OLOOTS

During a quiet period while directing, my thought wandered to OLOOTS (as you do), especially as at the Club TD course we were recommended to learn by heart what to say when such a situation arises.

South (after an involved transfer sequence that does not deserve to be shown) becomes the presumed declarer in e.g. 4 Spades and North (the player with the spades) turns to East and says "Your lead".

East leads and South starts to put down 'dummy' exposing at least one card - at this point West says "Hold on! Isn't South declarer?". This is agreed and you are called. Do you?

a) Give South the 5 options? (Law 54B, Law 54D and law 50D)
b) Rule that as South has started to display his hand he has accepted the lead, must become dummy and North is now the declarer. (Law 54A)
c) Something else?

Whilst sorting this out, it then turns out that NS gave incorrect information to EW during the Auction.

d) Can the TD give EW the right to change the last pass (assuming they might have done something different had they known the correct informaiton), and thus let the auction recommence.
e) If he can't, can the opening lead be changed?

Comments

  • I think this is dealt with by L47E1.

  • Ah! "and for his next nightmare..."

    What starange lives we all weave.

    Ok, on being called to the field I would say that the auction period has finished (17D). Declarer has shown one card and should therefore spread his hand (54A). As far as the misinformation is concerned it is too late to wind the last bid back so 21B3 will have to be considered by the Director at the end of play (or even the session).

    I have read somewhere about the wrong defender being told it was their lead by the "wrong" declarer but I can't remember what was said about it.

    I think I would warn Declarer and partner that the onus was on them to follow the laws on misinformation (20F5b) and that any judgement would be in favour of the damaged party. I would probably remind all of the requirement to make the opening lead face down until partner says "no questions".

    Now off for a cup of tea and a damp tea towel to cover my forehead.

    CMOT_Dibbler

    P.S. not sure what I would do in a bridge match!

  • Law 47E1

    A lead out of turn (or play of a card) is retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play (see Law 16C). A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances ...

    So when West says that East was not on lead, East's lead is retracted (and is subject to Law 16C: authorised to EW, unauthorised to NS). South is not dummy and picks up his cards.

    If there is misinformation then (as I read Law 17) there has been a faced opening lead, so the auction period is over and the misinformation should be dealt with when the play is over.

  • I'm wondering what would happen if South had not exposed any cards.

    Does a retracted lead under Law47E1 count as "led then un-led" or "never led at all"?

    If the latter, then 17D: the auction period is still open, and 21B1: EW might be able to change a call.

    I suspect it's the former though. The laws spend a lot of ink covering exceptions where penalties and other rectifications do not apply, implying that actions are considered to be undone rather than never-done-in-the-first place.

    Jeremy

  • edited January 6

    I was more interested in the conflict between being able to withdraw the opening lead (47E1 as Gordon says) and 41C (although I wonder if anyone has had a case where the opening leader says "But the other side said it was my lead" and if TDs habitually ask the person who made the OLOOT "did anyone tell you it was your lead" ?)

    C. Opening Lead Faced
    Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably,

    And don't forget law 47E2

    1. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an
      opponent’s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification,
      but only if no card was subsequently played (see Law 16C). An opening lead may not be
      retracted after dummy has faced any card
      .

    So, I think we are left with a situation where the opening lead cannot be retracted, the presumed declarer becomes dummy, and that is the end of it. (although we may be able to adjust under law 72C since presumably saying 'it is your lead' is probably an irregularity). (Note this is not a MI case - saying 'it is your lead' is not misinformation'.)

  • and if TDs habitually ask the person who made the OLOOT "did anyone tell you it was your lead" ?)

    TDs may not ask but we do find out.

    TD: How can I help?
    South: East has led and it not his turn
    East: But you told me it was my lead

    We have a law which tells us what to do if one side erroneous tells an opponent it is that opponent's lead, I see no reason why this should not apply to the opening lead. That law says the lead cannot be accepted, so there is no option for next hand to become dummy. The last sentence of Law 47E2 (a) does not apply:
    1. South is not (presumed) dummy and has not become dummy, so dummy has not faced any card.
    2. It is not unreasonable to rule that part of 47E2 (a) only applies to retractions under the earlier part of Law 47E2 (a).

  • @Robin_BarkerTD said:

    and if TDs habitually ask the person who made the OLOOT "did anyone tell you it was your lead" ?)

    TDs may not ask but we do find out.

    Where does it say that? A director has an obligation to administer the laws and assess rectification (L81C2,3,4). Surely he must establish all relevant facts in order to do this? In the case of L47E1, whether or not they were so told is salient to the rectification, so he must ascertain if this is the case. It is not up to the player to plead their own case. Agreed we shouldn't "lead the witness", but I suggest we have an obligation to investigate ("what made you lead out of turn?").

