[pran]

jdonn, on May 5 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

pran, on May 5 2010, 06:58 AM, said:

And neither you nor jdonn appeared fit to answer my question:

Shall NOS be denied the possibility of a favour by accepting LOOT to trick 13, a possibility NOS has with LOOT to any other trick?

If so, why is such a denial reasonable?

Do you have trouble reading? I answered your question.

No, but frankly I don't see Because, as aguahombre alluded to, there are no more material decisions to be made by any players (well apparently other than whether to lead from the hand that actually contains the lead). That seems like a significant difference to me. as a relevant answer to my question, it looks more like an irrelevant statement.

Law 53 joins several other laws on the principle that NOS has the freedom to accept an irregularity by opponents if this can be expected favourable for NOS. Your "reply" does not in any way even indicate any relevant reason why this freedom should be denied NOS in the case of LOOT to trick 13 or why such denial is reasonable.

[pran]

aguahombre, on May 5 2010, 06:52 PM, said:

As pointed out, Declarer is in hand. There is one card left. There are no mistakes left to be made. There is nothing left to do. If the Laws allow anything else but declarer's one remaining card to be led, then the laws need fixing.

Logical extention of the fact that he can't concede a trick that he can't lose.

Well,

unless I have misunderstood something very important there is one thing left to do: Play out the last trick!

Very few laws prohibit a player from committing an irregularity; two come to my mind right now: Law 35 and Law 62D. (There might be others which I have overlooked at the moment.)

So any player "can" lead to trick 13, but unless the correct player leads we have a situation that calls for the Director to rule on. And he must rule according to the laws, the first of which to be tried is law 53.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on May 5 2010, 06:52 PM, said:

There is one card left. There are no mistakes left to be made.

Yes there are - the mistake that was in fact made in the original post.

[jdonn]

pran, on May 5 2010, 01:52 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 5 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

pran, on May 5 2010, 06:58 AM, said:

And neither you nor jdonn appeared fit to answer my question:

Shall NOS be denied the possibility of a favour by accepting LOOT to trick 13, a possibility NOS has with LOOT to any other trick?

If so, why is such a denial reasonable?

Do you have trouble reading? I answered your question.

No, but frankly I don't see Because, as aguahombre alluded to, there are no more material decisions to be made by any players (well apparently other than whether to lead from the hand that actually contains the lead). That seems like a significant difference to me. as a relevant answer to my question, it looks more like an irrelevant statement.

Law 53 joins several other laws on the principle that NOS has the freedom to accept an irregularity by opponents if this can be expected favourable for NOS. Your "reply" does not in any way even indicate any relevant reason why this freedom should be denied NOS in the case of LOOT to trick 13 or why such denial is reasonable.

Yes it does. Quite clearly. Apparently you think "relevant" and "reasonable" mean the same thing as "agrees with pran".

I mean you are just being so stupidly ridiculous it's a giant LOL. You put "reply" in quotation marks as though my reply is not a reply because you don't think it's relevant!

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on May 5 2010, 11:50 AM, said:

There is no duty on the lawmakers or the director to protect a player from his own mistakes. Nor, IMO, should there be.

The laws do that all the time. For example when a player makes a mistake in claiming he his still protected from losing tricks he couldn't have lost through non-ridiculous play (I forget the exact wording but you know what I mean). In the problem under discussion the laws wouldn't even have to go that far, as they wouldn't protect a player from ridiculous play but merely from illegal play.

I mean why don't we just go all the way. Let's make a law that says if you open the bidding out of turn the opponents have the right to request a 24 imp gain on the board. Why shouldn't the player pay for his mistake?

[blackshoe]

This has gone beyond absurd. The law says what it says, and what it says is that the TD shall rule that the lead out of turn was legally accepted, and trick 13 goes to the defenders. If you don't like the law, lobby for a change - but do it, if you're going to do it on IBLF, in the proper forum. Any more discussion of that subject in this thread, and I will lock the thread.

[jdonn]

Lol I requested that in my first post! But apologies for my role in ruining the thread that apparently should have had exactly one reply since there was nothing else to say beyond west is allowed to accept the lead out of turn.

Btw will you apologize for your role or only scold others for theirs?

blackshoe said:

There is no duty on the lawmakers or the director to protect a player from his own mistakes. Nor, IMO, should there be.

Ah never mind I see now. You can post about not changing laws and regulations, just not about changing laws and regulations. That should make for some good one-sided discussion.

[blackshoe]

Oh, sure, Josh, excuse me for contributing to the BS in this thread. Now like I said, if you don't have something constructive to say about the legal case here, don't say anything.

[PeterAlan]

It certainly seems clear that if a lead out of turn has taken place then declarer has no recourse under Law 53.

I'm not advocating the following position (which is not trick 13 specific either), but there does seem to be at least a point worth considering, namely what constitutes a lead out of turn from dummy. More than anything, it seems to be just another bit of the laws that could be clarified.

Under Laws 45B & 46B is it clear that a valid lead has taken place at all?

45B: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card ...

So if declarer had called "diamond 7" it's clearly a call for the specific card, which is in dummy, and it's therefore been led.

But the call is not complete, so has there been a lead?

46B: In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, ...

