[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-December-02, 15:52, said:

In what way?
Sample scenario(s) please.

Post #10.

[blackshoe]

jvage, on 2019-November-25, 06:45, said:

Also many players and some directors actually think that the instruction in §42B2 "He may try to prevent any irregularity" (Dummy's rights) is valid in this case. Of course it's not (the irregularity has already happened), but it doesn't seem like an action deserving a PP, even if it is a player with some knowledge about the laws.

Quote

Law 43A1{b}: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.

Quote

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained regarding “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), ”shall” do (a violation will incur a penalty more often than not), and “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong, but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”.

It seems to me that the "may not" provision implies, given this quote from the introduction to the laws, that a PP is appropriate no less often (and probably more often) than "more often than not".

Quote

Law 43A1{c}: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

This one is even more serious.

Argue all you want about "the players are just trying to have a little fun" or "It's a club game" or other such nonsense. The Law is clear.

I haven't yet seen an answer to the question posed in the title of this thread. I suspect the correct answer is "none".

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2019-December-02, 17:46, said:

Post #10.

Post #10 was rather general so it appears to me that the situation was similarly clarified in the following posts?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-02, 20:54, said:

It seems to me that the "may not" provision implies, given this quote from the introduction to the laws, that a PP is appropriate no less often (and probably more often) than "more often than not".


This one is even more serious.

Argue all you want about "the players are just trying to have a little fun" or "It's a club game" or other such nonsense. The Law is clear.

I haven't yet seen an answer to the question posed in the title of this thread. I suspect the correct answer is "none".

In the second post I showed an example of where the defenders can confer.

pran, on 2019-December-03, 03:18, said:

Post #10 was rather general so it appears to me that the situation was similarly clarified in the following posts?

OK, here’s what happens. Declarer leads a card from dummy. Dummy says, “you’re in your hand”. Declarer now plays a card of the same suit from his hand. Declarer’s RHO has decided to accept the lead from the wrong hand and plays a card. Is Declarer allowed to change the card played from his hand? I really don’t think so. Dummy’s comment that declarer is in his hand is not relevant or even legal.

This is different to the situation when the lead from the wrong hand is not accepted.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2019-December-03, 08:23, said:

OK, here’s what happens. Declarer leads a card from dummy. Dummy says, “you’re in your hand”. Declarer now plays a card of the same suit from his hand. Declarer’s RHO has decided to accept the lead from the wrong hand and plays a card. Is Declarer allowed to change the card played from his hand? I really don’t think so. Dummy’s comment that declarer is in his hand is not relevant or even legal.

This is different to the situation when the lead from the wrong hand is not accepted.

I must assume that the Director was not called until after RHO plays to the trick (after declarer has made his lead from his own hand)?

Law 9 - PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY said:

A. [.....]
B. After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity
1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.
(b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.
© Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.
(d) The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents.
2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.
C. Premature Correction of an Irregularity
Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26B).

Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

But RHO then just playing his card to the trick is a serious violation of Laws 9B1 and 9B2, he should instead have summoned the Director.

The Director could then (and probably would) have cancelled the (now incorrect) "lead" from Declarer and let RHO play his card in turn to the trick.

Instead the Director must now use his judgement and find a ruling that best possible protects both sides. Note that both sides are now "at fault"!

[KingCovert]

pran, on 2019-December-03, 11:36, said:

I must assume that the Director was not called until after RHO plays to the trick (after declarer has made his lead from his own hand)?

Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

But RHO then just playing his card to the trick is a serious violation of Laws 9B1 and 9B2, he should instead have summoned the Director.

The Director could then (and probably would) have cancelled the (now incorrect) "lead" from Declarer and let RHO play his card in turn to the trick.

Instead the Director must now use his judgement and find a ruling that best possible protects both sides. Note that both sides are now "at fault"!

I can't believe that this would be the "correct' course of action given what I'm reading here. What am I getting wrong? As I understand it:

1) Leading off of dummy is an irregularity, one that can be accepted by defenders
2) Declarer "correcting" their irregularity, without consulting the director, is yet another irregularity, and it's a lead that can be accepted by defenders. Which is to say, they can choose whether to allow declarer to make such a correction after having seen the card. This sucks for declarer, but they had no right to correct the irregularity without calling the director.
3) 9C and 9D combine to say that if any person now calls the director here, defenders cannot lose either of these two rights.

So, it seems to me that the only fair resolution is to allow defenders to select either lead to accept, but if the lead out of dummy is accepted then declarer's card is now a card played out of turn.

Where am I wrong?

[pran]

pran, on 2019-December-03, 11:36, said:

I must assume that the Director was not called until after RHO plays to the trick (after declarer has made his lead from his own hand)?

Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

But RHO then just playing his card to the trick is a serious violation of Laws 9B1 and 9B2, he should instead have summoned the Director.

The Director could then (and probably would) have cancelled the (now incorrect) "lead" from Declarer and let RHO play his card in turn to the trick.

Instead the Director must now use his judgement and find a ruling that best possible protects both sides. Note that both sides are now "at fault"!

KingCovert, on 2019-December-03, 12:47, said:

I can't believe that this would be the "correct' course of action given what I'm reading here. What am I getting wrong? As I understand it:

1) Leading off of dummy is an irregularity, one that can be accepted by defenders
2) Declarer "correcting" their irregularity, without consulting the director, is yet another irregularity, and it's a lead that can be accepted by defenders. Which is to say, they can choose whether to allow declarer to make such a correction after having seen the card. This sucks for declarer, but they had no right to correct the irregularity without calling the director.
3) 9C and 9D combine to say that if any person now calls the director here, defenders cannot lose either of these two rights.

So, it seems to me that the only fair resolution is to allow defenders to select either lead to accept, but if the lead out of dummy is accepted then declarer's card is now a card played out of turn.

Where am I wrong?

OK, so let us look at some relevant laws:

Law 60A Play of Card after Irregularity said:

1. A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely, and before rectification has been assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of that offence.
2. Once the right to rectification has been forfeited, the illegal play is treated as though it were in turn (except when Law 53B applies).
3. ...

and also

Law 57C3 said:

A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and if legal may not be withdrawn.

So RHO can avoid the accusation of having violated Law 9B by stating (and be heard) that he just followed suit to the lead from Dummy with no intention to accept that as a lead out of turn.

[KingCovert]

pran, on 2019-December-03, 13:47, said:

OK, so let us look at some relevant laws:

and also

So RHO can avoid the accusation of having violated Law 9B by stating (and be heard) that he just followed suit to the lead from Dummy with no intention to accept that as a lead out of turn.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was assuming that:

1) Declarer called for a card from dummy (while declarer is on lead). An irregularity
2) Dummy informs declarer (illegally) that declarer has played from the wrong hand
3) Declarer then plays from their hand without calling the director. Another irregularity.

If defender's call the director now, you stated that:

pran said:

The Director could then (and probably would) have cancelled the (now incorrect) "lead" from Declarer and let RHO play his card in turn to the trick.

Were you only talking about if RHO had played to the trick, and then they called the director? Or did you mean if the director was called in the situation that I've provided? Maybe I misunderstood your premise.

[pran]

KingCovert, on 2019-December-03, 15:49, said:

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was assuming that:

1) Declarer called for a card from dummy (while declarer is on lead). An irregularity
2) Dummy informs declarer (illegally) that declarer has played from the wrong hand
3) Declarer then plays from their hand without calling the director. Another irregularity.

If defender's call the director now, you stated that:


Were you only talking about if RHO had played to the trick, and then they called the director? Or did you mean if the director was called in the situation that I've provided? Maybe I misunderstood your premise.

The way I read OP was:
1: Declarer called for a card from Dummy
2: Dummy stated "it is your lead" (or words to that effect)
3: Declarer played (i.e. led) a card from his own hand
4: RHO (with the apparent intention of accepting the lead out of turn from dummy) played a card
and eventually
5: The Director was summoned to the table

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-December-03, 17:08, said:

The way I read OP was:
1: Declarer called for a card from Dummy
2: Dummy stated "it is your lead" (or words to that effect)
3: Declarer played (i.e. led) a card from his own hand
4: RHO (with the apparent intention of accepting the lead out of turn from dummy) played a card
and eventually
5: The Director was summoned to the table

Something like that. RHO could have dozing followed to the lead, or just ignored Dummy’s illegal remark, or even had already begun to play his card when Dummy made the remark. The NOS should never be considered to be at fault in a situation like this.

[Vampyr]

KingCovert, on 2019-December-03, 12:47, said:

I can't believe that this would be the "correct' course of action given what I'm reading here. What am I getting wrong? As I understand it:

1) Leading off of dummy is an irregularity, one that can be accepted by defenders
2) Declarer "correcting" their irregularity, without consulting the director, is yet another irregularity, and it's a lead that can be accepted by defenders. Which is to say, they can choose whether to allow declarer to make such a correction after having seen the card. This sucks for declarer, but they had no right to correct the irregularity without calling the director.
3) 9C and 9D combine to say that if any person now calls the director here, defenders cannot lose either of these two rights.

So, it seems to me that the only fair resolution is to allow defenders to select either lead to accept, but if the lead out of dummy is accepted then declarer's card is now a card played out of turn.

Where am I wrong?

