Lead out of turn by dummy

edited January 9 in EBU TDs

Johnathan wrote:

dummy made an opening lead out of turn with a low club and their LHO followed suit, then declarer played the ace - then director was called to the table by the correct person on lead. it happened very fast, or so I was told.

declarer, not listening said I accept that lead. do they have the right to do this knowing that they have won the trick? plus when I said I need to think about this one, declarer promptly said " we cannot play this board". I said of course you can, instructed the correct person to make their lead and told their partner to leave their card on the table as a minor penalty card and for declarer to return the card to their hand. Did I handle this badly and can anyone with more experience explain the best way to sort this one out please?

weejonnie responded:

I may need coaxing here through law 53!

Law 53A states that the lead is accepted if the next player plays a trick (subject to law 53B)

Law 53B says that the player whose turn it was to lead can make a lead to the trick (subject to law 53A)

So at first glance it seems we have a circular argument - I THINK this means that if the player to dummy's left was on lead (instead of dummy) and has played a card then that card may be deemed to be the lead to the trick rather than playing second in hand and accepting dummy's lead out of turn. If so dummy's card is withdrawn. It also seems to indicate that it this occurred when declarer was due to lead i.e. his RHO led, then if declarer leads, the card played by the defender is withdrawn - and doesn't become a penalty card - although Law 16C applies. If declarer doesn't play a card then the opening lead becomes a major penalty card.

If this is the case then in the circumstances above, the trick has been accepted by dummy's LHO playing to it and dummy's RHO cannot lead to the trick.

I cannot see how the opponent can have a minor penalty card since it hasn't been played unintentionally (Law 50B) - minor penalty cards are very rare.

Then JeremyChild contributed:

@weejonnie is spot on, including their assumption about how 53 and B interact.

The only relevant thing here is that Dummy's LHO played to the trick, thus accepting the lead.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that only a member of the opposing team can accept a lead out of turn - declarer may not accept dummy's lead out of turn.

JamesC then wrote:

I'm not sure about the other point, is dummy allowed to make a lead out of turn? I've a feeling if declarer didn't call for the club then it's simply an illegal play and there's no option to accept it.

Comments

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    L54E -> L24

    Law 54E states that "If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 24 applies"

    Law 24 refers to "CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION".

    The upshot of this is that no lead has been made. Dummy and declarer take back their cards, whereas Dummy's LHO's card becomes a major penalty card. This in particular means lead restriction options for declarer on the opening lead.

    This seems even worse (on NOS) than previously, but then they shouldn't have followed to the illegal lead.

  • In apply Law 24 and Law 50 to the defender's exposed card, one might (depending on the relative experience of the two sides) apply 'unless the Director designates otherwise' and designate the defender's card as not a penalty card (because it's exposure was induced by an infraction of the opponent).

  • I'd originally looked at 54E/24 and discounted it because things had moved on. Now I'm wondering at what point things have moved on too far. I initially thought that once defenders had played it was too far to roll back, but if that were the case then the only card being deemed exposed during the auction is one from declarer's side. There are no consequences to this situation, so why bother referring to Law 24?

    If you don't allow the lead by dummy to be accepted by next player playing to the trick, then I can see nothing in the laws to prevent rolling back from trick 13, and having 26 penalty cards in front of defenders. I was originally going to refer to the absurdity of having 26 penalty cards but as we know it can (and does) happen.

    So, what is the point at which we stop applying Law 24, and why?

  • playing directors do not always have time to check in the law book when they have to refer to subsequent laws with all 4 players making comments to their own advantage, a big distraction for the director, however I should have taken extra time & worked out a ruling instead of working out the one I gave.

    Now I know the NOS card should have been a major penalty and, because he followed to the OLOOT, I should have given declarer the option of lead penalties, which I did not! If I had given this option and declarer asked for, or forbade a suit, may the penalty card be returned to hand? it seems to me a lot of AI and UI happened.

    thanks everyone for the comments which I found very informative.

  • @JeremyChild said:
    If you don't allow the lead by dummy to be accepted by next player playing to the trick, then I can see nothing in the laws to prevent rolling back from trick 13, and having 26 penalty cards in front of defenders.

    Only two cards have been exposed during the auction. Where do 26 penalty cards come from?

  • @Johnathan said:
    playing directors do not always have time to check in the law book when they have to refer to subsequent laws with all 4 players making comments to their own advantage, a big distraction for the director

    Indeed so, and I think we are all conscious of that and I hope are constructive in our advice.

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @JeremyChild said:
    If you don't allow the lead by dummy to be accepted by next player playing to the trick, then I can see nothing in the laws to prevent rolling back from trick 13, and having 26 penalty cards in front of defenders.

    Only two cards have been exposed during the auction. Where do 26 penalty cards come from?

    I was thinking of a situation where someone noticed on trick thirteen that Dummy had led to the opening lead, and you applied Law 24, rolling back to the end of the auction, then under Law 24 there could be 26 penalty cards.

