[lamford]

---

Matchpoints. Table result 3NT=; NS+400

ChCh had an awkward bid as North on the first round of the auction and thought that passing it out at these colours could not be right. He tried a double, fearful that RR would forget Rubensohl again. RR thought he had a balanced hand so bid 2NT and when his partner bid 3♣, he had a fit for clubs and a spade stop, so tried 3NT. He briefly thought 3C might be Stayman, but he was pretty sure that they did not play that over 2NT responses.

While SB was thinking, MM, East led the ten of spades (0 or 2 higher) out of turn, before SB could correct her that it was not her lead. "Directoooooooooooooor", called SB. "My dimwit of a partner has led out of turn", he said.

OO arrived. "You have five options", he began, addressing RR. "Hobson's choice," ChCh, North, chipped in, "RR knows from years of butchered contracts what to do!".

"That remark is UI to you, RR," OO responded, "and you must select from logical alternatives the option not demonstrably suggested by the UI." He then read out the five options in turn, and checked with RR that he had understood them.

"Ok", said RR, "I will accept the lead from MM and still play the hand," he said. "I don't know what my partner meant, but people usually prevent the same suit being led, so I will accept the lead of the ten of spades."

RR now called for a low card from dummy (by saying "low") but OO intervened. "I explained to you that the second card to the first trick is played by declarer", he chastised. "And you said that you clearly understood that." RR played low from hand, and tried to play the queen from dummy, so that he could take the diamond finesse. However ChCh had the two of spades on the table in a flash. "I wanted to play the queen," interjected RR. "You asked for a low card," responded ChCh, "and even if that was inadvertent, it cannot be changed now that you have played from hand. Law 45C4(b) says: "Declarer may correct an unintended designation of a card from dummy until he next plays a card from either his own hand or from dummy." SB was furious, and suggested that ChCh was participating in the play.

OO was also quick to chastise ChCh. "It is not for you to rule on which card is to be played, ChCh. However, I agree that the two of spades has to be played here", he responded.

There was no longer any defence and RR in due course made one spade, three hearts, three diamonds and two clubs. The Bridgemate revealed this was a complete top, as every other declarer had gone down in Four Hearts, with the 4-1 trump break and the losing diamond finesse being too much to handle.

"Sorry about my slip at trick one; I could have made another trick", RR apologised. "Never mind, partner," consoled ChCh. "The spades were not 7-1, with the long heart with the long spades, when you would need to win the first spade with the king, so you did not cost the overtrick," he chortled. "And you did particularly well not to bar a spade lead", he went on, "as a club lead from either side at trick one would have beaten you.

"I am afraid that you are getting a PP of 10% of a top, ChCh," OO ruled. "Mostly for trying to get RR to put the dummy down, but also for your manner, and for continuously chipping in." "Cheap at half the price," goaded ChCh. "I would have settled for 90% with RR on any board. And SB still keeps his 0% I believe!" He concluded: "And does not MM get a PP for "insta-facing" her opening lead?"

Do you agree with OO's ruling?

[sanst]

Not quite, A PP of 10% is far to low
Looking at the case, there are quite some infractions. It starts with the open lead, then RR plays prematurely from the dummy, next chances that play and finally ChCh is the first to draw attention to an infraction. The infraction did thus illegally come to OO’s attention, but nevertheless he has to act upon it (Law 81C3) and he has to decide that the 2 is played. So far, so good.
But, ChCh could have been aware that playing the queen, as he should have done - it was not his right to change the play of RR - might result in a disaster. He knew that MM had still two cards higher that the ten and five spades, that RR had a spade honour, probably the king, and that there was a good change that both SB and RR had started with two spades each. This, I think, is a Law 72C case and an AS of 3NT-3 is called for, EW making a diamond, five spades and a club trick. No need for a PP, but a warning will do.

[pescetom]

"Hobson's choice," ChCh, North, chipped in, "RR knows from years of butchered contracts what to do!".

