if they did know it.

Assuming people follow correct procedure in this situation — a rash assumption in North America, IME — opening leader will choose his lead, place it face down, and ask "any questions?" Both partner and declarer will say no, or ask. In the latter case, questions will be answered. Then, in either case, the opening lead will be faced.

People don't ask that question before facing the lead. They ask "any questions, partner?" In my neck of the woods, declarer rarely gets the chance to open his mouth.

It is true that declarer can ask questions immediately after the opening lead is faced, so losing the opportunity to do so before it's faced may not seem like such a big deal — and it often isn't. But it ain't right.

[aguahombre]

"Any questions, partner?" is condoned, but above the club level should not be. It is communication to partner and is not contained in 41.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-19, 09:39, said:

"Any questions, partner?" is condoned, but above the club level should not be. It is communication to partner and is not contained in 41.

What information is it communicating? Especially if you do it habitually, it doesn't imply anything about your hand. It's no more meaningful than dummy saying "good luck, partner" when laying out his hand.

[mycroft]

Given that there are no questions declarer can ask upon the face-down opening lead that he can't ask on the face-up opening lead (as it's his first turn to play), I don't see what the issue is. Some of the *answers* he gets could lead to different TD mechanics if dummy's up; is that terribly relevant?

[blackshoe]

Maybe I'm just being overly pedantic, but I ask you, if it doesn't matter, why is it in the laws? Isn't it possible that the drafters saw some situations where it would matter, and wanted to cover that base?

OTOH maybe they'll take it out in 2017.

[gnasher]

The suggestion that things only appear in the Laws for a good reason is perhaps not supported by the evidence.

Having said that, there is one obvious reason that it's better for declarer to ask likely questions before the lead rather than after. If you delay a question until seeing dummy, then only ask the question if it's still relevant, you leak information. Alternatively, if you delay the question but ask it regardless of relevance, you risk misleading the opponents.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-19, 08:47, said:

It is true that declarer can ask questions immediately after the opening lead is faced, so losing the opportunity to do so before it's faced may not seem like such a big deal — and it often isn't. But it ain't right.

I really do not understand your problem. There is an auction ending with three passes. Now declarer can ask a question before the opening leader chooses his lead, while he chooses his lead, after he chooses his lead, after he puts it face down on the table, and after he turns it face up on the table and before dummy appears, and after dummy appears. Please explain what difference it makes whether he is allowed to do it at one of these times rather than another.

aguahombre, on 2013-April-19, 09:39, said:

"Any questions, partner?" is condoned, but above the club level should not be. It is communication to partner and is not contained in 41.

Please be serious. The game suffers from too many impolite people anyway: not condoning a mere act of politeness is pretty poor at any level.

blackshoe, on 2013-April-19, 15:15, said:

Maybe I'm just being overly pedantic, but I ask you, if it doesn't matter, why is it in the laws? Isn't it possible that the drafters saw some situations where it would matter, and wanted to cover that base?

I think in this case you are being overly pedantic, Ed.

[blackshoe]

We have a law. Players almost universally ignore it. Apparently the solution to this situation (I daren't call it a "problem") is for everybody, including TDs, ACs, and lawmakers, to ignore it. I'm a little OCD about some things — I'd rather see it stricken from the book. <shrug>

[barmar]

Which law are you saying now is being ignored? We currently seem to be talking about a law that allows declarer to do something at a particular time. But the laws also allow him to do it at other times. If he rarely chooses to do it at the particular time, instead using the other legal times, does that mean he's ignoring the law or it's just not useful to him?