[Vampyr]

pran, on 2015-April-30, 01:46, said:

"North has to decide whether to reject the lead from the wrong hand. This is a demonstrable bridge reason for the pause."

Yes - but only after he has called the Director!

The problem happened in a place we call The Real World, where nobody ever calls the director in this situation.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2015-April-30, 02:10, said:

That would be unfair to a player who follows because of not noticing that the lead was from the wrong hand.

Yes, I was not entirely serious.

[wank]

pran, on 2015-April-30, 01:46, said:

"North has to decide whether to reject the lead from the wrong hand. This is a demonstrable bridge reason for the pause."

Yes - but only after he has called the Director!

obviously not. he can decide whether he wants to bother calling the director or just condone the lead from the wrong hand. this is of course perfectly legal because no attention has been drawn to the deviation from procedure.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-29, 10:32, said:

Not a free pass. We rule on preponderance of the evidence.

A hesitation by the next player after Declarer commits an infraction is indeed not a "free pass". Nor do we need preponderance of anything to rule as you said above --- "Play on."

Declarer could have been so anxious to play through his LHO in this same case to get a reaction or a "free pass" of his own that he led from hand out of turn. If he doesn't like my "play on" ruling, I might mention L23 to him.

[sanst]

pran, on 2015-April-29, 09:55, said:

No, not unless he draws attention to the irregularity and then summons the Director.

Maybe he's wondering wether the lead should be from the dummy or the declarer. Even if he knows that it's a LOOT, he is under no obligation to call the director, let alone immediately and might consider, as others have pointed out, wether he's going to draw attention to the irregularity.

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on 2015-April-29, 09:49, said:

Oops! Could we have a facility to downvote one's own posts? (I'm happy not be able to upvote them!)

Others have done a rather better job than me in recognising that the lead came from the wrong hand at T3. In my view that completely alters the first assessment I gave of this case, and I think N has an entirely legitimate reason to think about whether or not he wants to accept this. Bad luck on declarer if he drew the wrong inference about what N had to be thinking about because he didn't realise N had a genuine choice at this point even with a singleton Q....

Some would have just edited their first post --- maybe with a "Disregard. I misread the OP". But no, you honorably left it out there for posterity.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-April-30, 01:46, said:

"North has to decide whether to reject the lead from the wrong hand. This is a demonstrable bridge reason for the pause."

Yes - but only after he has called the Director!

That is simply not true. If North decides to accept the lead, he does not have to call the TD. Yes, there was an irregularity. But, no, attention had not been drawn to it. North only needs to call the TD once attention has been drawn to the irregularity.

And Law 53A is very specific: North has the option of treating the lead from declarer's hand as a correct lead. And for a correct lead you certainly don't need to call the TD.

Nobody can force North to tell West that he just committed an irregularity. If North thinks it is (or potentially could be) to his advantage to hide that information from West, North is allowed to keep quiet.

In addition, Law 55 gives South some options too, so North is allowed to give South the opportunity to exercise any of his options (accepting the lead, rejecting the lead, drawing attention to the irregularity).

So, North has many options:

• Accept the lead, without drawing attention to the LOOT
  
• Wait for South to do something, without drawing attention to the LOOT
  
• Draw attention to the LOOT and call the TD (and then choose one of the options)

One of these options already requires some pause. And remembering what your options are and having to decide between them is definitely a bridge reason for a short pause (the few seconds as reported in the OP).

A similar situation, but even clearer, occurs when an opponent revokes. Nobody says that you have to draw attention to the revoke. You can just play on and let the revoke become established, with all the consequences. You can just let your opponents think that they beat your contract one trick and then call the TD to point out that your opponent revoked and end up with an overtrick in the end. In certain circumstances, you can even plan a two-way finesse in such a way that the revoker will win the trick if the finesse loses (which means that you will get the trick back).

Rik

[VixTD]

We thought that North had a demonstrable bridge reason for thinking, so allowed the score to stand.

This raised some strong opinions among players involved, and among directors consulted after the event. East felt (strongly enough to appeal) that North should have said something about what he was thinking about. To me this is like requiring a disclaimer from a defender with a singleton in the suit led at trick one - it's going to tip off declarer to the likelihood of a singleton or other inconsequential holding.

Pran's proposed solution would have a similar effect. As there's no legal requirement to call the TD until attention has been drawn to an infraction and players rarely do it, calling the director here would suggest to offender that North has no reason to think about which card to play to this trick.

EW lost their appeal, but won back their deposit.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2015-April-30, 07:16, said:

We thought that North had a demonstrable bridge reason for thinking, so allowed the score to stand.

This raised some strong opinions among players involved, and among directors consulted after the event. East felt (strongly enough to appeal) that North should have said something about what he was thinking about. To me this is like requiring a disclaimer from a defender with a singleton in the suit led at trick one - it's going to tip off declarer to the likelihood of a singleton or other inconsequential holding.

Pran's proposed solution would have a similar effect. As there's no legal requirement to call the TD until attention has been drawn to an infraction and players rarely do it, calling the director here would suggest to offender that North has no reason to think about which card to play to this trick.

EW lost their appeal, but won back their deposit.

