[jallerton]

Dummy (North) won the previous trick.

Declarer (South) leads the heart 3 from her hand.

Dummy says "You are in dummy." The defenders say nothing.

Declarer picks up the heart 3 and calls for the heart jack from dummy and East plays a heart to follow to this lead from the "correct" hand.

In the meantime, West calls the director about the original lead out of turn.

How should the TD deal with this?

[raoz]

East has accepted the lead from dummy, so it is deemed played. Dummy loses his rights. No further rectification.

[RMB1]

Dummy has illegally drawn attention to an irregularity and should be warned/penalized.

Lead out of turn by declarer has not been rejected so the card has not been withdrawn.
Dummy has played out of turn, so that card cannot be withdrawn (Law 57C2).
The play from East is premature and accepts the lead out of turn (Law 53B) but is not subject to penalty (Law 57C1).

All cards played so far should be put "in the played position" and West plays second to the trick but plays the fourth card.

[jallerton]

Thanks, Robin.

East was following to the lead from the "correct" hand, but if I understand you correctly you are saying that this card is deemed to be accepting and playing to declarer's lead.

On this occasion, all three cards played were from the same suit. But suppose instead that declarer had called for (say) a club from dummy and that East (holding cards in all four suits) had played a club to follow to dummy's club lead. Now what would be the ruling?

[RMB1]

jallerton, on 2015-July-05, 12:37, said:

But suppose instead that declarer had called for (say) a club from dummy and that East (holding cards in all four suits) had played a club to follow to dummy's club lead. Now what would be the ruling?

(I was aware that the ruling was easier when dummy (and East) "followed suit".)

I still think declarer's card has not been withdrawn and the premature play by East accepts the lead out of turn (but there is no law covering premature plays which are revokes).

Whatever happens, the director should consider Law 23 - declarer could know that appearing to lead from dummy might get East to play and compromise the defence.

If dummy's card is a revoke, it must be corrected and East can change his card. I would rule that in changing his card, East can (should) wait for West to play to the trick.

If dummy does not have a heart, then dummy's play is legal (if premature), East has revoked. This revoke must be corrected but

• I would "designate otherwise" (Law 50) and the revoke card does not become a penalty card
  
• I would let West play to the trick before East corrects
  
• If sight of the revoke card damages the defenders I would apply Law 23

[jallerton]

RMB1, on 2015-July-05, 13:50, said:

(I was aware that the ruling was easier when dummy (and East) "followed suit".)

I still think declarer's card has not been withdrawn and the premature play by East accepts the lead out of turn (but there is no law covering premature plays which are revokes).

Whatever happens, the director should consider Law 23 - declarer could know that appearing to lead from dummy might get East to play and compromise the defence.

If dummy's card is a revoke, it must be corrected and East can change his card. I would rule that in changing his card, East can (should) wait for West to play to the trick.

If dummy does not have a heart, then dummy's play is legal (if premature), East has revoked. This revoke must be corrected but

• I would "designate otherwise" (Law 50) and the revoke card does not become a penalty card
  
• I would let West play to the trick before East corrects
  
• If sight of the revoke card damages the defenders I would apply Law 23

Thanks. Is the sight of East's card UI to West (and is West's requirement to "bend over backwards" to avoid taking any advantage of this UI what creates the potential for the Law 23 adjustment you mention)?

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2015-July-03, 17:26, said:

Dummy (North) won the previous trick.

Declarer (South) leads the heart 3 from her hand.

Dummy says "You are in dummy." The defenders say nothing.

Declarer picks up the heart 3 and calls for the heart jack from dummy and East plays a heart to follow to this lead from the "correct" hand.

In the meantime, West calls the director about the original lead out of turn.

How should the TD deal with this?

I can imagine this sort of thing happening nearly every session in a club (apart from the call for the director, or course), and while I can't fault Robin's technical ruling, if I ruled this way in the club it would just discourage players from ever calling the TD.

All West has done is call the director, he hasn't indicated whether he wants to accept South's lead, or reject it, or doesn't want to commit himself. If he wants to correct it, I would go along with Robin's ruling, but if he wants to reject it, or has no opinion, wouldn't it be better just to treat declarer's lead from dummy as a second irregularity which East has accepted, particularly as that's what he intended to do?

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2015-July-03, 17:26, said:

Dummy (North) won the previous trick.

Declarer (South) leads the heart 3 from her hand.

An irregularity (Law 44G).

jallerton, on 2015-July-03, 17:26, said:

Dummy says "You are in dummy."

A second irregularity (Law 42B3, Law 43A).

jallerton, on 2015-July-03, 17:26, said:

The defenders say nothing.