Now declarer could advance the argument that 46B governs the case where "the card" was indeed "to be played from dummy", but that that's not the case here (or not without somewhat circular logic). So has the diamond in fact been played? Declarer's position would be that 46B is merely there to resolve ambiguities over the card specified, but not to resolve the issue of whether a lead has taken place at all.

A separate but related matter is to consider what would happen, assuming 46B is in point, if the declarer had named any other suit (without a rank; say "heart"):

46B4: If declarer calls a card which is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

Is everyone now confident that the declarer is nevertheless obliged to lead from dummy in these circumstances, when the call "is void"?

[pran]

PeterAlan, on May 6 2010, 04:39 PM, said:

It certainly seems clear that if a lead out of turn has taken place then declarer has no recourse under Law 53.

I'm not advocating the following position (which is not trick 13 specific either), but there does seem to be at least a point worth considering, namely what constitutes a lead out of turn from dummy. More than anything, it seems to be just another bit of the laws that could be clarified.

Under Laws 45B & 46B is it clear that a valid lead has taken place at all?

45B: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card ...

So if declarer had called "diamond 7" it's clearly a call for the specific card, which is in dummy, and it's therefore been led.

But the call is not complete, so has there been a lead?

46B: In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, ...

Now declarer could advance the argument that 46B governs the case where "the card" was indeed "to be played from dummy", but that that's not the case here (or not without somewhat circular logic). So has the diamond in fact been played? Declarer's position would be that 46B is merely there to resolve ambiguities over the card specified, but not to resolve the issue of whether a lead has taken place at all.

A separate but related matter is to consider what would happen, assuming 46B is in point, if the declarer had named any other suit (without a rank; say "heart"):

46B4: If declarer calls a card which is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

Is everyone now confident that the declarer is nevertheless obliged to lead from dummy in these circumstances, when the call "is void"?

If Declarer calls a card from Dummy and the called card can be identified with the aid of Laws 45B, 45C and/or 46 then that card has been played.

If no such card can be identified in Dummy then the call is void (Law 46B4), consequently if the play should have been from declarer's own hand he must be allowed to play from his own hand and not be bound by his void attempt to play a card from Dummy.

One example of this last possibility that I have experienced more than once is Declarer naming a card from his own hand apparently to be called from Dummy.

I assume further comments will be superfluous?

[PeterAlan]

pran, your post starts "If Declarer calls a card from Dummy ..."

The question is: HAS declarer called a card from dummy? - which was the point of my remarks.

Your answer does not address that question, and I don't see that further comment is necessarily superfluous.

[barmar]

Are you saying that for the purpose of deciding whether he playe a card from dummy it matters whether he says "Play the top diamond" or "Play the ace of diamonds"? That just seems ridiculous.

[blackshoe]

Take a look at Law 45C4a.

[pran]

PeterAlan, on May 6 2010, 11:31 PM, said:

pran, your post starts "If Declarer calls a card from Dummy ..."

The question is: HAS declarer called a card from dummy? - which was the point of my remarks.

Your answer does not address that question, and I don't see that further comment is necessarily superfluous.

Sorry?

Quote from OP: Declarer calls for a club, and wins in her hand with the Ace. She then says "diamond".

According to Law 46B2 this sounds to me like a call for the Diamond now remaining in Dummy. (If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.)


On second thoughts: If Declarer now claims that she did not say "diamond" for the purpose of calling that card from Dummy then I shall want to know why she said "diamond". I have a big problem identifying any other purpose. (OP did not indicate any such possibility.)

[shyams]

Can anyone, esp. the law experts, explain why Law 53A begins with "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead" instead of "... played out of turn ..."

Is there a distinction? Is there a phase/gap between a (potentially erroneous) designation of a card and the "facing" of it? Just curious.

[blackshoe]

Because if the lead is not faced (opening lead, for example), the player is just told to put the card back in his hand. It has nothing to do with designation.

[JoAnneM]

Or, maybe this scenario might come up, declarer is in his hand and knows his card is a loser so he calls for the card in dummy which is good, and the opponents don't notice. But then later they overhear declarer bragging to his partner about the coup he pulled off...... Or maybe they do notice, can Director ask declarer if it was done on purpose?

[blackshoe]

Director can ask anything he likes, but he'd be wise not to imply that declarer cheated unless he already has pretty damning evidence.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on May 7 2010, 12:20 PM, said:

Director can ask anything he likes, but he'd be wise not to imply that declarer cheated unless he already has pretty damning evidence.

I don't believe the question implies anything. Who knows, maybe an ignorant declarer who doesn't know anything about the laws or is a novice etc. thought that was ok to do and would say yes I did it on purpose! But obviously this is situational and you would really have to be there and see how the declarer is acting and what he was saying to judge whether or not to ask this particular question.

[blackshoe]

If I am called to adjudicate a situation where declarer has led from the wrong hand, I will simply rule on that irregularity. If declarer lets slip that he was trying to pull a fast one, I'll deal with that — but it would not occur to me to routinely ask "did you do that on purpose?"

If one player accuses another of deliberately committing an infraction, I will ask him what evidence he has of that — and if I consider the evidence inadequate to support such an accusation, I will explain to the player why he should not jump to such a conclusion, and in particular why he should not voice his accusation (see, for one thing, Law 74A2).

If there is adequate evidence of such a deliberate violation, I will deal with it — but that would be very rare, IME.