[661_Pete]

What do people make of this?

Our regular weekly U3A session is mostly very informal and not too serious, we play Chicago scoring and any mistakes or irregularities are usually passed over.

But once a fortnight we have a duplicate session, Pairs Matchpoints, which is taken just that little bit more seriously and we're supposed to play 'by the book', more or less....

Today I was East as dummy in a 5♦ contract by West. I can't recall the exact deal but the spade suit was distributed soemthing like this:

♠A

♠Jxxx...................♠Qxx

♠Kxxxx

North led their singleton A to which all followed, then South led their ♠K - out of turn. I suggested that this was a significant irregularity, so we called over the group leader (who was acting as TD). He said there were various options: declarer could accept the out-of-turn lead; he could ask North to lead, or not to lead, a spade; we could have the hand averaged, or whatever. My partner opted to accept the lead out-of-turn, and as dummy I assumed I wasn't in a position to argue about this.

Well, the obvious happened. North discarded on the second spade and then ruffed the third. One down before we'd even taken a trick.

I looked at the traveller afterwards (we were the last to play that board) and, although we weren't a 'bottom', we were well down the list, certainly going to be less than 50%. I felt tempted to complain to partner: "I wish you'd asked my opinion before accepting". But my partner is a better player than I am, I definitely ought to respect his opinion!

After the session I said to the TD, I wished we'd gone for the average, but it was too late then!

Am I right to be a wee bit miffed?

[Zelandakh]

Your TD was seriously in error and gave your partner options to which they were not entitled. You as Dummy are also not entitled to be involved in Declarer's decision, nor allowed to point out the lead out of turn (if you did). You were allowed to initiate a TD call once the irregularity was pointed out.

There is also a section of BBF designed specifically for Laws issues, so I would suggest you either post there or ask for this thread to be moved. You will find the relevant forums at the bottom of the forum list. I would suggest filing this one under "Simple Rulings".

[VixTD]

"Take an average" is not an option that the director should be offering. You are right to say that dummy is not allowed to interfere, and must not try to influence declarer's choice.

When there's a lead out of turn the non-offenders are given a number of options, and are expected to choose the one that will benefit them most. Your partner's choice did not turn out well for your side, but the laws offer no redress for this. Players are not expected to gain from an infraction, and law 12A1 allows the TD to award an adjusted score if the laws do not provide indemnity for a particular violation, but your side was not damaged by the lead out of turn, it was damaged by your partner's unwise choice. Law 50E3 also allows the director to adjust the score if a penalty card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, but that isn't the case here.

[661_Pete]

Upon reflection, 'take an average' was I think my request, not the TD's offer. Anyway, thanks for the explanation as to dummy's (lack of) rights. I'll have to bear that in mind in future!

Just one of those things I suppose. Bear in mind we're not playing under EBU (or ACBL) jurisdiction. Not that high-powered!

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-28, 06:28, said:

There is also a section of BBF designed specifically for Laws issues, so I would suggest you either post there or ask for this thread to be moved. You will find the relevant forums at the bottom of the forum list. I would suggest filing this one under "Simple Rulings".

I agree that this is where it belongs, so I've moved it.

[barmar]

661_Pete, on 2016-October-28, 07:28, said:

Just one of those things I suppose. Bear in mind we're not playing under EBU (or ACBL) jurisdiction. Not that high-powered!

You said you're trying to play these games by the book. It shouldn't matter whether it's sanctioned by a league.

[barmar]

I had to google to find out what U3A is, BTW. https://en.wikipedia...f_the_Third_Age

[661_Pete]

barmar, on 2016-October-28, 08:48, said:

I had to google to find out what U3A is, BTW. https://en.wikipedia...f_the_Third_Age

Ah - I keep on assuming people elsewhere will know our UK institutions! Sorry! It's an excellent organisation for retired people, covering a wide range of hobby interests, you pay a modest annual subscription which allows you to attend any number of small interest-groups. I pay a small table fee each time I go to the bridge (for which I get tea and a biscuit thrown in ), this is one of the larger groups, generally about 50 people turn up. All very friendly!

