[bali 2]

---

South is playing 3NT and receives the HQ lead.
He plays small from both hands and is counting his winners, the others having turned their cards faced down ( except the H from South's hand which is still on the table ).
West continues with HJ and now S turns the small heart as played at trick 2.
West plays his third and last H and now declarer discovers that he made a mistake, being in his dreams of how many tricks he can make.
The director is called and applies 67 B1 a : South must play the H Ace at trick 2, but W remains the winner of that trick, plus one trick penalty : South is down 2 instead of +1
Don't you think that this law is too much harsh for declarer ?

[pran]

bali 2, on Nov 7 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> ????? </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> ???? </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> Unknown </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KQx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> xxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> KQJx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> xxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AJxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Ax </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> Axx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AJxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->

  South is playing 3NT and receives the HQ lead.
He plays small from both hands and is counting his winners, the others having turned their cards faced down ( except the H from South's hand which is still on the table ).
  West continues with HJ and now S turns the small heart as played at trick 2.
West plays his third and last H and now declarer discovers that he made a mistake, being in his dreams of how many tricks he can make.
  The director is called and applies 67 B1 a : South must play the H Ace at trick 2, but W remains the winner of that trick, plus one trick penalty : South is down 2 instead of +1
  Don't you think that this law is too much harsh for declarer ? 

I am not convinced that Law 67B is the correct law in this case. See for instance Laws 45G (related to the second trick), 45D and 67A.

But I am a bit confused about the exact events. The way I understand the facts is:

1: After playing to the first trick Dummy and both defenders turned their cards face down, Declarer kept his card face up while considering the further play.

2: West now led to the second trick. Did declarer request a card to be played from dummy or did Dummy just automatically follow suit?

Provided that Declarer never requested a card from Dummy to the second trick the card Dummy played to the third trick (in response to a request by Declarer) was legally played to the second and then the declaring side has not played any card to a trick subsequent to the defective second trick.

The correct ruling in this case should IMO have been (Law 67A) that Declarer plays his AH to the second trick and wins that trick for a total of 10 tricks in his contract.

(West has led to the third trick without awaiting Declarer's play to the second. Here that becomes a card led out of turn)

regardx Sven

[Vampyr]

I don't understand the ruling. It is West, not South, who has committed an infraction, by playing to the second trick before the first trick was quitted.

He then led out of turn to the third trick.

How, in any case, was trick 1 defective?

It is not South's fault that he was fooled by West's actions. A similar thing happened to me once.

Declarer had won a trick. All four players had at first turned their card face-down, but declarer was playing with his card. When I glanced at the table in front of him, there was a card faced and so I attempted to follow suit to it; but it was the card with which declarer had won the previous trick. The director ruled no penalty.

The point is that if another player is doing strange things with his cards you should not be blamed for being deceived.

[campboy]

Is there a law which says it is an infraction to lead to a trick before an opponent has turned his card from the previous trick? I expected there to be one, but I can't find it if so.

Anyway, from the initial post it sounds like declarer had not yet played to trick 3, either from his hand or dummy, in which case 67A, not 67B, applies and declarer wins trick 2.

[pran]

campboy, on Nov 7 2009, 04:58 PM, said:

Is there a law which says it is an infraction to lead to a trick before an opponent has turned his card from the previous trick?

No

[pran]

Vampyr, on Nov 7 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

I don't understand the ruling. It is West, not South, who has committed an infraction, by playing to the second trick before the first trick was quitted.

That was not itself an infraction of law.

Vampyr, on Nov 7 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

He then led out of turn to the third trick.

Exactly

Vampyr, on Nov 7 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

How, in any case, was trick 1 defective?.

Not trick 1, trick 2 was defective

Vampyr, on Nov 7 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

And West's lead to trick 3 was a lead out of turn because not all players had played to trick 2.

Again Yes, but an important point is that declarer had not played to trick 3 from either dummy or his own hand. That makes Lw67A the applicable law.
(West's third heart eventually becomes a major penalty card, but I don't think that makes much difference here)

[blackshoe]

There seems to be no clear statement in law as to the correct procedure when leading to tricks subsequent to the first when a player has not yet quitted the previous trick.

Might West have violated Law 73D2?

It seems to me that South, holding ♥Ax, played small to trick one, and then failed to follow Law 65A. Now, I've seen — we've all seen, I think — advice that if one wants to think at this point, one should not turn his card, quitting the trick — but there is nothing in law to support this advice. Perhaps it's not good advice. IAC, the infraction may be of Law 65A, it seems to me. Now West leads to trick 2, and South plays the same low heart to that trick. Now West leads a third heart, and declarer discovers the problem and presumably it was he who called the TD.

