[gwnn]

The auction
1NT-2♣-(X by pd)-2♦-3♦(after long thought)
3NT(after even longer thought) all pass brings you to lead.

you have about 7 hcp, guaranteeing some sort of entries at pd, and QT9 of clubs.

You lead the Q of clubs, (which is an almost sure blunder), but that was your choice, taken by the A by declarer.

then you get in with your outside king and you continue clubs from top.

then pd gets in with some sort of outside ace. He seems to still have about 7-8 hcp, but you can't be sure, opps don't seem to know their NT range, etc. he leads a small club and you WIN. While you are thinking what to return, where's pd's entry etc, pd tries another club, declarer leniently following suit. May you call TD or tell pd "my play ok???".

[awm]

I don't think you're obligated to call the director or inform the opponents on partner's infraction. But it seems like good sportsmanship to speak up.

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Dec 17 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

I don't think you're obligated to call the director or inform the opponents on partner's infraction. But it seems like good sportsmanship to speak up.

No. Do not call the director, do not call attention to it.

When an infraction has been accepted, such as an insufficient bid or a lead out of turn, you cannot bring it up. In fact, to do so provides UI to partner. The action has been accepted, and the hand must continue. Once the opponents accept it, it's no longer an infraction. Commenting on it would be like commenting on any other bid or play.

Prior to it being accepted, such as if your partner had led a club and the next player hadn't played yet, then absolutely you may say something or call the director*. If the action cannot be accepted, such as doubling partner's bid, then you need to call the director regardless of whether the opponents try to accept it.

*most of the time. If your partner leads when in fact it was your LHO's turn to lead, I'm not sure if you have any standing to call the director.

[mycroft]

1. Law 63B:

3. Inadvertent Infraction
There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of Law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation).

4. Concealing an Infraction
A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke, or mixing the cards prematurely.

So, as far as the law is concerned, the answer is No, but you can if you want. If anyone says anything about who led, well, then, yes, you have to call the TD. Your own personal ethics, of course, may say "yes"; but don't put your personal ethics on someone who's not in the wrong by saying "no" (but see my "what would I do?" note below).

2. When the TD comes over, the ruling would be Law 53A:
Any lead faced out of turn ... becomes a correct lead if ..., or if the player next in rotation plays to the irregular lead, [with two exceptions, neither of which apply here - mdf].

So, frankly, once declarer plays, it doesn't matter. If anybody complains, then it would have been better to have had the TD over immediately, as the resulting discussion would almost certainly be calmer.

Whether or not I, personally, say anything before declarer plays would depend on the event (My opinion is that in the GNT district final, if you don't pay attention, that's your tough luck; in the club, it's our tough luck for our own inattention, for instance), and my personal opinion of my opponent and my opponent's history (yeah, that means that if I don't like you I won't say anything, and if you're known to me as a rules lawyer when it's to your advantage, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't give up my advantage). Does that mean I'm a petty SOB? Probably, but I don't dislike many people; and if you don't want to be treated right to the letter of the law by a TD, don't play letter of the law games when that TD is directing - seems pretty simple to me.

Michael.

[mycroft]

JTF:
- The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity (Law 9B1a).
- Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period (Law 9A2a).

UI is UI, and saying anything at any time about these things passes UI. I don't see any useful UI here (as opposed to "we won trick 3, partner"); but of course, since after the attention was drawn, the TD was summoned, he'll make sure that your partner appropriately deals with whatever UI was passed.

For your footnote - see above for "do you have standing". There are people who say "but it's not her turn, she can't point that out!" Sure she can (Law 9A1 covers the auction, special rules apply to dummy, to cover the other cases). The only difference about LHO's turn to lead is Law 53C, where if it was the Lead out of turner's LHO's turn to lead, then LHO playing a card may not be considered "following suit", if the TD believes it's "making a lead".

Michael.

[jtfanclub]

mycroft, on Dec 17 2007, 04:59 PM, said:

JTF: 
- The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity (Law 9B1a).
- Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period (Law 9A2a).

But there's no longer an irregularity. It was canceled when the opponent played to the next trick. So you'd be drawing attention to something that didn't happen.

Honestly, I sent something to rulings, hopefully we'll get a straight answer as to whether the offending side can still call the director after a Law 27A or 53A. Not that there's any penalty for doing so besides the possible UI.

Edited to add (missed your first post there, sorry)...

Quote

Whether or not I, personally, say anything before declarer plays would depend on the event

That's not fair...I agree that you may say something but you don't have to before declarer plays. The question is, can you still say something even after it's too late?

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't want to bet on what Mike Flader will say, but IMO there was an irregularity. That the LOOT was accepted doesn't change that. That there can now be no penalty doesn't change it. So I don't buy the argument (if anyone is actually making it) that you can't call the TD because the irregularity no longer exists.

