Dummy's rights, Declarer's lead out of turn.

Where I play, if declarer leads out of turn either from his hand or dummy, dummy or defenders are quick to point out the error, whereupon declarer either withdraws the card played erroneously and leads from the correct hand or follows from the other hand if it is the same to him. The defenders' rights under law 55 don't feature!

Does this happen with you also?

If the defender/s draw attention to the erroneous lead they may be deemed to have asked for it to be retracted, so no further action would be called for, even though they are thereby giving up their right to accept the incorrect lead if it happens to suit them.

In the case of dummy, however, it has been pointed out to us that law 42B3 allows dummy only to prevent an irregularity, he cannot correct it after it has been committed. Quite rightly too, the way the law is worded.

Therefore, if dummy draws declarer's attention to the latter's lead from the wrong hand after the lead has been made, he is in violation of law 43A1(b), with the consequent restrictions listed in law 43B. Have you seen these being enforced?

Comments

  • Well, I try to enforce them sometimes, but this is probably one of the least observed rules in bridge. It's usually harmless, but I have known a declarer call for the ace, be reminded they were in their own hand, then take a successful finesse and pick up the suit. Which I don't think should happen.

    I think part of it comes down to defenders knowledge of the rules. Most of them aren't really sure of their rights in this situation, so tend to just shrug and keep playing. And it's hard to enforce the laws if you're not called.

  • This is where a healthy attitude to calling the director can help. I have been called for a simple lead from the wrong hand by declarer. Most of my partners are also aware that they can "accept the lead" should they choose to.

    I had one the other day where declarer played from the wrong hand, intending to take a finesse. She played the queen and I pointed out that she'd played from the wrong hand but partner accepted the lead. Accordingly, she went up with the ace, deciding now not to take the finesse. This expended two high cards for one trick, which cost her later in the play.

  • I think it is true that the director rarely gets to hear about leads from the wrong hand by declarer in a club game, so I can't judge by what I see when called to the table. Judging by what I see when declarer leads from the wrong hand at my table, most players are aware that the defenders can specify the hand to be led from.

    Drawing attention is not the same thing as asking for the lead to be made from the correct hand, although some players, myself included, will just play a card rather than draw attention, if they want to accept and are next in rotation to the incorrect lead.

    I think players are normally pretty tolerant about dummy being a bit late in warning declarer, so that technically dummy has called attention to an irregularity rather than tried to prevent one.

    In any event it is only violations of Law 43A2 (not Law 43A1) which trigger the penalties in Laws 43B2 and 3. Dummy drawing attention to an irregularity is a violation of Law 43A1. It could be penalised, but I've never seen it done for warning declarer about playing from the wrong hand when the card is technically already played.

  • @Abbeybear said:
    I think it is true that the director rarely gets to hear about leads from the wrong hand by declarer in a club game, so I can't judge by what I see when called to the table. Judging by what I see when declarer leads from the wrong hand at my table, most players are aware that the defenders can specify the hand to be led from.

    Drawing attention is not the same thing as asking for the lead to be made from the correct hand, although some players, myself included, will just play a card rather than draw attention, if they want to accept and are next in rotation to the incorrect lead.

    I think players are normally pretty tolerant about dummy being a bit late in warning declarer, so that technically dummy has called attention to an irregularity rather than tried to prevent one.

    In any event it is only violations of Law 43A2 (not Law 43A1) which trigger the penalties in Laws 43B2 and 3. Dummy drawing attention to an irregularity is a violation of Law 43A1. It could be penalised, but I've never seen it done for warning declarer about playing from the wrong hand when the card is technically already played.

    Oops! Didn’t notice that the penalties in 43B2 and 3 are only triggered by A2, not by A1. What passes for my brain only registered A, not the numbers.

Sign In or Register to comment.