[blackshoe]

As far as I can see, a face down opening lead is treated in the same way as a face up opening lead, the only difference being that it is made face down. Also, I am not going to rule that cards a player puts face down on the table are leads when he is clearly sorting his hand. If some SB declarer doesn't like that, tough.

I would have read your declarer the riot act, and then given him some combination of DP and PP for failure to follow the instructions of the TD, attempting to take the law into his own hands, and whatever else I can think of.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-07, 20:27, said:

As far as I can see, a face down opening lead is treated in the same way as a face up opening lead, the only difference being that it is made face down. Also, I am not going to rule that cards a player puts face down on the table are leads when he is clearly sorting his hand. If some SB declarer doesn't like that, tough.

I would have read your declarer the riot act, and then given him her some combination of DP and PP for failure to follow the instructions of the TD, attempting to take the law into hisher own hands, and whatever else I can think of.

FYP

What instructions did I not follow and how did I attempt to take the law into my own hands?

I am not sure what "Also, I am not going to rule that cards a player puts face down on the table are leads when he is clearly sorting his hand. If some SB declarer doesn't like that, tough." has to do with this ?

[gnasher]

I don't think there's any ambiguity in the rules.

Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing* it ...
* The opening lead is first made face down ...

... the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down ...

So for it to constitute a lead it has to (a) have been detached from his hand for the purpose of leading it, and (b) be face down. If he detached it for some other purpose, he hasn't led it. If it's not yet face-down, he hasn't led it.

The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity.

So once it meets the conditions of having been led, it can't be withdrawn.

[gnasher]

Obviously there's some disagreement about exactly what occurred and what was said, but one thing is apparent: the director gave a ruling without consulting the Law book.

That's OK as long as you're familiar with the relevant laws. However, if you rule without referring to the written Laws, and are then asked by a player to read out the Law under which you ruled, you should be able to find it immediately, and its contents should not come as a surpise to you.

[McBruce]

gnasher, on 2012-May-08, 02:12, said:

Obviously there's some disagreement about exactly what occurred and what was said, but one thing is apparent: the director gave a ruling without consulting the Law book.

That's OK as long as you're familiar with the relevant laws. However, if you rule without referring to the written Laws, and are then asked by a player to read out the Law under which you ruled, you should be able to find it immediately, and its contents should not come as a surpise to you.

Assumes facts not in evidence. None of the above happened.

[gnasher]

McBruce, on 2012-May-08, 03:09, said:

Assumes facts not in evidence. None of the above happened.

OK, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. You and Jillybean seemed to agree that she had asked you to read out the relevant rule from the Law book. I assumed that this meant you hadn't already done so.

So when you gave your ruling at the table, did you read the relevant Law aloud from the Law Book, or did you read it to yourself then paraphrase it, or what? Or did the request for you to read out the Law occur before you had given your ruling?

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2012-May-07, 21:33, said:

FYP

What instructions did I not follow and how did I attempt to take the law into my own hands?

I am not sure what "Also, I am not going to rule that cards a player puts face down on the table are leads when he is clearly sorting his hand. If some SB declarer doesn't like that, tough." has to do with this ?

In David Weber's "Honorverse" series, which takes place 2000 years in the future, he posits that people will eventually refer to unidentified third parties by the speaker's own gender. IOW, males will refer to "him" and females to "her", irrespective of the actual gender of the person to whom they're referring. Unless of course they know that gender, which I did not.

I was replying to McBruce's post #12, in which he said

Quote

I certainly didn't get a lot of help from the declarer, who began by trying to make the ruling ("you can't do that"), flustering the defender into exposing the second card, then answering a different question than the one I asked ("was the original lead in a position for the leader's partner to see it?"), naming the card, then demanding that I read Law 41, which isn't really the main point here.

and

Quote

Some players don't sort their cards until the bidding ends, and made several such "leads" while doing so. Others might have sorted their hand wrong and find that an attempt to correct after the bid-box cards go back is going to be seized upon as a FDOL by a Secretary Bird declarer.