I never said (or wrote) that the player was required to call the director (period), but that if he didn't then his hesitation with a singleton was no different than other hesitations with a singleton.

He can justify his hesitation in three ways:
- by summoning the Director and letting him take control of the lead out of turn.
- by explicitly (and immediately with his play) stating that he was just considering how to react on the lead out of turn.
- by (immediately with his play) apologizing with a statement to the effect that he had nothing to think about.

[aguahombre]

And, by what rule does North need to justify his hesitation to the players at the table at all when he hesitates and then plays in these given circumstances?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-April-30, 01:46, said:

Yes - but only after he has called the Director!

Based on what law?

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-30, 05:39, said:

And Law 53A is very specific: North has the option of treating the lead from declarer's hand as a correct lead. And for a correct lead you certainly don't need to call the TD.

I could be wrong, but I've always interpreted the part about playing from the next hand not as the "correct" procedure to condone the LOOT. It's more like the law about incomplete designations from dummy: we allow them, and the law explains what happens as a result.

Also, does next hand's hesitation to think about whether to accept the LOOT effectively draw attention to it? We've had a number of discussions about what it takes to "call attention" to an irregularity. Does it have to be an overt statement, or does it include any mannerism that makes it clear to the other players that an irregularity occurred (e.g. an expression of surprise)? Basically, if we allow the hesitation because it's obvious that he may be thinking about whether to accept the LOOT, doesn't that call attention to it, and hence require calling the TD?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-April-30, 09:58, said:

Basically, if we allow the hesitation because it's obvious that he may be thinking about whether to accept the LOOT, doesn't that call attention to it, and hence require calling the TD?

Probably. If so, then all four players are fault when the director is not called.

[aguahombre]

I volunteer to be the TD who, ONE TIME, when a player hesitates after Declarer has led from the wrong hand, rules against that player if he held a singleton.

Then I volunteer to make that ruling as widely circulated as humanly possible.

Thereafter, any Declarer who ever leads out of turn "could have been aware that his own irregularity might well result in damage to the opponents".

[campboy]

barmar, on 2015-April-30, 09:58, said:

I could be wrong, but I've always interpreted the part about playing from the next hand not as the "correct" procedure to condone the LOOT. It's more like the law about incomplete designations from dummy: we allow them, and the law explains what happens as a result.

I think it is fine for the next hand to just play, since Law 53 A begins "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead [...]". It is similar to 29A in that it gives the next player an option by using the word "may". (Contrast Law 28B, which is a "this is what we do when that happens" law.)

[pran]

campboy, on 2015-April-30, 13:32, said:

I think it is fine for the next hand to just play, since Law 53 A begins "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead [...]". It is similar to 29A in that it gives the next player an option by using the word "may". (Contrast Law 28B, which is a "this is what we do when that happens" law.)

Law 53A protects the inattentive player who just follows suit to a lead out of turn from his RHO, but it also indicates that the correct procedure with leads out of turn is to summon the Director.

[campboy]

pran, on 2015-April-30, 14:59, said:

Law 53A protects the inattentive player who just follows suit to a lead out of turn from his RHO, but it also indicates that the correct procedure with leads out of turn is to summon the Director.

No it doesn't. The Director is only mentioned in the part dealing with the lead not being accepted. So it merely indicates that the correct procedure with a lead out of turn that you don't want to accept is to call the Director.

[BudH]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-30, 05:39, said:

A similar situation, but even clearer, occurs when an opponent revokes. Nobody says that you have to draw attention to the revoke. You can just play on and let the revoke become established, with all the consequences. You can just let your opponents think that they beat your contract one trick and then call the TD to point out that your opponent revoked and end up with an overtrick in the end. In certain circumstances, you can even plan a two-way finesse in such a way that the revoker will win the trick if the finesse loses (which means that you will get the trick back).

Rik

Sounds like that would be true only before the 2007 law change on revokes. No longer do you have the phrase "won a trick with a card that could have been played..." (paraphrasing)

[blackshoe]

"In certain circumstances". Those would be 1) that the revoker won the trick on which he revoked, 2) that the finesse failed, and 3) that no other trick after the revoke was won by the offending side. In that case, Law 64A1 gives two tricks to the NOS. Of course, if the OS did win other tricks after the revoke, the NOS still gets two tricks - but he doesn't specifically get back the trick on which the finesse failed. Technically, he doesn't really get any specific trick back, except for the revoke trick itself, but never mind that.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-April-30, 14:59, said:

Law 53A protects the inattentive player who just follows suit to a lead out of turn from his RHO, but it also indicates that the correct procedure with leads out of turn is to summon the Director.

Nowhere does law 53A indicate that the correct procedure is to summon the TD. Or do you have another law book then the one on the WBF website?

Quote

A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead
Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead (but see C). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will require that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).

So, if you are going to accept the LOOT, you do not need to call the TD (or even draw attention to the irregularity). It is entirely correct procedure to play to the trick (as North did here). That is not merely "protecting an inattentive North". It gives North an option: He may treat the LOOT as a correct lead. And you do not need to call the TD for a correct lead.

So, your statement that the correct procedure is to summon the TD is wrong. The TD only needs to be summoned if the LOOT is not treated as a correct lead.

Rik