Sven is correct in that we cannot know how to rule until we know how one of dummy's cards got into trick 2. So it may well be that the table ruling was TD error, and that the correct ruling was to apply Law 67A, as Sven suggested.

Can the OP provide us with the necessary information, please?

[pran]

There are obviously several (minor) irregularities here (from both sides), but unless declarer has actually called three consecutive hearts to be played from dummy (or physically played them himself) we must rule that dummy has played them on his own initiative. His plays to the (second and) third trick will then be a Law 45D situation, and that brings us safely into Law 67A territory.

regards Sven

[duschek]

blackshoe, on Nov 7 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

Now, I've seen — we've all seen, I think — advice that if one wants to think at this point, one should not turn his card, quitting the trick — but there is nothing in law to support this advice. Perhaps it's not good advice. IAC, the infraction may be of Law 65A, it seems to me.

Law 65A said:

When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

The word "when" could be read so as to indicate that the cards should be turned as quickly as possible after the trick has been completed. However:

Law 66A said:

So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced.

This Law clearly states that it is correct procedure not to turn your own card before you are finished inspecting the other cards. The other cards being still visible can improve your thinking process, and the Law does not in any way discourage this practice.

[bluejak]

Quote

Law 65A said:

When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

The word "when" could be read so as to indicate that the cards should be turned as quickly as possible after the trick has been completed.

I do to see why: it does not say so.

[blackshoe]

That a player may require other cards played to a trick to be faced (again, presumably) does not say anything about whether it is "correct procedure" to delay turning your own card. It does imply though (but it is only an implication) that it is not incorrect to do so.

I do think that Law 65A says that it is not correct to turn one's card before all four cards have been played to the trick.

Perhaps one might argue that, having failed to turn over the card one played to trick one, a player is paying insufficient attention to the game to then "play" that same card to trick two.

It would be much simpler if the law said something like "the lead to the next trick may not be made until all four players have quitted the current trick" - but it doesn't say that.

As a practical matter one might wonder if there is some culpability to be laid on West here - although I'm not sure such can be supported in law - or if the fault is to be laid entirely on South.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 8 2009, 04:13 AM, said:

As a practical matter one might wonder if there is some culpability to be laid on West here - although I'm not sure such can be supported in law - or if the fault is to be laid entirely on South.

West led to trick three before South had played a card to trick two. That is clearly a violation of Law 56!

As already said: Unless South has actually called, or himself physically played a card from dummy to each of tricks 1, 2 and 3 neither North nor South had played to trick 3 at the time the irregularity with a defective trick was discovered.

[bali 2]

blackshoe, on Nov 7 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

There seems to be no clear statement in law as to the correct procedure when leading to tricks subsequent to the first when a player has not yet quitted the previous trick.

Might West have violated Law 73D2?

It seems to me that South, holding ♥Ax, played small to trick one, and then failed to follow Law 65A. Now, I've seen — we've all seen, I think — advice that if one wants to think at this point, one should not turn his card, quitting the trick — but there is nothing in law to support this advice. Perhaps it's not good advice. IAC, the infraction may be of Law 65A, it seems to me. Now West leads to trick 2, and South plays the same low heart to that trick. Now West leads a third heart, and declarer discovers the problem and presumably it was he who called the TD.

Sven is correct in that we cannot know how to rule until we know how one of dummy's cards got into trick 2. So it may well be that the table ruling was TD error, and that the correct ruling was to apply Law 67A, as Sven suggested.

Can the OP provide us with the necessary information, please?

I'm sorry but I can't because it is a question from an International Director Seminar, which was questionned as told in the OP, with the answers given as I have told. The right result given was minus 1, and my question was not concerned by the adjusted score but by the fact that it seemed too harsh to my, by law.

[bali 2]

bali 2, on Nov 8 2009, 03:08 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 7 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

There seems to be no clear statement in law as to the correct procedure when leading to tricks subsequent to the first when a player has not yet quitted the previous trick.      

Might West have violated Law 73D2?

It seems to me that South, holding ♥Ax, played small to trick one, and then failed to follow Law 65A. Now, I've seen — we've all seen, I think — advice that if one wants to think at this point, one should not turn his card, quitting the trick — but there is nothing in law to support this advice. Perhaps it's not good advice. IAC, the infraction may be of Law 65A, it seems to me. Now West leads to trick 2, and South plays the same low heart to that trick. Now West leads a third heart, and declarer discovers the problem and presumably it was he who called the TD.

Sven is correct in that we cannot know how to rule until we know how one of dummy's cards got into trick 2. So it may well be that the table ruling was TD error, and that the correct ruling was to apply Law 67A, as Sven suggested.

Can the OP provide us with the necessary information, please?

I'm sorry but I can't because it is a question from an International Director Seminar, which was questionned as told in the OP, with the answers given as I have told. The right result given was minus 1, and my question was not concerned by the adjusted score but by the fact that it seemed too harsh to my, by law.