As for instructions, I suppose he didn't issue you instructions before you started doing all that, but I was trying to keep my post short. Certainly you've been playing long enough to know that you don't make your own rulings, particularly with the director already present, and certainly you complicated the case by not replying to the question you were asked and by providing information for which you were not asked, and which again you are experienced enough to know could be a problem. I recognize that it's easy to forget all that stuff in the heat of the moment, but TDs have to draw the line somewhere as to what is and is not permitted, and here IMO you crossed it.

Note: there may be information I have not considered which came to light in the eight or so messages between McBruce's post and my reply. Both my reply to McBruce's post and this reply to yours are based on what I knew at the time I made that first reply.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2012-May-07, 18:46, said:

The opening leader (LHO) pulled a card from his hand and moved it to a position face down on the table, he then retracted the card, put it back in his hand. If it matters, if you ask me how long it was 'held in this position' I would say less than a second to a second. Again if it matters, there was no suprise, oh!, it was clearly a change of mind rather than inadvertent. At this stage neither dummy, rho or I have seen the card.

Declarer pulls another card from his hand, this time making a face up lead. At some time while the 1st card being put back in his hand and the second card being faced, I say "you can't do that"

Declarer replaces the second card to his hand and now places another card (presumably the 1st card) face up on the table.

The director is called.

I told McBruce exactly what had happened,
1 lead made face down then retracted
2 2nd card placed face up
3 3rd card placed face up.

When asked, both dummy & I told McBruce that we had seen both the 2nd and 3rd card. RHO of course did not see the original card played as opening lead, it was face down, noone did. I beleive the question whether RHO actually saw any card is irrelevant, the infraction occured when LHO retracted his opening lead. The rest of it is just noise although what to do with 2 faced cards is another question.

I accepted McBruce's ruling and then later he came to me and said another director said he may have got it wrong and we agreed that I would post the case here and he would post on the ACBL forum.

Okay, this situation is different. I would have said something like "wait a minute", rather than "you can't do that", since the latter frequently results in the offender compounding the problem, as happened here.

Here's what I would have done as TD (note: I'm not saying McBruce did anything differently):

First, confirm that both sides agree that the sequence of events was as reported.
Second, ask the leader if the card now face up on the table is the same card he originally led face down. Assuming he doesn't get all shifty-eyed and stuttery, I'll believe him.
Third, if it is the same card, that lead stands.
Fourth, I would instruct him to put the other card he led face up back on the table, and designate that card a major penalty card.
Fifth, if I felt that there were, shall we say, errors in procedure by declarer, I would caution declarer about that.
Sixth, I would instruct the table to proceed with the play.
Seventh, I would remain at the table until the MPC is played or replaced in the player's hand, as appropriate.

If the second face up lead is not the original face down lead, the situation is a little more complicated: basically the leader will end up with two MPCs.

Note: I haven't given Law numbers here. If you wish, I will add them.

[McBruce]

In ten minutes of trying, I never got past the first item on your list. Declarer did not agree with both defenders that the original card was never face down and dummy would not give an opinion. My attempt to rule based on what I thought should be the answer to the question When is a FDOL deemed made? was met with a different opinion by declarer, and when she asked me to read from the book I said that no Law covered this but she insisted that a Law on defenders leads be read anyhow. The leader was even less help than the declarer though, becoming agitated and confused. Probably I could have asked better questions. But the main point of contention remains: declarer continues to insist that the original lead was face down and that there was a change of mind; based on what the leader told me and demonstrated at the table, confirmed by partner, I did not believe this was a lead completely made. I continue to think that the idea that a FDOL is made once it is detached is nuts, but we continue to await word from the ACBL forum, where the post has been viewed 20 times but no response has yet appeared.

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-07, 04:43, said:

If someone withdraws their card and you suspect that they have drawn a different card (say they placed it at the front of their hand and drew the new one from the back) but they claim it is the same card, is there any way of proving it? It seems that this is an area where you have to go on the trust and honesty of the player involved. Similarly if someone has not changed the card but the opponents accuse them of doing so...

