[szgyula]

Hi,

A funny situation.

1. Screens in use.
2. After the auction, North is the declarer.
3. On the other side of the screen, West and South discusses the situation and they agree that South is the declarer.
4. Accordingly, West makes the opening lead, face up.
5. South opens the screen.
6. North and East is surprised and they start discussing, who is the declarer. They recite the auction and agree that North should be the declarer.
7. South and West calls the director. This is not obvious on the other side of the screen.
8. The director starts to asses the facts. The other side (N and E) is not aware of this.
9. East, aware of the opening lead by West and aware of the fact that West was not supposed to make the opening lead, maks an opening lead, face up.

How would you rule? There was an initial, later retracted ruling:

This was a faced opening lead out of turn and Law 54 applies. Since South opened the screen, 54D is no longer an option, i.e. the lead can not be refused. The declarer (North) was not offered a choice between 54A (North, the declarer spreads his hand and South becomes the declarer) and 54B (North remains declarer, plays from hand, etc.). The card played initially by East as "opening lead" becomes a major penalty card.
a) Was this correct?

After some reading, the TD changed the ruling:

Unfortunately, the official translation of 47E1 is plain wrong. Somehow "lead" was translated into "opening lead" so 47E1, in hungarian is

"An opening lead out of turn or play of a card may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play."

The TD applied this rule, i.e. the opening lead was based on misinformation from South. Thus, opening lead by West never happened and the real opening lead was made by East. The card by West can be retracted without rectification. The table result was adjusted accordingly.

b) Was this the correct ruling? 47E2(a) clearly mentions "opening lead" so Law 47 applies not only to "leads" but also to the "opening lead". On the other hand, a defender asking "is it my lead" and after a "yes" making the opening lead face up should not render Law 54 void. Thus, what is the standard for "mistakenly informed"?

Thanks,

Gyula

[VixTD]

I'm not an expert at directing events with screens (I did my first one last weekend), but I think that the original lead by West stands (South effectively accepted it for their side by opening the screen). North is still declarer and has to follow first from their hand after seeing South's dummy.

The matter is further complicated by East's lead out of rotation after seeing West's opening lead. This becomes a major penalty card, and it's such a silly thing for a presumably experienced player to do it probably warrants a procedural penalty as well.

Quote

[WB5.1(c), adopted from the WBF screen regulations] The screenmate should attempt to prevent an opening lead out of turn. Any opening lead out of turn shall be withdrawn without other rectification if the screen has not been opened. Otherwise:
(i) when the screen has been opened through no fault of the declaring side (and the other defender has not led face up) Law 54 applies.
(ii) when the declaring side has opened the screen the lead is accepted. The presumed declarer becomes the actual declarer. Law 23 may apply.
(iii) when two opening leads are faced by the defending side the incorrect lead is a major penalty card.
(iv) for a card faced by the declaring side see Law 48.

I'm assuming (iii) applies to leads made independently of each other, and does not apply to a correct lead made after sight of an incorrect lead from partner, and before a ruling has been made on the incorrect lead, which would have meant the incorrect lead would stand. If that's not so, East's lead stands, West's card is a major penalty card, the TD will have to judge whether East's lead could have been based on UI from seeing West's card, and directing with screens is too hard for me.

[barmar]

How is it possible to call the TD and discuss the situation with him without this being apparent to the players on the other side of the screen? Do your screens stretch across the entire room?

[szgyula]

barmar, on 2016-November-11, 09:56, said:

How is it possible to call the TD and discuss the situation with him without this being apparent to the players on the other side of the screen? Do your screens stretch across the entire room?

The background noise was too high. It was not obvious on the other side that the TD was called and that he arrived. It WAS obvious that something irregular happened. The screen is 2m high and not transparent. The TD was not visible, neither approaching nor being there. He can not be heard, either.