A third irregularity (Law 9B1).

jallerton, on 2015-July-03, 17:26, said:

Declarer picks up the heart 3 and calls for the heart jack from dummy…

A fourth irregularity (Law 9C, Law 9B2).

jallerton, on 2015-July-03, 17:26, said:

…and East plays a heart to follow to this lead from the "correct" hand.

A fifth irregularity (Law 9B2).

jallerton, on 2015-July-03, 17:26, said:

In the meantime, West calls the director about the original lead out of turn.

Not an irregularity in itself, but… what does "in the meantime" mean here? At what point was the director actually called?

jallerton, on 2015-July-03, 17:26, said:

How should the TD deal with this?

Firmly.

I recognize the concern of club management to "keep bums in seats", but I do not believe that concern should override the law. That said, PPs are at the TD's discretion. On the gripping hand, there've been a lot of irregularities here. Do we need to assess penalties to emphasize the correct procedure? "May not" (Law 43A1{b}) is a very strong prohibition. As such, it seems to me it rates a PP. Yes, dummy might argue that he was merely a little slow in attempting to prevent an irregularity, but I don't buy it. The irregularity already happened, so dummy has clearly done what he "may not" do. If this is a first time offense in a club where penalties have never been given for this (or at all, in some clubs) I might give a warning, or a reduced penalty. But dummy needs to know that he can't do this.

Declarer needs to know that when attention has been called to an irregularity, he should not "correct" it, he should (as should everyone else) call the director. Yeah, yeah, "waste of time", "bridge is a timed event", "the director's always slow in responding", "the director's incompetent", "we know what the ruling is", yada, yada, yada. Doesn't matter. Call the director! PP(Warning) to both sides.

I would instruct the table that the ♥3, ♥J, and whatever heart East played are played cards, following Robin, and tell West to play to the trick. If this situation has damaged EW, I would consider a score adjustment (Law 23), otherwise no further rectification.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2015-July-07, 05:43, said:

I can imagine this sort of thing happening nearly every session in a club (apart from the call for the director, or course), and while I can't fault Robin's technical ruling, if I ruled this way in the club it would just discourage players from ever calling the TD.

I don't think jallerton was asking in a club context: he has been playing in Tromso in the European Championships.

In a club, unless West manages to says he wishes to accept the lead before declarer "leads" from dummy, East/West will have "accepted" the lead from dummy.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-07, 08:41, said:

An irregularity (Law 44G).


A second irregularity (Law 42B3, Law 43A).


A third irregularity (Law 9B1).


A fourth irregularity (Law 9C, Law 9B2).


A fifth irregularity (Law 9B2).


Not an irregularity in itself, but… what does "in the meantime" mean here? At what point was the director actually called?

As is often the case in these situations, everything happened quite quickly.

When an opponent seems to have led out of turn, a player's first thought is often "I thought she was in the other hand, but maybe I thought wrong. Before I say anything I'll replay the previous trick in my head."

Although West knows the wording of quite a few of the Laws, it may have taken him a few seconds to remember the exact wording of Law 9B1: "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity" or is it "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is legally drawn to an irregularity."?

Dummy's comment was not made until after declarer's card had been faced, but obviously there is a time lag between deciding to say something and the comment being made and heard. Suppose that dummy sees declarer detach a card from her hand, attempts to prevent an irregularity by reminding declarer that she is in hand, but by the time the comment is uttered, declarer's card is in the played position. It seems harsh to give him a PP when as far as he was concerned he was taking an action expressly permitted by Law 42B2.

Do declarers lead ever from the wrong hand at your club, Ed? If so, do their partners generally point out the irreguarity or just keep quiet? My experience is that the former reaction is far more commom that the latter.

Are a lot of PPs issued when you are directing?

[blackshoe]

At the clubs around here, PPs are anathema. I don't think I've heard of one being issued in the last ten years, at least. I've heard a lot of "don't do that", usually repeated to the same offenders about sixty jillion times. After a while, it just tends to be meaningless noise.

Sure, declarers here, like declarers anywhere else, frequently lead from the wrong hand. And dummy tells him he's leading from the wrong hand. Whether that was an after the fact "illegally drawing attention to an irregularity" or an unfortunately slow attempt to warn declarer is a judgement matter for the TD.

[dcrc2]

RMB1, on 2015-July-04, 08:53, said:

Lead out of turn by declarer has not been rejected so the card has not been withdrawn.
Dummy has played out of turn, so that card cannot be withdrawn (Law 57C2).
The play from East is premature and accepts the lead out of turn (Law 53B) but is not subject to penalty (Law 57C1).

I'm not convinced by this. Law 55A1 allows either defender to require the lead to be retracted. I would argue that by waiting for declarer to call for a card from dummy, and then following to that card, East has signalled that he wishes the original lead out of turn to be retracted. Sure the TD should have been called in principle, but so what? Players routinely invoke Law 55A1 without calling the TD.