  • @JeremyChild said:
    Where does it say that? A director has an obligation to administer the laws and assess rectification (L81C2,3,4). Surely he must establish all relevant facts in order to do this? In the case of L47E1, whether or not they were so told is salient to the rectification, so he must ascertain if this is the case. It is not up to the player to plead their own case. Agreed we shouldn't "lead the witness", but I suggest we have an obligation to investigate ("what made you lead out of turn?").

    It is up to the players to plead their case, but players are not always knowledgeable about the Laws and will not always know what is relevant and what is not. They should not be disadvantaged by any such ignorance, and of course the TD shouldn't ignore a fact that comes to light just because the player concerned didn't initially mention it. However, I would be surprised if a player who had led out of turn, having been misinformed that it was his lead, did not consider this relevant and therefore failed to mention it unprompted when the TD was called.

    But I agree that it is up to the TD to establish relevant facts, so I am surprised that Robin thinks that the TD should not ask. Of course the TD must be careful not to ask questions whose answers may give any of the players information to which they are not entitled, but this does not seem to be one of those cases.

  • I think we have a case of confusion here due to the word "may", in modern writing and parlance, coming to replace the word "might".

    Read Robin's statement as "TDs might not ask but we do find out" and the confusion is eradicated.

  • @JeremyChild said:

    Agreed we shouldn't "lead the witness", but I suggest we have an obligation to investigate ("what made you lead out of turn?").

    I agree that a neutral question like that is the way to proceed. In the same way as we do for L27 cases that might be subject to L25A. In this latter case, I know we differ from the ACBL where their recommended practice is to ask a player, who has made an insufficient bid, whether or not it was an unintended bid.

  • @JeremyChild said:

    @Robin_BarkerTD said:

    and if TDs habitually ask the person who made the OLOOT "did anyone tell you it was your lead" ?)

    TDs may not ask but we do find out.

    Where does it say that? A director has an obligation to administer the laws and assess rectification (L81C2,3,4). Surely he must establish all relevant facts ..

    Sorry what I wrote was sloppily worded.

    I meant: "TDs may not ask ..." == "It may be that TDs do not ask ..."

    I did not mean: "TDs may not ask ..." =/= "TDs must not ask ...". The Law Book may assign a unambiguous meaning to "may not", but "may not" is ambiguous.

  • @Abbeybear said:
    It is up to the players to plead their case, but players are not always knowledgeable about the Laws and will not always know what is relevant and what is not. They should not be disadvantaged by any such ignorance

    Sorry that's what I meant. Thank you for a better form of words!

  • @Robin_BarkerTD said:
    Sorry what I wrote was sloppily worded.

    I meant: "TDs may not ask ..." == "It may be that TDs do not ask ..."

    I did not mean: "TDs may not ask ..." =/= "TDs must not ask ...". The Law Book may assign a unambiguous meaning to "may not", but "may not" is ambiguous.

    Thanks, Robin. I did indeed read it as must not. Whoever thought English with its multi-faceted and multitudinous meanings of words would be a good language for laws and unambiguous communication?

  • @JeremyChild said:
    Thanks, Robin. I did indeed read it as must not. Whoever thought English with its multi-faceted and multitudinous meanings of words would be a good language for laws and unambiguous communication?

    Anyone for laws in Latin?

  • "torneamentum directors non quaerere " or "torneamentum directors non oportet quaerere"

    yes clear as mud. Depends on where you go LOL!!

    CMOT_Dibbler

  • I think more appropriate for TDs would be "Illegitimi non carborundum"

  • Surely it should be 'oportent' and I wouldn't let Dave Burn lose on that last sentence

  • @Paul_Gibbons said:
    Surely it should be 'oportent' and I wouldn't let Dave Burn lose on that last sentence

    "Loose"? :)

  • @Paul_Gibbons said:
    Surely it should be 'oportent' and I wouldn't let Dave Burn lose on that last sentence

    IIRC "oportet" was a pretty much literal translation of "it behooves", and was thus always singular, so the construction would be "oportet directoribus". But I will defer to anyone whose classical education was either more extensive or more recent than mine.

  • Having ruled under Law 47E1, that East's lead is retracted without without penalty and South must pick up his cards and become declarer, East-West now have some extra information. West has seen East's retracted lead and both East and West have seen some of South's cards. In addition South has seen East's retracted lead card. Please would someone clarify what is AI and what is UI in this situation?

  • edited October 1

    47E1 refers you to 16C, which answers the questions of AI/UI:

    • 16C1: it's all AI to the non-offending side (which is E/W), and
    • 16C2: it's all UI for the offending side (which is N/S).
Sign In or Register to comment.