Now how about law 47E? The TD used it to claim that the opening lead can be retracted without consequence as it was based on misinformation from declaring side. Misinformation being "dummy" agreeing that he is the declarer.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2016-November-11, 09:56, said:

How is it possible to call the TD and discuss the situation with him without this being apparent to the players on the other side of the screen? Do your screens stretch across the entire room?

szgyula, on 2016-November-12, 03:07, said:

The background noise was too high. It was not obvious on the other side that the TD was called and that he arrived. It WAS obvious that something irregular happened. The screen is 2m high and not transparent. The TD was not visible, neither approaching nor being there.

I've never seen a screen 2m high, but I have seen situations when the players on one side of the screen were not aware that the director was on the other. That is after all the purpose of the screen, to shield one side from what is happening on the other side.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2016-November-12, 03:20, said:

I've never seen a screen 2m high, but I have seen situations when the players on one side of the screen were not aware that the director was on the other. That is after all the purpose of the screen, to shield one side from what is happening on the other side.

it hides the other side, it doesn't hide the whole room. When I've watched people playing with screens (I usually operate Vugraph at least one session per NABC), it would always be pretty obvious when the TD was called.

And what kind of noisy environment was this? Did the director call happen during a break in another event, while lots of people were milling about and discussing hands? Bridge playing areas are usually pretty quiet.

I assume the "2m high" screen is measuring from the floor, not the tabletop.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2016-November-13, 19:32, said:

I assume the "2m high" screen is measuring from the floor, not the tabletop.

I did too, and as I said I've never seen one that high.

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-November-13, 19:32, said:

I assume the "2m high" screen is measuring from the floor, not the tabletop.

gordontd, on 2016-November-14, 01:21, said:

I did too, and as I said I've never seen one that high.

Ours are.

well, maybe an inch or two lower, but normal people cannot stand upright and look over them.

[VixTD]

I tried to answer the actual ruling question (rather than "how high are your screens?") but I'm not sure I was right. In case the screens are complicating matters, let me try to create an equivalent problem without screens:

North is declarer and West leads face-up out of turn. The director is called, gives North their options, and North says: "I'll accept the lead and play the hand as declarer".

Now East makes a face-up opening lead.

Should the TD allow North, who has just accepted one opening lead, to accept the other opening lead?

[pran]

VixTD, on 2016-November-16, 07:40, said:

I tried to answer the actual ruling question (rather than "how high are your screens?") but I'm not sure I was right. In case the screens are complicating matters, let me try to create an equivalent problem without screens:

North is declarer and West leads face-up out of turn. The director is called, gives North their options, and North says: "I'll accept the lead and play the hand as declarer".

Now East makes a face-up opening lead.

Should the TD allow North, who has just accepted one opening lead, to accept the other opening lead?

NO.

The opening lead has been made (by West and accepted) and we are within the play period.
As there now is an uncompleted trick in progress the "lead" from East is actually not a lead but a premature play by East to the current trick.

The Director shall first apply Law 57A and (unless the card can legally be played to the first trick, in which case it must be played) subsequently apply Law 50D. (The card is now a major penalty card.)

[VixTD]

pran, on 2016-November-16, 09:04, said:

NO.

The opening lead has been made (by West and accepted) and we are within the play period.
As there now is an uncompleted trick in progress the "lead" from East is actually not a lead but a premature play by East to the current trick.

The Director shall first apply Law 57A and (unless the card can legally be played to the first trick, in which case it must be played) subsequently apply Law 50D. (The card is now a major penalty card.)

I looked at law 57 and decided it didn't apply, as East is quite clearly leading to the current trick and not the following trick. It is a lead out of turn, which law 53A states that declarer can accept.

It's well known that the laws make a poor job of covering certain simultaneous infractions, but I know some directors have schemes for dealing with these.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2016-November-17, 07:18, said:

I looked at law 57 and decided it didn't apply, as East is quite clearly leading to the current trick and not the following trick. It is a lead out of turn, which law 53A states that declarer can accept.

It's well known that the laws make a poor job of covering certain simultaneous infractions, but I know some directors have schemes for dealing with these.