As stated above, 573C is rather interesting. Declarer is, after all, permitted to play out of turn, and this is not in common when, for example, declarer is running a suit and discarding losers. So the question is, is the card from declarer’s hand a lead? I don’t believe it can be considered as such, since declarer has already led a card.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-December-03, 11:36, said:

I must assume that the Director was not called until after RHO plays to the trick (after declarer has made his lead from his own hand)?

Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

But RHO then just playing his card to the trick is a serious violation of Laws 9B1 and 9B2, he should instead have summoned the Director.

The Director could then (and probably would) have cancelled the (now incorrect) "lead" from Declarer and let RHO play his card in turn to the trick.

Instead the Director must now use his judgement and find a ruling that best possible protects both sides. Note that both sides are now "at fault"!

Really, Sven how often do people call the director when declarer has led out of turn? And how can director cancel a legal card played?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2019-December-04, 19:22, said:

Really, Sven how often do people call the director when declarer has led out of turn? And how can director cancel a legal card played?

Almost never, Declarer simply leads from his own hand, and play continues as if there was no irregularity.

That is why I wrote:
Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

But in the extremely few cases when RHO wants to accept the lead out of turn from Dummy it is most important that he summons the Director.

(I think that at least Law 60C allows the Director to cancel the "lead" from Declarer in this situation.)

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-December-05, 01:49, said:

Almost never, Declarer simply leads from his own hand, and play continues as if there was no irregularity.

That is why I wrote:
Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

But in the extremely few cases when RHO wants to accept the lead out of turn from Dummy it is most important that he summons the Director.

(I think that at least Law 60C allows the Director to cancel the "lead" from Declarer in this situation.)

Do you really think it is extremely rare that a defender wishes to accept the lead from the wrong hand? Anyway it is not necessary to call the director (see L54B) and doesn’t happen.

In any case, I think that declarer’s second card is a premature play, not a lead. He has already led a card to the trick.

[trent58]

sfi, on 2019-November-25, 13:55, said:

I think I can use Law 55B2 by ruling that the lead from dummy is the "correct hand" if the defenders exercise their right to accept it.

Making declarer follow with the card they were intending to lead just seems strange and punishing - it's another situation where declarer can't gain an advantage.

I would use Law 57 C3. If the lead from Dummy is accepted, then I would judge the declarer's played card is considered premature.
So under 57C3, cannot be retracted. The OS should be prepared to accept such a ruling. Dura lex, sed lex.

[weejonnie]

trent58, on 2019-December-06, 18:57, said:

I would use Law 57 C3. If the lead from Dummy is accepted, then I would judge the declarer's played card is considered premature.
So under 57C3, cannot be retracted. The OS should be prepared to accept such a ruling. Dura lex, sed lex.

Interesting - but it is clear that declarer intended to lead the card from his hand - so 57C3 doesn't apply.

[blackshoe]

Declarer leads from dummy. "You're in your hand" from one or both defenders. What is this? It's simply calling attention to an irregularity (lead out of turn from dummy). What is supposed to happen now? All four players are supposed to ensure that the director is called. What if that doesn't happen right away? Personally, I'd be happy to give all four players a PP, in spite of the 2007 change in Law 9A1{a} from "must" to "should" and especially if it causes arguments at the table or other problems.

[axman]

pran, on 2019-December-05, 01:49, said:

Almost never, Declarer simply leads from his own hand, and play continues as if there was no irregularity.

That is why I wrote:
Declarer's (automatic) reaction to Dummy's remark is of course questionable but rather common and would in itself not have caused any problems.

But in the extremely few cases when RHO wants to accept the lead out of turn from Dummy it is most important that he summons the Director.

(I think that at least Law 60C allows the Director to cancel the "lead" from Declarer in this situation.)

My impression is that 60C requires that 57C3 is relevant (declarer's OOT play subsequent to the LOOT stands- without regard** to what happens to the LOOT).


** where correcting a revoke is concerned it is not a matter of the TD cancelling the card because it is a matter of the player substituting a card

[pran]

axman, on 2019-December-07, 14:32, said:

My impression is that 60C requires that 57C3 is relevant (declarer's OOT play subsequent to the LOOT stands- without regard** to what happens to the LOOT).

Not if the LOOT is withdrawn because then the premature play by declarer is actually a lead.

Law 57C3 said:

A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and if legal may not be withdrawn.

[axman]

pran, on 2019-December-07, 15:30, said:

Not if the LOOT is withdrawn because then the premature play by declarer is actually a lead.

Don't know what your antecedents are. It is notable that if by some route that the OLOOT is rejected 57C3 makes it clear that the subsequent OOT play performs the function of lead. It also is notable that knowing both of declaring side's cards the only possible gain to the defenders to rejecting the lead is when it is important to declarer's RHO which card the LHO plays first.