I agree that this is technically a 'laws' matter, but I thought it was of more general interest - about how players are supposed to handle irregularities. But never mind.

A further update: it seems I had my moan too soon! The TD has just e-mailed through the results, and it looks as if he made an adjustment in our favour: given us +100 instead of -100 (we were actually 2 down on that board, Non-Vul). I would have settled for an adjustment from -100 to -50, that would seem fair, at MPs. 5♦ wasn't on. I've written back to ask him if the adjustment was genuine, or if it was a mistake...

[weejonnie]

Law 42A1 : Dummy has the right to give information in the director's presence as to fact or law.

So although you can't tell partner what to do you could have advised the director that they should look at law 56 (which points to law 54D, which points to law 50D)

And yes! the ruling is courageous.

1) Declarer may accept the lead (54D) - in which case play continues (he can't ask dummy's opinion).
2) If he does not accept the lead then the lead reverts to North and the King♠ is a major penalty card: (50D)
..... a) North cannot lead until declarer decides which option to exercise, which are
....... i) Force North to lead a Spade (in which case the K♠ is picked up). (In this case North can't so can lead whatever he wants)
....... ii) Force North NOT to lead a Spade until he loses the lead and regains it. (in which case the K♠ is picked up)
....... iii Ask North to make any lead they want (in which case the K♠ remains a major penalty card and North will be in the same position next time they have the lead. (Unless the K♠ has been played.)
..... b) North is allowed to know that partner has a penalty card, but cannot use the knowledge that it is the K♠ unless they have no logical alternative to lead a spade (tricky here of course!)
..... c) South must play K♠ at the first legal opportunity if he hasn't picked it up.

As this is a director's error he must (if he cannot score the board normally) make an adjusted score, regarding both sides as non-offenders for that purpose. (Hence the subsequent e-mail)

PS - the law (10)states

"4. Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)."

Law 16D2 deals with unauthorised information from withdrawn cards and plays, Law 27 deals with insufficient bids (the director can adjust the score if the offending side get to a better contract that they wouldn't have reached without the insufficient bid) and law 50 I have basically paraphrased in part above.

[blackshoe]

I don't like "force". I prefer "require".

[661_Pete]

Further update. TD just e-mailed me to say, he didn't adjust. Must be an error then. Perhaps the traveller was wrongly filled in (North has that job, and East - I - was supposed to check it). I'm certain we had a negative score on that deal, no way could it have been +100 which is what the results attachment shows. Gives us 42% on the board when it ought to have been 0%

Ethically I should alert the TD and ask him to re-check. But I had a partner. And it's only the U3A - not a world-class tourney!

[Vampyr]

661_Pete, on 2016-October-28, 16:47, said:

Ethically I should alert the TD and ask him to re-check. But I had a partner. And it's only the U3A - not a world-class tourney!

Your partner would prefer that you score matchpoints you didn't earn? I should find a new partner if I were you.

[akwoo]

Somewhat idle curiosity, but I can imagine I might want to know as declarer in this case:

Is declarer entitled to ask about opponents' agreements (in this case whether they lead A or K from AK) after Director tells him or her about choices?

[661_Pete]

Vampyr, on 2016-October-28, 16:57, said:

Your partner would prefer that you score matchpoints you didn't earn? I should find a new partner if I were you.

Emphatically, NO. What I mean is, I haven't yet discussed any of this with my partner for that session. I don't have his E-mail address, but I'll look and see if it's on the E-mails sent out by the TD (i.e. whether he 'cc'd recipients or 'bcc'd them). But you're right: honesty is paramount here. I'll send another E-mail.