Quote

minus 1

Sorry : minus 2 instead of +1

[pran]

bali 2, on Nov 8 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

bali 2, on Nov 8 2009, 03:08 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 7 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

There seems to be no clear statement in law as to the correct procedure when leading to tricks subsequent to the first when a player has not yet quitted the previous trick.      

Might West have violated Law 73D2?

It seems to me that South, holding ♥Ax, played small to trick one, and then failed to follow Law 65A. Now, I've seen — we've all seen, I think — advice that if one wants to think at this point, one should not turn his card, quitting the trick — but there is nothing in law to support this advice. Perhaps it's not good advice. IAC, the infraction may be of Law 65A, it seems to me. Now West leads to trick 2, and South plays the same low heart to that trick. Now West leads a third heart, and declarer discovers the problem and presumably it was he who called the TD.

Sven is correct in that we cannot know how to rule until we know how one of dummy's cards got into trick 2. So it may well be that the table ruling was TD error, and that the correct ruling was to apply Law 67A, as Sven suggested.

Can the OP provide us with the necessary information, please?

I'm sorry but I can't because it is a question from an International Director Seminar, which was questionned as told in the OP, with the answers given as I have told. The right result given was minus 1, and my question was not concerned by the adjusted score but by the fact that it seemed too harsh to my, by law.

Quote

minus 1

Sorry : minus 2 instead of +1

This ruling is correct only on the (to me almost unbelievable) condition that declarer has actually played cards from dummy while forgetting to play from his own hand, i.e. that declarer had actually played a card from dummy to trick three before the irregularity was discovered.

There must have been somethinig more than what we have been told to this story?

[bali 2]

Thank you for your explanations, but sorry not having something else to add...

In fact, my question was about the severity of the ruling ( correct if we are in 67 B1) in relation with a small irregularity ( declarer wondering how many tricks he can make, was it well played to duck the lead, etc...) from South, who loses 3 tricks in the process.

I think that when law 67 B applies in cases like this one, lawmakers should be more lenient, allowing the winning with the H Ace, but taking away one trick as "payment " of the distraction.

What is David's opinion on this subject please ?

Al. Ohana

[axman]

bali 2, on Nov 8 2009, 04:26 AM, said:

Thank you for your explanations, but sorry not having something else to add...

In fact, my question was about the severity of the ruling ( correct if we are in 67 B1) in relation with a small irregularity ( declarer wondering how many tricks he can make, was it well played to duck the lead, etc...) from South, who loses 3 tricks in the process.

I think that when law 67 B applies in cases like this one, lawmakers should be more lenient, allowing the winning with the H Ace, but taking away one trick as "payment " of the distraction.

What is David's opinion on this subject please ?

Al. Ohana

The law was not applied in accordance with the facts:

Given that this case is a TD test it follows that it the given facts are established facts and are all trhe facts. Which means:

Four hearts were contributed to T1, all but S quitting. W plays HJ and then S quits his T1. W turns HJ over and plays another heart; by the condition of the test all this time no other card has been played.

the following are comments about irregularities that occurred:

[a] W has jumped the gun [L65A establishes the order of the proceedings] in exposing his lead to T2 by not waiting for S to quit. In and of itself this is innocuous since other wise is was his rightful turn. However, it does have the effect of frequently giving S something more to think about immediately, and then, more to think about later at his next turn to play- thereby ‘slowing down the proceedings, so to speak’

[b] W quit his card prior to T2 being completed [ L45G,L65A]

[c] W intentionally exposed his third H prior to T2 being completed [L65A, PC via L49, premature play prior to partner [L57A, L57A1,2,3], correction non plays and of multiple plays L44B, L67A L67A1,2.

[d] the ancillary laws such as L16,L23,L74 have gotten too numerous to include

[e] I’ve seen this twice at my table this year and similar occurrences 5 other times

[pran]

Do we then agree that L66A is the applicable law as far as the alleged defective trick (T2) is concerned?

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

pran, on Nov 8 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

West led to trick three before South had played a card to trick two. That is clearly a violation of Law 56!

It isn't clear to me. Perhaps you can show the logic?

[blackshoe]

As a test question, this thing is seriously flawed, and I would have simply written such on the test. No doubt I would have received a zero for that. OTOH, it occurs to me that what Al posted is a paraphrase. Perhaps the actual wording of the question would be useful, if Al still has that.

Regarding severity, if the laws lead to a rectification that seems too severe, well, that's too bad, but you do what the laws say to do.

Discussion of what the laws should do belongs in a different forum.

Quote

Do we then agree that L66A is the applicable law as far as the alleged defective trick (T2) is concerned?

Apparently not.