Like RR, I fail to understand this comment, but if anything it seems to suggest letting ChCh play the hand. In any case I cannot see how it prevents RR from refusing to accept the LOOT and demanding a spades lead, which ensures making the contract by impeding the killer lead of small club.

[PeterAlan]

Law 57C3 said:

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

I agree that ChCh does not have the right to change RR's played card, but it seems to me that that card was the "low card" RR had earlier called for, provided that the manner of his calling for it (which is not totally clear from the OP) was sufficient to establish it as 'played' under the provisions of Laws 45 & 46. Guardian Angel again?

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-October-29, 09:07, said:

"Hobson's choice," ChCh, North, chipped in, "RR knows from years of butchered contracts what to do!".

Like RR, I fail to understand this comment, but if anything it seems to suggest letting ChCh play the hand.

That's what I was thinking, too. But maybe it's a double-bluff -- RR won't understand, so he'll do the opposite of what it would suggest to someone else, which is actually what ChCh wanted. Although I can't see how ChCh could foresee that this is exactly what needs to happen to save the board.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2019-October-29, 04:12, said:

Looking at the case, there are quite some infractions. It starts with the open lead, then RR plays prematurely from the dummy, next chances that play and finally ChCh is the first to draw attention to an infraction. The infraction did thus illegally come to OO’s attention, but nevertheless he has to act upon it (Law 81C3) and he has to decide that the 2 is played. So far, so good.
But, ChCh could have been aware that playing the queen, as he should have done - it was not his right to change the play of RR - might result in a disaster. He knew that MM had still two cards higher that the ten and five spades, that RR had a spade honour, probably the king, and that there was a good change that both SB and RR had started with two spades each. This, I think, is a Law 72C case and an AS of 3NT-3 is called for, EW making a diamond, five spades and a club trick. No need for a PP, but a warning will do.

Two points here. The first infraction was the lead out of turn, and it was SB who called the TD who, correctly, was present during trick one to ensure that any option had been selected and applied correctly. I don't agree that ChCh should have played the queen of spades, as he had previously been instructed to play low (admittedly out of rotation), but that instruction was still valid and ChCh correctly selected the lowest card. I agree with PeterAlan that his instruction of "low" established that. And it is not a Law 72C case, as ChCh did not commit an infraction (in the play of the low spade) which is a mandatory prerequisite!

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2019-October-29, 09:07, said:

"Hobson's choice," ChCh, North, chipped in, "RR knows from years of butchered contracts what to do!".

Like RR, I fail to understand this comment, but if anything it seems to suggest letting ChCh play the hand. In any case I cannot see how it prevents RR from refusing to accept the LOOT and demanding a spades lead, which ensures making the contract by impeding the killer lead of small club.

If I were you, I would not want to be tarred with the same brush as RR. It was obviously an illegal suggestion that RR put the dummy down. And he could have been aware that, looking at Qxx of spades and postulating Kx opposite, it would be necessary to duck in both hands, a play that RR would not normally find, but ChCh would. And it does not matter which side the spade lead comes from. The contract is cold except on a club lead. And this answers barmar's point. ChCh could easily foresee that the contract would require an unusual play. He could not, of course, have foreseen what transpired.

[Zelandakh]

For such an experienced TD it is a startling omission for OO not to have informed RR at the time that the ♠2 was a played card before he selected his own contribution to trick 1. Knowing what we do about RR it seems highly likely that had he done so RR would have chosen the ♠K from his hand to prevent the trick from being won cheaply, eventually going 2 down. As an even more experienced rules lawyer, it is unbelievable that SB has not struck upon this line of defence. Given the discussion during and after the hand I suspect SB would have a reasonable case for TD error in the inevitable appeal, with N-S getting 3NT= and E-W getting 3NT-2. North should clearly earn an additional stiff penalty for his actions and attitude.