You made it clear that this part of the discussion is with no screens in use so there can be no question of players at one side of a screen being unaware of what is going on at the other side.

The established sequence of events was:
1: West makes a faced opening lead out of turn
2: The Director is called and explains the options
3: North uses his option to accept the opening lead out of turn with himself as declarer and

Law 54 B said:

When a defender faces the opening lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53, and dummy is spread in accordance with Law 41.

1. The second card to the trick is played from declarer’s hand.

So when East now makes what he possibly thinks is a faced opening lead, it really is instead a card played to the current trick at North's turn to play and Law 57A does indeed apply.

[VixTD]

pran, on 2016-November-17, 14:50, said:

So when East now makes what he possibly thinks is a faced opening lead, it really is instead a card played to the current trick at North's turn to play and Law 57A does indeed apply.

But East is partnering West, not North, and West has already played to this trick, so law 57 doesn't apply.

I'm beginning to regret trying to breathe new life into this topic.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2016-November-18, 07:32, said:

But East is partnering West, not North, and West has already played to this trick, so law 57 doesn't apply.

I'm beginning to regret trying to breathe new life into this topic.

OK, I see your point.

But whatever it is, it is not a lead. It is the second card played to the current trick and North may not "accept" it as a lead to this (nor any) trick even if it is proven beyond any doubt to having been intended as a lead.

If it had been (approximately) simultaneous with the opening lead out of turn by West it should have been ruled as the correct opening lead and the card "led" by West should be ruled as a subsequent play to that same trick.

[szgyula]

Now that everything else was cleared up, can someone define the standard for "the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play"? Is there any guidance for this law anywhere?

[Pig Trader]

Law 47E1:

E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation
1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further
rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it
was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO
in these circumstances.

[blackshoe]

You ask "is it my lead?" An opponent says "yes". But it's not your lead. You have been mistakenly informed. Or you ask "whose lead is it?" and an opponent answers "yours". Same thing.

What guidance do you need?

[mycroft]

Well the one that I always get (as a player and a director) is "but they didn't tell me it wasn't my lead."

Yes, I know that's not the same as "told them it was". But maybe that is "guidance" that is being looked for.

I will try to stop you from leading out of turn. If I notice. If it's a Serious Game (and I don't consider Regional Flight A pairs a Serious Game), or if the opponents are the kind of people who Are Known To The Directors, I may be a little slower to notice.

I know a player or two who will ask "is it my lead?" and not do so until one of the opponents agrees. I consider that abuse of the rules, but I don't think it's illegal. I also tend to answer him "the contract is 3♠ in the South" as that is the question I am required to answer; I am not sure I am required to answer the question he asks.

[szgyula]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-18, 15:42, said:

You ask "is it my lead?" An opponent says "yes". But it's not your lead. You have been mistakenly informed. Or you ask "whose lead is it?" and an opponent answers "yours". Same thing.

What guidance do you need?

You can interpret the text very strictly or very broadly. I do not know where to draw the line. To give a few examples:

1. "Is it my lead?" Opponent does not answer.
2. "Is it my lead?" Opponent answers "may be, I am nor sure".
3. "Is it my lead?" Answer is "the contract is 3S by South" (when in fact it is by North). You were misinformed but not about the lead.
4. Player asks for the auction sequence and South recites it but makes a mistake. In the correct auction, the declarer is North. In the recited one, it is South. No further questions.
5. At one point South asks for the auction and West recites it incorrectly. In the correct auction, North is the declarer. In the recited one, it is South. Now West asks South "is it my lead" and South confirms yes, based on the incorrect recital.
6. Player asks "who is declarer" and gets an incorrect answer. He was not informed about who is to lead, etc.
7. Player asks if he is declarer (when he should be dummy). Did he "inform"?
8. Player makes a remark like "you end up with 5 opening lead out of 7 boards".
9. Same as before but the gay already made five opening leads. Was he "informed"?