[steve2005]

akwoo, on 2016-October-28, 21:41, said:

Somewhat idle curiosity, but I can imagine I might want to know as declarer in this case:

Is declarer entitled to ask about opponents' agreements (in this case whether they lead A or K from AK) after Director tells him or her about choices?

leader led ace his partner has king. Leader is short singleton or doubleton. No way I'm letting K♠ be led!

[weejonnie]

akwoo, on 2016-October-28, 21:41, said:

Somewhat idle curiosity, but I can imagine I might want to know as declarer in this case:

Is declarer entitled to ask about opponents' agreements (in this case whether they lead A or K from AK) after Director tells him or her about choices?

Law 40A1b: Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them.

Law 40A2:.... Each player is entitled to take into account..... any cards he has seen. (abridged - law 50 for example imposes restrictions)

In the UK this information should be on the players' system cards - but in the location where this event occurred (as in many others) there probably weren't any.

So the answer is : Yes!

(Obviously declarer can only ask about aqreements - defenders can say "We lead Ace from Ace, King" even if they have the King in their own hand.)

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2016-October-29, 15:26, said:

(Obviously declarer can only ask about aqreements - defenders can say "We lead Ace from Ace, King" even if they have the King in their own hand.)

Well, yes, up to a point. If the defender has any reason from partnership agreement or experience to expect that the lead of an Ace might signify something other than the king, he has to say so. For example, would partner lead a singleton ace? Ace from ace doubleton? "Ace from ace-king" as an agreement usually comes about from discussions that start "king from ace-king *or* king-queen is ambiguous. Can we do better?" That discussion does not imply that when you decide "ace from ace-king" and partner leads the ace and you have the king, partner has departed from your agreements. If you have other agreements that might be germane, you must disclose them. Even if you think "obviously, everybody knows it might be a singleton". No, everybody does not know that.

[661_Pete]

weejonnie, on 2016-October-29, 15:26, said:

but in the location where this event occurred (as in many others) there probably weren't any.

You're dead right about that! In the Chicago sessions (which are normally what we play at our venue) no-one ever announces conventions: the only things which everyone is assumed to be agreed upon are Acol, 12-14 NT, Strong 2's, Stayman, and simple Blackwood.

For the Pairs tourney, my partner asked if I wanted to add anything else, so I said, "Can you do weak 2's, and transfers after NT?" - these being things I'm accustomed to here on BBO of course. Since he answered, yes, we agreed to use those for the duration of the tourney (though as it happened, the occasion never arose). He also asked me about discards, but not being too well keyed-up on those, I answered "keep it simple". We didn't announce anything to the oppos at any of the tables, though we would have alerted, of course, if need be.

Regarding the hand in question, I've just had yet another E-mail. Yes the traveller was filled in wrong (it seems I'm part to blame ) but apparently, this doesn't affect our final placing.

[Trinidad]

I am acting a little bit as SB here:

Allowing declarer to ask questions requires a fairly loose interpretation of Law 20F2 (for questions) and 40B2c3 (for convention cards):

Quote

[20F2] []At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings.[]

[40B2]c) Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent’s system card []
(iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play.

It requires that the moment when declarer decides which option to pick is interpreted as "declarer's turn to play".

I think this is certainly the intent of the lawmakers and the spirit of the Laws, but technically I cannot see that this would be "declarer's turn to play". So, it might be good to include "or whenever offered options by the TD" in these Laws.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2016-October-30, 05:31, said:

I am acting a little bit as SB here:

Allowing declarer to ask questions requires a fairly loose interpretation of Law 20F2 (for questions) and 40B2c3 (for convention cards):


It requires that the moment when declarer decides which option to pick is interpreted as "declarer's turn to play".

I think this is certainly the intent of the lawmakers and the spirit of the Laws, but technically I cannot see that this would be "declarer's turn to play". So, it might be good to include "or whenever offered options by the TD" in these Laws.

Rik

This would be Even better if extended to whenever options are given , as it would allow a player to make an informed decision when an opponent makes an insufficient bid.