Lead card

After auction south to play in 4 hearts. West on lead takes his full holding of 3 hearts out of hañd together and places them face up on table. No specific card selected. West mistakenly thought his partner was declared so no intention of a specific card to play. Does declarer have choice of which card has 'been led' or is it the card which touched table first I.e bottom card. All three were placed on table at same time.

Comments

  • I think none of the cards are played. The auction period if not over, but the auction is, so Law 24 does not apply. :(

    I think that takes us to Law 49: defenders exposed card(s). All the cards become penalty cards and declarer gets to chose which is lead/played to trick 1. Does declarer get to do this before dummy is spread?

  • null
    I rather think we're relying on you to tell us :)

    'Deliberately' exposing 3 cards might attract a procedural penalty ? If so it would be V harsh, presumably the Director has discretion not to further penalise the unfortunate offender.
  • @BarkerBridgeTD said:
    I think none of the cards are played. The auction period if not over, but the auction is, so Law 24 does not apply. :(

    I think that takes us to Law 49: defenders exposed card(s). All the cards become penalty cards and declarer gets to chose which is lead/played to trick 1. Does declarer get to do this before dummy is spread?

    I would say that he gets to do this before dummy is spread since dummy is spread after the opening lead is faced - and no card is the opening lead until declarer nominates it. If the defender had lead (instead of exposed) one of the three cards with the other two exposed then I think we have a different scenario in that the defender has actually made the lead - so dummy comes down.

  • TDs get full discretion over PPs unless there is regulation saying otherwise as with Red psyches. So a PP is inappropriate for this case because we know it was an accident and it did not disadvantage the other side.

    As to when dummy is spread I agree with weejonnie.

  • This came up last week. West (to lead) tabled three diamonds and two clubs. South selected a club lead, won and cashed another club. Now South lost a major to East and forbade a diamond lead: so West got to pick up the remaining penalty cards (all diamonds) and declarer could play the rest of the hand without having to think about penalty cards.

  • I've had a couple of these over the past year. In each case, one of the defenders had almost all his hand down before anyone stopped him/her. I ruled that the hand was now unplayable and gave an AAS of 60-40. It did cross my mind to make all exposed cards be major penalty cards but chose not to inflict such anguish.

  • edited February 5

    We should avoid ruling that a board is unplayable because of the actions of one side - we do not want one side to bid a lucky slam and the other side to be able to render the board unplayable when they know it is making, "knowing" they will secure 40%.

  • TagTag
    edited February 5

    Agreed but the indignity of having declarer play your hand in misere mode struck me as a harsh penalty on a part-score at the club. Maybe another case for TD judgement. One contract was 1NT, which should go off, and the other was 3C. Everyone was happy with the ruling at the time.

  • @BarkerBridgeTD said:
    This came up last week. West (to lead) tabled three diamonds and two clubs. South selected a club lead, won and cashed another club. Now South lost a major to East and forbade a diamond lead: so West got to pick up the remaining penalty cards (all diamonds) and declarer could play the rest of the hand without having to think about penalty cards.

    (Sorry, this is a bit tangential, but) E still has to worry about UI. Am I correct that it is AI to E that declarer forbade a diamond lead, but UI to him (once the cards are returned to W's hand) that W holds those particular diamond cards?

  • Once upon a time at an EBU Congress my LHO was on lead to 5Cx (intended as a sacrifice) but had knocked her bidding box on the floor. I told her I would pick it up for her and did. By the time I had done so she had tabled 12 cards as dummy! The TD was called and ruled it unplayable so Ave+/Ave-. Since he was a fellow EBU TD I did not say anything but I was furious. He went away.

    Later my partner, who was married to the EBU CTD of the time, told me that I had given the TD a look that would have bored a hole through steel! The TD had apparently tottered off to the CTD and said "Max, I am afraid I have given a wrong ruling at David's table".

    After consultation they gave a ruling of 5Cx +1 for us and 5Cx -1 for our opponents under L82C so I got the top I should have. But I have never forgiven him for a ruling that deprived me of the only opportunity in my life of playing with 12 major penalty cards.

    So, Tag, I strongly suggest you change your approach to giving completely illegal rulings that will usually deprive one side of a top score. Over the years the few times there have been more than one penalty card on the table it has been met with good humour from both sides and I should be very cautious before you adopt this approach in future.

  • How do you even go about playing against 12 major penalty cards? How does their partner play when they can see their partners hand in full? How can you play with 12 penalty cards?

    It seems to me to be fairly well unplayable, at least in any kind of normal bridge terms.