Some other points that are unclear are whether 2NT was alerted and whether correct explanations were given and, if not, when N-S should do so given that the Clarification Period has been removed by East's FLOOT. It certainly seems on the face of it that SB might have a second potential line of defence that MI and/or wrong alerting caused MM not to select a club lead. I think we do not have enough information from the OP to evaluate that claim but a club lead must certainly be a LA for the East hand if it is known that neither player has really shown the suit.

[weejonnie]

Actually The UI does not affect RRs right's!

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by
unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.
(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in
question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some
might select.

Deciding whether to become declarer or dummy is not a 'call or play' under the laws of bridge.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2019-October-30, 09:14, said:

For such an experienced TD it is a startling omission for OO not to have informed RR at the time that the ♠2 was a played card before he selected his own contribution to trick 1. It certainly seems on the face of it that SB might have a second potential line of defence that MI and/or wrong alerting caused MM not to select a club lead.

I don't think the TD has to state that any card called from dummy is a played card. Or he would be reading out many Laws every time. Law 45c4(a) is hardly part of all matters "relating to rectification" of the LOOT and telling RR that the two of spades was a played card would be advising him. So I disagree, and think OO acted correctly here. And to suggest that MM might have selected a different OLOOT is a little far-fetched, and it would not have done her any good as ChCh would now not have said anything and RR would have rejected the club lead. As it happens, 2NT was correctly alerted by ChCh (as Rubensohl on the convention card) and not asked about.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2019-October-30, 10:43, said:

Actually The UI does not affect RRs right's!

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.
(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some
might select.

Deciding whether to become declarer or dummy is not a 'call or play' under the laws of bridge.

Well spotted! In which case, OO would argue that, under Law 73, ChCh could have been aware that his remark could damage the non-offending side, and (if RR had put the dummy down) would then apply Law 12A1:
The Director may award an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant when he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed.

This is yet another example of faulty drafting of the laws, which should read:
"A player may not choose an action that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information <snip>" As it stands, ChCh can just tell RR to put the dummy down. However, I think the TD should then apply the last part of 73C:
"<snip> he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information". RR seems to have done this, so the result stands.

Now barmar will think that the lawmakers chose the wording they did for a reason. I think it was just carelessness.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2019-October-31, 05:53, said:

I don't think the TD has to state that any card called from dummy is a played card. Or he would be reading out many Laws every time.

The designation out of turn was an infraction and the TD has to deal with that. Part of the responsibility is in informing the players what the results are of the infraction. If I were Declarer and the TD did not inform me that the designated card could not be withdrawn then I would be very upset. If I were third hand and (on a different layout) played the ace when I could have been winning cheaply I would be absolutely livid. Perhaps Gordon can chime in here - I would be extremely surprised if he were to handle the situation in the same way as OO.

lamford, on 2019-October-31, 05:53, said:

And to suggest that MM might have selected a different OLOOT is a little far-fetched, and it would not have done her any good as ChCh would now not have said anything and RR would have rejected the club lead. As it happens, 2NT was correctly alerted by ChCh (as Rubensohl on the convention card) and not asked about.

Rubensohl is however not the real agreement, as ChCh had reason to believe that RR will often forget and would have needed to include that in any explanation given. That correction would make a club lead more likely. As no questions were asked though then this does not apply. This does point to another glaring "error" from SB on the hand. Surely a true SB would have asked about the alerted call while thinking about the lead, both to give the opps the opportunity to provide MI and also to make sure partner was aware that it was SB's turn. It is almost as if SB and ChCh have switched places using Hallowe'en costumes of each other!

[barmar]

lamford, on 2019-October-31, 06:00, said:

Now barmar will think that the lawmakers chose the wording they did for a reason. I think it was just carelessness.

Me, too. I was also going to point out that Law 73 is not so specific, but you beat me to it.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2019-October-31, 07:21, said:

The designation out of turn was an infraction and the TD has to deal with that. !

I don't think it is an infraction to call for a card from dummy prematurely. I have been trawling through the Laws and cannot find where it says that it is.
45B states: B. Play of Card from Dummy
Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy’s hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself.