You can say any damn thing you want to at the bridge table, within reason. You can't, for example, call your RHO an idiot (even if he is). But anything you say that isn't a legal call or play is extraneous information, and may convey UI to partner.

That said, I don't see any harm in calling the TD in the case at hand - but it won't do you any good.

[P_Marlowe]

Call the TD.

The lead out of turn was accepted,
but player should avoid making their
own ruling at the table.

The TD may still need to correct the table
result, say the defender lead a low club
to partners Ace, and after partners single
Ace did hold the trick he continues with the
suit from top.

Certainly a fairly esoteric case, but nevertheless
a case where the TD surely should correct the
table result.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[barmar]

I agree with Marlowe. It's the TD's job to apply the Law that says that declarer's play to the trick accepts the LOOT.

[Echognome]

LOOT was accepted. You can call the TD, but IMO it's a waste of time. All you accomplish is make everyone feel bad, especially if someone just blundered big time.

Now, if you want to not accept the lead, that's fine. I mean if you feel it's fair play or sportsmanship or whatever. That's fine.

But I don't really worry about it. When someone makes a stupid bid or a stupid play, I don't say "take it back."

However, if partner was being crafty and trying to gain an advantage. Why then I call the TD and do not accept the LOOT. That'll teach partner!

[barmar]

Echognome, on Dec 18 2007, 06:41 AM, said:

However, if partner was being crafty and trying to gain an advantage. Why then I call the TD and do not accept the LOOT. That'll teach partner!

I don't think you can "not accept the LOOT". It's totally declarer's option, and he implicitly chose to accept it by playing to the trick rather than calling the TD immediately.

But this is why it's still correct to call the TD now -- so he can inform everyone correctly about their options and obligations according to the Laws. Don't guess, don't assume -- call the TD and find out for sure.

[jdonn]

barmar, on Dec 18 2007, 06:24 AM, said:

But this is why it's still correct to call the TD now -- so he can inform everyone correctly about their options and obligations according to the Laws.  Don't guess, don't assume -- call the TD and find out for sure.

Allowed, but not "correct". I wouldn't call. You feel it's correct to call the directer because we shouldn't interpret the law ourself, but the law says we are under no obligation to call. Obviously it wouldn't say that if we were supposed to call automatically for the reasons you state. Your position seems to be that you are under no obligation to call the director (clearly stated in law 63), but you should not interpret that law or any other without calling the director. Really?

There is no guess or assumption involved, it is certain that when declarer plays to the trick, your partner's LOOT was accepted and play continues. I don't even know which law says that or the exact wording and I am still completely sure of it.

The only reason I would call is if declarer noticed what he did and tried to take it back and make you lead from the correct hand. In a friendly game I would probably just let him, but certainly that would be an appropriate situation in which to call the director.

[MFA]

* There HAS been an irregularity, so if anyone says "huh?" (draws attention to it), TD must be summoned.

* You don't have to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction from your own side.

* The LOOT was accepted, so it's too late to correct it, but score adjustment afterwards is still very likely, because the defender could have known at the time that it would clearly be to his advantage to LOOT.
Because of this point, I voted "yes". I'm not convinced that the spirit of the laws approves of keeping silent with infractions that may lead to these kind of adjustments.

[Echognome]

barmar, on Dec 18 2007, 03:24 AM, said:

Echognome, on Dec 18 2007, 06:41 AM, said:

However, if partner was being crafty and trying to gain an advantage.  Why then I call the TD and do not accept the LOOT.  That'll teach partner!

I don't think you can "not accept the LOOT". It's totally declarer's option, and he implicitly chose to accept it by playing to the trick rather than calling the TD immediately.

But this is why it's still correct to call the TD now -- so he can inform everyone correctly about their options and obligations according to the Laws. Don't guess, don't assume -- call the TD and find out for sure.

Sorry. Momentary lapse there. We actually have no say in the matter. The Lead was accepted, so what's the point of calling the TD?

We call the TD, he says "LOOT was accepted. Play on."

Sweet. Well done us.

[jtfanclub]

MFA, on Dec 18 2007, 09:08 AM, said:

* The LOOT was accepted, so it's too late to correct it, but score adjustment afterwards is still very likely, because the defender could have known at the time that it would clearly be to his advantage to LOOT.

What would this adjustment be?

Declarer could have called the director, or not. Declarer chose to follow from the wrong side. Doesn't matter what happens next, there is no adjustment.

There could, eventually, be a 3 IMP penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct, I guess, if your partner 'forgets' this a lot. If somebody can find a case of it ever happening, I'd like to see it. And if you're accusing your partner of that, your partnership isn't going to last long.

But once declarer has played, he's played, and he doesn't get to decide later that he'd rather have the lead from the other side even if the LOOT was deliberate.

[MFA]

jtfanclub, on Dec 18 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

MFA, on Dec 18 2007, 09:08 AM, said:

* The LOOT was accepted, so it's too late to correct it, but score adjustment afterwards is still very likely, because the defender could have known at the time that it would clearly be to his advantage to LOOT.