    A couple of cards or perhaps an entire suit makes sense, but to have a defenders full hand on show seems to be absurd - in the case of a 'normal' club night with a playing director, it is even worse as they would presumably have to be present to see that the other defender correctly plays without using UI etc? As such the director has UI about that hand when it gets to them.

    I think that I would rule as unplayable, with 60/40 split for now; with a re-check at the end of the night to ensure that not generous to the perp :)

  • How extremely unfair. Deliberately ruling wrong because you would not like to play it yourself. Disgraceful.

  • Hi Bluejak

    I dont claim to know very much, I thought I had made that clear with all the 'How' questions, and 'it seems to me' and my summary of 'i think that I would'. I come on here to further my knowledge and to try and get things right, should an unusual event like this take place, rather than for insults.

    For me it is more of a case of I would not know how a 12 major penalty hand can be played without having so many rules on leads and the play of penalty cards (and possibly a lot of UI to the director if a playing director that has not seen this hand as yet). Every lead and card is under scrutiny and according to 50 E 4:

    If following the application of E1 the Director judges
    at the end of play that without the assistance
    gained through the exposed card the outcome of
    the board could well have been different, and in
    consequence the non-offending side is damaged
    (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In
    his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly
    as possible the probable outcome of the board
    without the effect of the penalty card(s).

    I would rather think that without 12 penalty cards that the result would be rather different?

  • @bluejak said:
    How extremely unfair. Deliberately ruling wrong because you would not like to play it yourself. Disgraceful.

    This is meant to be a place where TDs, of whatever experience level, can come to ask for helpful advice. They should be able to do so without being put down for what they say, even if you disagree with it. So by all means express your view, but please not in such a combative way.

  • @Martin said:
    Hi Bluejak

    I dont claim to know very much, I thought I had made that clear with all the 'How' questions, and 'it seems to me' and my summary of 'i think that I would'. I come on here to further my knowledge and to try and get things right, should an unusual event like this take place, rather than for insults.

    For me it is more of a case of I would not know how a 12 major penalty hand can be played without having so many rules on leads and the play of penalty cards (and possibly a lot of UI to the director if a playing director that has not seen this hand as yet). Every lead and card is under scrutiny and according to 50 E 4:

    If following the application of E1 the Director judges
    at the end of play that without the assistance
    gained through the exposed card the outcome of
    the board could well have been different, and in
    consequence the non-offending side is damaged
    (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In
    his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly
    as possible the probable outcome of the board
    without the effect of the penalty card(s).

    I would rather think that without 12 penalty cards that the result would be rather different?

    Yes but it's not the non-offending side who are damaged.

  • TagTag
    edited March 3

    In the two rulings I made to give an adjusted score, my first impulse was to have all those juicy penalty cards and to allow declarer to have a field day with his opponent's hand. I then looked at the people involved and considered how depressing and crushing it would be for them on a simple, meant-to-be-enjoyable night at the club in some measly little part-score with no intent to gain an advantage involved, simply some confusion about who was dummy.

    I appreciate that, as declarer, there might be a huge amount of glee involved when discarding defender's aces, or throwing their kings under your own aces, but I didn't care to extend that option to declarer nor the indignity and embarrassment to the defender. On a competition night, I might rule differently.

  • What Tag said

  • @Tag said:
    I've had a couple of these over the past year. In each case, one of the defenders had almost all his hand down before anyone stopped him/her. I ruled that the hand was now unplayable and gave an AAS of 60-40. It did cross my mind to make all exposed cards be major penalty cards but chose not to inflict such anguish.

    Law 12 B.2 : The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is EITHER UNDULY SEVERE or advantageous to either side.

    The intent behind this Law seems to be that even if a rectification provided in the Laws inflicts anguish the TD must rule according to the rectification.

  • Then the law is an ass :) This is part of the reason why my club is the only club that remains affiliated in this area.

    Horses for courses, casual nights with inexperienced players need a light touch to maintain their attendance.

  • @Martin said:
    Then the law is an ass :) This is part of the reason why my club is the only club that remains affiliated in this area.

    It is completely illogical, and rather sad, that people evidently make decisions about club affiliation on such grounds as the contents of the Laws, which are not of course the responsibility of the EBU (albeit that the EBU has historically had considerable influence on the Laws by virtue of various EBU stalwarts - from Geoffrey Butler all the way through to Grattan Endicott, Max Bavin and David Harris - having been members of the WBFLC).

  • @Martin said:
    Then the law is an ass :) This is part of the reason why my club is the only club that remains affiliated in this area.