We can go on and make up lots of situations on "both sides" of the line that I want to get defined. What disturbs me is that in real life it is often the player making the opening lead and one of his opponents together that cause the irregularity. The rules always put the blame on one of them. Even if it were objective (it is not) and even if rule 47E1 was applied consistently (i.e. TD always investigating the communication leading up to the incorrect lead), more experienced player would be able to take advantage of this law.

This is legal but not necessarily nice. A beginner will go home one evening with two boards, once he made an incorrect opening lead, once his opponent. Everything was identical. Same question, same answers, etc. In both cases the TD ruled against him. That is not "good", even though it is "legal".

[blackshoe]

szgyula, on 2016-November-19, 13:06, said:

This is legal but not necessarily nice. A beginner will go home one evening with two boards, once he made an incorrect opening lead, once his opponent. Everything was identical. Same question, same answers, etc. In both cases the TD ruled against him. That is not "good", even though it is "legal".

Apparently, everything was not identical. The ruling was different. If all the facts of the two cases are identical, then the rulings should be identical. If they are not, the director has made an error. This is a violation of law, so not legal, or even "legal".

szgyula, on 2016-November-19, 13:06, said:

We can go on and make up lots of situations on "both sides" of the line that I want to get defined. What disturbs me is that in real life it is often the player making the opening lead and one of his opponents together that cause the irregularity. The rules always put the blame on one of them. Even if it were objective (it is not) and even if rule 47E1 was applied consistently (i.e. TD always investigating the communication leading up to the incorrect lead), more experienced player would be able to take advantage of this law.

Players who are aware of the law will always have an advantage over those who don't. However, that advantage is minimized when the laws are properly followed and the director issues a correct ruling.

The laws are not concerned, in the first instance, with why a player committed an irregularity, only with the fact that he committed it. In some cases (and this is one of them) the commission may be mitigated by an action (such as misinforming the offender that he was on lead) by an opponent. it's not a question of blame, but of the proper rectification. If a player leads out of turn, then Law 54 or Law 53 applies, unless he was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his lead. In that case Law 47E1 applies.

Your concern seems to be "what constitutes a player misinforming his opponent as to who is on lead?" I would treat your cases as follows:

1. "Is it my lead?" Opponent does not answer.
If the player leads, that's on him.

2. "Is it my lead?" Opponent answers "may be, I am nor sure".
Again, if the player leads, that's on him.

3. "Is it my lead?" Answer is "the contract is 3S by South" (when in fact it is by North). You were misinformed but not about the lead.
The answer implies that West is on lead, when East is on lead. West has been misinformed by an opponent (presumably), so 47E1 applies.

4. Player asks for the auction sequence and South recites it but makes a mistake. In the correct auction, the declarer is North. In the recited one, it is South. No further questions.
Same as #3.

5. At one point South asks for the auction and West recites it incorrectly. In the correct auction, North is the declarer. In the recited one, it is South. Now West asks South "is it my lead" and South confirms yes, based on the incorrect recital.

Quote

Law 20E: All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* (see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage).

If no one corrects the erroneous review, and West leads out of turn, then 12C1 will come into play (after the play of the hand is over) and the declarer will, if there was damage to either side, adjust the score to restore equity - that is, assuming that the correct player (East) led, and the correct declarer (North) played the hand. I'm skipping over any interim ruling regarding the lead out of turn because it really doesn't matter.

6. Player asks "who is declarer" and gets an incorrect answer. He was not informed about who is to lead, etc.
An incorrect response to this question implies an incorrect designation of who is on lead.

7. Player asks if he is declarer (when he should be dummy). Did he "inform"?
No, he asked.

8. Player makes a remark like "you end up with 5 opening lead out of 7 boards".
To whom, and at what point?*

9. Same as before but the gay already made five opening leads. Was he "informed"?
Same questions as before.*

* Extraneous remarks ought to be avoided in general. Neither of these scenarios does that. As to "informed", that depends on the answers to my questions.