    This is clearly absurd, but the question I was asking was at what point is it too late to roll back - Two cards played? All players having played to a trick? Perhaps more importantly, why?

  • @Johnathan said:
    Now I know the NOS card should have been a major penalty and, because he followed to the OLOOT, I should have given declarer the option of lead penalties, which I did not! If I had given this option and declarer asked for, or forbade a suit, may the penalty card be returned to hand? it seems to me a lot of AI and UI happened.

    If a lead penalty is applied by Declarer, the relevant major penalty card(s) is returned to the defender's hand, and is no longer a major penalty card (Law 50D2a). At this point knowledge of the penalty card is UI to offender's partner (Law 50E2), as is information derived from the circumstances under which it was created (Law 50E3).

  • @JeremyChild said:
    I was thinking of a situation where someone noticed on trick thirteen that Dummy had led to the opening lead, and you applied Law 24, rolling back to the end of the auction, then under Law 24 there could be 26 penalty cards.

    This is clearly absurd, but the question I was asking was at what point is it too late to roll back - Two cards played? All players having played to a trick? Perhaps more importantly, why?

    While this would clearly be a mess with no easy satisfactory solution, perhaps leading to the board being deemed unplayable, I think it's clear this situation couldn't have been reached without an opening lead being faced by a defender (or at least a card being considered to be an opening lead) and therefore we could not still be in the auction period.

  • I don't think they would get as far a trick 13 without someone noticing there was no dummy.

  • @Robin_BarkerTD said:
    I don't think they would get as far a trick 13 without someone noticing there was no dummy.

    I was once told a funny story about some Croatian people who taught themselves to play bridge from a book. When they got better they thought they would go to a beginners tournament. On the first round there was a commotion at their table, because their opponents were trying to get one of them to put their hand on the table. It turned out the book they learned from was missing a page, which was the one that explained about dummy!

  • I have had a complete hand played without a dummy. Director was called afterwards.

    Alan

  • I was called to rule on an opening lead by dummy at the weekend. Luckily, no one else saw fit to follow before calling the director.

    I was rather surprised to be directed to law 24 - "a card exposed during the auction". The auction is over (law 22), so this is really "during the auction period" (law 17A and D) or "during the clarification period" (law 17D), but not "during the auction".

  • @VixTD said:
    I was called to rule on an opening lead by dummy at the weekend. Luckily, no one else saw fit to follow before calling the director.

    I was rather surprised to be directed to law 24 - "a card exposed during the auction". The auction is over (law 22), so this is really "during the auction period" (law 17A and D) or "during the clarification period" (law 17D), but not "during the auction".

    I think that was missed when the terminology was changed in the last laws revision.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    While this would clearly be a mess with no easy satisfactory solution, perhaps leading to the board being deemed unplayable, I think it's clear this situation couldn't have been reached without an opening lead being faced by a defender (or at least a card being considered to be an opening lead) and therefore we could not still be in the auction period.

    Why? If dummy leads and next player (defender) follows, declarer plays, next defender plays. Declarer wins this and next 6 tricks (not that unusual). At no point has either defender lead to a trick.

    I agree it would be absurd, but how far do we go before we can't undo all cards played? Is this an illegal proroguing of parliament where all subsequent actions are undone?

    I'm intending this as a serious question, not a discussion about angels dancing on a pin. At what point have we gone too far to apply the provisions of 24D and E?

    Looking at a single card led, my interpretation is that by 54E referring to 24 the original lead by dummy has not been made, and thus (17D) the auction period has not ended (no defender has faced an opening lead).

    Now look at two cards, Dummy and next defender. Defender has not made an opening lead - he has not lead to a trick, and surely following suit cannot be an (opening) lead? so 24D and E apply to all cards played.

    Three cards? Dummy, defender, declarer: still no faced opening lead by defender.

    Four cards? At least now declarer's LHO has a chance to play. Is it an opening lead? Unlikely - being the fourth card played to a trick. Remember that an opening lead is defined as "the card led to the first trick", and the auction period ends only when a defender faces an opening lead.

    It's clear that the laws are inconsistent in this (admittedly unusual) situation. I suspect the answer to my question is: roll back if you believe the board can still be played "normally", otherwise deem the board unplayable. I don't think you could ever "play on from where you've got to".

    (@gordonrainsford: I appreciate that's essentially what you said - I was just working my way round to it via the laws.)

  • edited January 14
    NOS?
    Non-offending Side?
    In a moral rather than law sense?
  • Non-offending side.
  • @16248 said:
    I have had a complete hand played without a dummy. Director was called afterwards.

    I have seen a table playing without a dummy and asked them what was going on.

  • @Mark_Brown said:
    NOS?
    Non-offending Side?
    In a moral rather than law sense?

    In a law sense. This is a TD forum.

Sign In or Register to comment.