    Horses for courses, casual nights with inexperienced players need a light touch to maintain their attendance.

    Couldn't agree more with the second part of your comment. As long as the TD is clear in his mind what the law says and is knowingly bending it to suit the level of the players and also their attitude to such things. We had an exactly identical incident at our club a couple of years ago where a defender tabled his cards thinking his partner was declarer. It was an informal club duplicate game, the TD ruled that all thirteen were penalty cards, the declarer nominated the card to be played at each trick and everybody had a good laugh. No harm done because the defender in question had the ability to laugh at himself.

    As Tag says, on a competition night he would rule differently, as the law requires.

  • @Abbeybear - it makes sense to me. A non-affiliated club can essentially make rulings as they see fit.

    An EBU affiliated club leaves their directors open to being in difficult positions with 1 pair at a table wanting to have the rule of the law adhered to and the other players wanting to have a relaxed social evening. Ruling by law can put off the more casual player (I play my AS, you must now play your KS under the ace as it is my choice which you play), whereas ruling based on their experience (howsoever that may be, given the circumstances) can put off the law abiding players.

    The majority of my directing is in a mixed ability/experienced session, with a main goal of encouraging and keeping players that have come through our beginners and improvers courses. The movements we chose allow for relatively slow play and we do not move before all tables are finished. It allows for a more casual environment and the approach has successfully seen increases in our new players becoming regulars.

    If we were to stick rigidly to the laws and directing guidelines, this would not have happened. Penalties for slow play! We actively encourage beginners to start playing as soon as they can and offer for them to only play 2/3 or 3/4 boards in the movement (with an unlawful entry of not-played to boot).

    It is also very much apparent that the social bridge clubs (where correcting revokes take place, or leads out of turn result in a rule of 'put that back in your hand' abound) are very much more popular than the clubs that are more serious/competitive. At my club, the more competitive nights are on the decline and the more social nights are on the rise. This is not a coincidence.

    The rules are fine for competitions where the players should (and probably do) know better and where they will have well drawn out convention cards (or know the consequences if not). But for the more regular social club environments, a lot of these laws seem out of place. The people in the EBU are generally better players, very experienced, regular competition players or directors - the people that they associate with are likely to be better players also. It may well be that they are a little out of touch with the playing community and are certainly out of touch with the huge numbers of social players that are not interested in the EBU.

  • The problem is not that the rules are enforced, but that some teachers do not make clear to their students that they are, and should be. Since bridge is a game with rules, it follows that failing to conform to them (even accidentally) may have negative consequences. This is not a difficult thing for most beginners to understand, were it not for some misguided experienced players telling them otherwise.

  • I think I have mentioned in another thread, beginners struggle to know when to open 1NT and what to do with after 1NT - 2D (weak takeout so should pass). So, it is not a simple thing for them to understand what constitutes hesitations and the consequences. Or not alerting/announcing correctly etc...

    Beginners struggle with all sorts of things, the rules are one of those things.

    Whilst it is a good lesson learnt when you lose a trick and possibly go off due to a revoke, that it limited and easily learnt. Playing with 12 major penalty cards is another and seems excessively difficult for someone to come to terms with for their 3rd time of playing, when they barely understand what a penalty card is (for example). Ditto for the Declarer who must now choose their cards for them.

  • Alerting/announcing etc are regulations, so clubs are free to use them or not as they prefer. I must say I've never heard a beginner ask for a ruling based on a tempo break! And twelve or thirteen penalty cards are such rare occurences I don't think we should worry unduly about them here. But I do think it's very bad not to enforce the revoke laws as written.

  • Maybe I wasn't clear - we do rule correctly for revokes :)
    The impact psychologically on the player is minimal and as I said, a good lesson learnt to pay attention

    I did mention that I know of a good number of other clubs in the area which are very popular and are not EBU members (and they do indeed rule how they wish to - such as put it back in your hand).

    It comes down to the core purpose of the clubs involved... For ours we are very much a bridge club and want to promote 'proper' bridge. Others are more social clubs that happen to involve the playing of duplicate bridge - their aim is to keep people coming. My mixed night aims to be a middle ground.

  • I understand this, but I think other clubs are mistaken if they think that enforcing revoke penalties, for example, will discourage people from coming. Providing it's properly implemented and explained, it should be perceived as fairer.

  • Whilst I applaud the motivation of trying to keep the players coming back, the problem, as I see it, with the flexible approach is that nobody knows where they are, even if you, Martin, have a clear objective in mind and do your level best, as I am sure you do, to achieve that objective.

Sign In or Register to comment.