TDs make judgement rulings. They do so by getting the evidence, assessing it, and then deciding. That applies just as much to whether a player changed a lead as to whether a player hesitated.

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-07, 08:38, said:

Sorry pran, my comment was made before seeing yours (lunchtime and being busy). I was wondering primarily how blackshoe was going to ascertain that the replacement lead was a penalty card, as well as how chris was deciding whether the new card was not allowed. Similarly, what is best practise if an opponent withdraws their card (and I think they changed it), or if my partner were to do withdraw one (and opponents object), in a club atmosphere with a playing director where calls are generally to be avoided. (Yes I know the proper theoretical answer is that TD calls are never to be avoided but I prefer to be practical).

When someone does something wrong, you have two choices: call the TD, or ignore it and carry on.

McBruce, on 2012-May-07, 16:05, said:

The real question here, which the OP has missed completely, is "when is a face-down opening lead deemed made?" I haven't been able to find an answer to this question in the Laws or the tech files, but I have hearsay evidence from a club director through an experienced TD that the ACBL way is to treat an opening lead as made the split second it is detached from the leader's hand.

This seems crazy to me.

I think that for a lead to be deemed a face down opening lead it should at least be face down.

We were told it was. This post is confusing and unhelpful. We look at cases here, and quoting a completely different case does not help in any way. Perhaps the original statement of facts was flawed: so what? We were asked specific questions and we were answering them. If you want to come up with a different set of facts, why not just start a new thread?

pran, on 2012-May-07, 17:24, said:

Well now, this is an entirely different case.

OP explicitly specified a face down opening lead, now we learn that the opening lead was indeed faced and that the question was whether it was really made or not.

Whether the new set of facts are correct or not is hardly the point: we now have a confused thread. Why do we need do anything except the questions posed by the OP?

pran, on 2012-May-07, 17:24, said:

I believe there is a universally accepted rule that if an opponent can name a card exposed by a player then that card shall unconditionally be deemed to having been in a position where it could be seen by that player's partner.

Rubbish. Not only is not universally accepted, it is obviously wrong. It is perfectly easy to find a position where one or both opponents can see it and partner cannot.

When I was directing in Australia, I was trying to find out whether one defender could have seen a card. Declarer said "Well, everyone knows it was the ace of hearts." I said "They do now." I then told the other defender that knowledge of the ♥A was authorised, since declarer had told him, but since I decided he could not have seen the card it need not be played. Declarer seemed a little miffed. My Australian colleagues were 100% in agreement with my ruling, and seemed pleased since declarer was apparently a well-known troublemaker.

gnasher, on 2012-May-08, 01:53, said:

I don't think there's any ambiguity in the rules.

Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing* it ...
* The opening lead is first made face down ...

... the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down ...

So for it to constitute a lead it has to (a) have been detached from his hand for the purpose of leading it, and (b) be face down. If he detached it for some other purpose, he hasn't led it. If it's not yet face-down, he hasn't led it.

The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity.

So once it meets the conditions of having been led, it can't be withdrawn.

This is seems to cover the legal question simply and accurately.

[jillybean]

What is the purpose of this sentence in law41A "The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity" ?

I assume this is to prevent unauthorized information being given to partner. A lead that is partly made and then withdrawn indicates to partner that I have more than one favorable lead, or it could mean that I pulled the wrong card.

Whether the card is removed only partly from my hand, reached half way to the table, touched the table or was held face down before being withdrawn seems to be irrelevent. This is similar to the problem caused when players reach for the bidding box, touch the bidding box, finger, or pick up bidding cards before making their bid or worse, pass.

[phil_20686]

I used to have a very bad habit of cycling my cards when I was thinking, by detaching a card from the front and moving it to the back. An opponent once claimed that this was illegal and that I was required to play a card that I detached. An ebu director was called and ruled that a card was deemed played if

1) The card was faced. or
2) The card touches the card table.

I have always assumed that this was correct.

[gnasher]

jillybean, on 2012-May-08, 12:15, said:

What is the purpose of this sentence in law41A "The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity" ?