What would this adjustment be?

Declarer could have called the director, or not. Declarer chose to follow from the wrong side. Doesn't matter what happens next, there is no adjustment.

There could, eventually, be a 3 IMP penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct, I guess, if your partner 'forgets' this a lot. If somebody can find a case of it ever happening, I'd like to see it. And if you're accusing your partner of that, your partnership isn't going to last long.

But once declarer has played, he's played, and he doesn't get to decide later that he'd rather have the lead from the other side even if the LOOT was deliberate.

Law 72B1:

"B. Infraction of Law
1. Adjusted Score
Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity."

So TD adjust to best result that was likely for NS, had the irregularity not happened.

This situation is analogous to the classical AK tight opposite QJxxxx with no entries in NT. Declarer plays A, K and calls for the Q. Even if RHO is caught sleeping and plays to the trick, §72B1 will protect him.

[jdonn]

MFA, on Dec 18 2007, 04:17 PM, said:

Law 72B1:

"B. Infraction of Law
1. Adjusted Score
Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity."

The lead from the wrong hand is not even CLOSE to "likely to damage the non-offending side" because (despite what happened at the table) they will not let you lead from the wrong hand unless it is to their benefit. It is much more likely to damage the offending side, since that is the only time declarer will accept it, theoretically. How could anyone ever expect their opponent to be so braindead as this one was?

[MFA]

jdonn, on Dec 19 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

MFA, on Dec 18 2007, 04:17 PM, said:

Law 72B1:

"B. Infraction of Law
1. Adjusted Score
Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity."

The lead from the wrong hand is not even CLOSE to "likely to damage the non-offending side" because (despite what happened at the table) they will not let you lead from the wrong hand unless it is to their benefit. It is much more likely to damage the offending side, since that is the only time declarer will accept it, theoretically. How could anyone ever expect their opponent to be so braindead as this one was?

The term "likely" points in two directions:
1) Relative likelyhood. In this situation, there is no risk! This is important, although the laws do allow for some small risk of backfire.
2) Absolute likelyhood. There should be some realistic, positive chance that the "coup" would work, which is the case here.

§72B1 should be considered a fence against the player, who happens to be just so lucky as to make his infractions at the times, where they are clearly to his advantage and he could know this. Nothing at all about the c-word in the practical cases, it's just a fence...
Note that this part of the laws is new since 1997.

I strongly believe that the application of §72B1 in the actual case is mainstream law interpretation. The top danish directors are backing me up on this.

But it's only fair to mention 2 things:

a. There has been a minority view against it. But this might primarily have been a political view up to the 2007 laws revision, I'm not sure. Dburn has been arguing against in a director's forum, is he reading this?

b. It's far from clear if it's correct to assign full redress to the nonoffending side. This is about the Kaplan doctrine: If a player subsequently makes an egregious error, he will lose his side's right to adjustment (adjusted for one side only).
An egregious error is VERY bad. It could be argued, if following to the LOOT is "egregious" and especially if it is a subsequent error.

Notabilities such as Ton Kooijman supports the use of the Kaplan doctrine (and §72B1 of course) in LOOT situations, while our national directors seem not to ... any longer!

There was a case 5 years ago in the Danish Premier Division, where a declarer made an impossible slam by leading from hand instead of dummy at trick 12.
Second hand followed...
This case was resolved by adjusted score for the declaring side only. §72B1 + Kaplan. Unfortunately, there was no appeal to get a second view, but it was two top director's ruling. I know that one of them later has changed his mind, finding it appropriate to adjust for both sides(!). He was very much in doubt when the case arose.

That case was discussed on "BLML" (bridge laws mailing list) back then:
http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...hread.html#2013

[barmar]

An example where a defender "could have known" that leading out of turn would be likely to help is when his partner has just been end-played.

If declarer performed the end-play intentionally, he should notice the problem and wouldn't accept the LOOT. But if he just lucked into it, he might not be paying as much attention. 72B1 protects him in this case. It's true that he should be more careful, but when an infraction occurs we give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS.

[jdonn]

MFA, on Dec 21 2007, 04:59 AM, said:

The term "likely" points in two directions:
1) Relative likelyhood. In this situation, there is no risk! This is important, although the laws do allow for some small risk of backfire.
2) Absolute likelyhood. There should be some realistic, positive chance that the "coup" would work, which is the case here.

I'll have to take your word for it if there is a majority interpretation of 1), and I certainly make no claims of being some authority on the laws, but that seems nonexistant as far as I'm concerned. The law could have said "low risk" or something but it didn't, it said "likely" to gain. 1% chance of gain with 0% chance of loss is not 'likely to gain'. 70% chance of gain with 30% chance of loss is 'likely to gain'. This seems obvious to me.

Like I said, any lead out of turn has a 0% chance of gaining and a >0% chance of losing, unless the opponent is completely irrational.