Nothing about "at dummy's turn to play".

55A deals with declarer LEADING out of turn from dummmy, but it does not appear to be an infraction to call for a card prematurely from dummy. And I have often seen declarer getting ahead of himself and calling for a card from dummy and then playing his card to the previous trick a short time later. It cannot benefit declarer and if it were an infraction, the Laws would surely so state.

Nothing about "at dummy's turn to play".

Maybe this is just another example of carelessness in the Laws, but at some point we have to believe that what they say is what they intend. Law 54B is very clear about it:

B. Declarer Accepts Lead
When a defender faces the opening lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53, and
dummy is spread in accordance with Law 41.
1. The second card to the trick is played from declarer’s hand.
2. If declarer plays the second card to the trick from dummy, dummy’s card may not be withdrawn except to correct a revoke.

OO had already read out all of the five options, in full, and made sure that RR understood them, if the word "understood" and "RR" can exist in the same sentence. He was correct to ensure that 45B1 occurred, and he had no reason to repeat 45B2 which he had already explained.

[barmar]

While no specific rectification is given, playing out of turn is still an irregularity. I don't see any reason why playing from dummy would be an exception to this.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2019-October-31, 09:02, said:

I don't think it is an infraction to call for a card from dummy prematurely.

Seriously? Does 60A1 not state it explicitly?

Quote

A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely, and before rectification has been assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of that offence.

Perhaps the word "offence" means something different to you than to me but I think it is pretty clear even from just the definition of correct procedure in 44 without the above. In any case, it is not required for inexperienced players to have memorised 57C3 so it is for the TD to step in for the benefit of non-SBs in such an instance. It still amazes me that SB himself is not very loudly and obnoxiously taking up this line of defence (and attack) with the TD and, if necessary, an appeals panel. This strikes me as precisely the area where he should be in his element.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2019-October-31, 11:27, said:

Perhaps the word "offence" means something different to you than to me but I think it is pretty clear even from just the definition of correct procedure in 44 without the above. In any case, it is not required for inexperienced players to have memorised 57C3 so it is for the TD to step in for the benefit of non-SBs in such an instance. It still amazes me that SB himself is not very loudly and obnoxiously taking up this line of defence (and attack) with the TD and, if necessary, an appeals panel. This strikes me as precisely the area where he should be in his element.

Accepting that premature play from dummy is an "offence" (although it should say in 45B that it is rather than have someone have to draw the inference from Law 60, many pages on), there was no play before rectification had been assessed. The moment RR called for "low" from dummy, OO stepped in and advised him that he had already been told, only about 20 seconds before that he had to play the second card from hand. And he had also stated just 30 seconds earlier when reading the Law that if he played from dummy first that play would stand. He is not required to repeat that. And RR does not need to know 57C3 when 54B2 has just been read out to him dealing with this specific case.

And ChCh programmed RR to say that he had completely understood it, but momentarily forgot it, so SB had no comeback.

And your idea that SB could appeal because his opponent did not have the Law stated for a second time is far removed from your normal intelligent posting. And ChCh is mortified to hear that you suggest SB is more skilful than him at sharp practice.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2019-October-31, 09:02, said:

I don't think it is an infraction to call for a card from dummy prematurely. I have been trawling through the Laws and cannot find where it says that it is.

Law 44?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-October-31, 14:27, said:

Law 44?

Yes, I already accepted above that it is a breach of correct procedure to call for a card in dummy before it is dummy's turn to play (even though it does not say anywhere that it is an offence). However, the requirement to play dummy's card if he did so had already been advised to RR, so I don't think OO did anything wrong whatsoever.

[PeterAlan]

2017 Laws: Definition of Infraction said:

Infraction: a player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation

Law 44B said:

B. Subsequent Plays to a Trick
After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, ...

As has already been noted, a premature play from dummy (or any other hand for that matter) is a breach of Law 44B, so by definition is an infraction.