The most common reason for changing a face-down lead is that a misexplanation has been corrected after the selection of the lead and before dummy has shown his cards.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 12:02, said:

gnasher, on 2012-May-08, 01:53, said:

I don't think there's any ambiguity in the rules.

Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing* it ...
* The opening lead is first made face down ...

... the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down ...

So for it to constitute a lead it has to (a) have been detached from his hand for the purpose of leading it, and (b) be face down. If he detached it for some other purpose, he hasn't led it. If it's not yet face-down, he hasn't led it.

The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity.

So once it meets the conditions of having been led, it can't be withdrawn.

This is seems to cover the legal question simply and accurately.

Especially if you add that when the card is detached face up (visible) rather than face down and therefore not "led" within this definition, it is instead a card exposed or led prior to the play period subject to Law 24.

[bluejak]

phil_20686, on 2012-May-08, 14:46, said:

I used to have a very bad habit of cycling my cards when I was thinking, by detaching a card from the front and moving it to the back. An opponent once claimed that this was illegal and that I was required to play a card that I detached. An ebu director was called and ruled that a card was deemed played if

1) The card was faced. or
2) The card touches the card table.

I have always assumed that this was correct.

This would take a long time to answer, but the simple answer is No.

Are you a defender or declarer?

Are you talking about an opening lead or not?

However, I think it is not entirely accurate in any position whatever.

[jillybean]

jillybean, on 2012-May-08, 12:15, said:

What is the purpose of this sentence in law41A "The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity" ?

gnasher, on 2012-May-08, 14:50, said:

The most common reason for changing a face-down lead is that a misexplanation has been corrected after the selection of the lead and before dummy has shown his cards.

I didn't ask the right question, let me try again
Why shouldn't the opening leader detach a card, place it face down, or nearly face down, put it back in her hand and then detach another before making her opening lead?

[bluejak]

Because she has made her opening lead, and then changed it. A face-down lead is a lead.

[jillybean]

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 17:20, said:

Because she has made her opening lead, and then changed it. A face-down lead is a lead.

Errr yeah, I know the laws says that a face down lead is a lead. What I am trying to ascertain is why does this law exist, why shouldn't I put the card back it my hand and lead another card?

[Vampyr]

McBruce, on 2012-May-08, 11:32, said:

Declarer did not agree with both defenders that the original card was never face down and dummy would not give an opinion.

Dummy's attitude is suspicious. Was dummy daydreaming and in another world and didn't notice what had happened? "Would not give an opinion" suggests that this is not the case, and further suggests that dummy felt that the defenders were right and didn't want to side with them against partner.

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 12:02, said:

We look at cases here, and quoting a completely different case does not help in any way. Perhaps the original statement of facts was flawed: so what? We were asked specific questions and we were answering them. If you want to come up with a different set of facts, why not just start a new thread?

In tis particular case there have been several versions of the facts. It is natural for the people involved to try to get the facts straight in the same thread rather than start a new thread about the same case with some of the details changed.

It is also natural to consider similar but slightly different cases if they are interesting too. And often this has a bearing on the OP case, either clarifying the solution or further complicating the matter.

jillybean, on 2012-May-08, 12:15, said:

Whether the card is removed only partly from my hand, reached half way to the table, touched the table or was held face down before being withdrawn seems to be irrelevent.

However it seems, what is "relevent" is the RA's definition of a played opening lead. People who feel that the regulation is wrong should lobby their RA, and should remember that a correct ruling is one that satisfies the regulations in force, even though it may not satisfy the player's idea of natural justice.

[jillybean]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-08, 18:06, said:

However it seems, what is "relevant" is the RA's definition of a played opening lead. People who feel that the regulation is wrong should lobby their RA, and should remember that a correct ruling is one that satisfies the regulations in force, even though it may not satisfy the player's idea of natural justice.

FYP

This is what I am trying to ascertain in my latest posts here, or more specifically, what is the purpose of the law and it's relevance to the opening lead.