[bluejak]

This is North's hand: 94, JT984, AKQJ8, 9. West is dealer, there is a competitive auction during which North shows both red suits and ending with West as declarer in 5 clubs. South starts to put the contract into the BridgeMate and mutters "I'm leading a diamond." North says "it's my lead" and tables the ace of diamonds. The TD is called.

She rules that South's comment does not constitute an opening lead out of turn but North is in possession of UI; however, as the DA is a natural lead for North no damage has occurred and the table result should stand.

Fair enough, you will probably all agree with that. What, though, if South had said "I'm leading a club" and North had then led the 9 of clubs? This could also be a natural lead. Would you adjust the score if West claimed damage? Or what if South had said "a heart" and North led the jack of hearts?

[billw55]

Hmm, I suppose we could apply the concepts of UI and logical alternatives. With this hand, I think a diamond lead is always an LA, unless perhaps the auction has shown an opponent to be void in the suit. So I think in general the lead should be changed to a diamond.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2012-September-13, 06:40, said:

She rules that South's comment does not constitute an opening lead out of turn but North is in possession of UI; however, as the DA is a natural lead for North no damage has occurred and the table result should stand.

I known it wasn't the question you asked, but I think the more interesting question is whether this is a correct ruling. I think it isn't.

L45C4a: "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play."

"Player" here is clearly intended to include a defender.

There is a problem that the designation is incomplete, and L46B on interpreting dodgy designations is specifically written in relation to declarer calling for cards from dummy. But I would say it was nevertheless clear that the player had a specific card in mind and was naming it, he knows what it is so we can ask him, he certainly thought that was enough to say to declarer to save him time. He may even have only one diamond.* So he must now play it. It will then be a faced opening lead out of turn and the declaring side will have the usual rights following a faced opening lead out of turn.

If we accept the ruling, then it is a UI case of no great interest. We do a poll on the opening lead, given the auction. If any lead other than a high diamond polls well enough to be a LA, the diamond lead is illegal. My guess is it is quite likely 90%+ of people will lead the DA, so he could be OK. If it was a club mentioned and N now led a club, I think it highly likely that the DA is a LA, so the club lead would be illegal, that's so obvious I think one can omit the poll.

*Edit - or they may be of equal rank.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-13, 08:02, said:

I known it wasn't the question you asked, but ...

Perhaps I should make clear I have merely copied exactly a question put on the Australian website.

[ahydra]

IMHO:
- I agree with the original TD ruling
- "diamond" then DA is natural lead, no adjustment
- "club" then C9 is not a natural lead (singleton trump is generally ugh, though it would depend on the auction). DA is an LA, so I adjust if necessary
- "heart" then HJ is closer but to be honest the DA is still an LA and so I'd adjust if necessary.

There doesn't appear to be a reason South commented what he's leading. But it does not count as designating a card in his hand since it wasn't a full designation - we can't go putting thoughts into / pulling thoughts out of player's minds* (this came up in another thread recently and I think this sort of thing is best avoided).

Also - even if we did deem it designated, it's only a MPC, not an opening lead, since the Laws seem to suggest opening leads have to be faced. That of course makes the UI situation much clearer, but doesn't mean declarer gets the full gamut of OLOOT options (merely the ones where he doesn't accept the lead).

ahydra

* yes, unfortunately, we have to do this with insufficient bids - but not really another way round it, the way the Law is written at present.

[TimG]

Would the designation be complete if South held only one diamond?

[nigel_k]

I don't have any opinion about whether South's statement is effectively a lead out of turn.

Otherwise I think it is a fairly ordinary UI situation. North has UI, the UI suggests leading whatever South said he wanted to lead, and we have to decide whether leading the other suit is a logical alternative. I think it is between a diamond and a club. A diamond looks normal and would probably always be a logical alternative. Whether a club is a logical alternative depends on the auction, but my personal opinion would be that it is not logical unless the auction specifically suggests that South has spades fairly well locked up and that E/W are weak in high cards and will be relying on trumps for almost all their tricks, probably a sacrifice situation.

So I would probably not adjust after the diamond lead on the actual hand, and definitely would adjust if North led a club after South said they wanted lead one.

[RMB1]

nigel_k, on 2012-September-13, 13:50, said:

Otherwise I think it is a fairly ordinary UI situation. North has UI, ...

agree

nigel_k, on 2012-September-13, 13:50, said:

... the UI suggests leading whatever South said he wanted to lead,

Why?
Often partner will lead suits he does not want to lead and does not want played

[iviehoff]

ahydra, on 2012-September-13, 10:15, said:

There doesn't appear to be a reason South commented what he's leading.

Its perfectly obvious he was trying to save time. He expected the other side to be able to proceed as if he had led, in particular to be able to think about the play of the hand, on the basis of that information. Therefore presumably he expected dummy to be faced, as knowing a small diamond was led isn't much use to anyone unless they can see dummy. It is quite clear to me he expected this to be taken as his lead.

ahydra, on 2012-September-13, 10:15, said:

But it does not count as designating a card in his hand since it wasn't a full designation - we can't go putting thoughts into / pulling thoughts out of player's minds* (this came up in another thread recently and I think this sort of thing is best avoided).

This is not a sufficient reason to say something is not a designation. The existence of Law 46B on the interpretation of incomplete designations makes this clear. If all incomplete designations had to be completed before they were designations, then Law 46B is of no effect. In practice, Law 46B is one of the most often applied laws in the game, frequently several times per hand.

Case law makes a crucial difference between
(1)a designation which is started but does not proceed to the degree completion that the speaker intended when he started speaking but rather is interrupted externally or volunatarily by the speaker (usually with the intention of making a correction if interrupted voluntarily), and
(2) a designation which is legally incomplete, but was all that the speaker intended to say.

Case Law is that situation (1) is not a designation, and can therefore be changed; but (2) is a designation, and, in the case of declarer instructing cards to be played from dummy, Law 46B is used to interpret them.

Thus the crucial factor is determing whether an incomplete designation is nevertheless a designation is whether the speaker said all that he intended to say on the matter. Here, he said all that he intended to say. It was clear that he thought he had given the opponents enough information to be able to proceed with the game as if he had led. Therefore, I rule, quite confidently, that it is a designation.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-14, 03:46, said:

Its perfectly obvious he was trying to save time. He expected the other side to be able to proceed as if he had led, in particular to be able to think about the play of the hand, on the basis of that information. Therefore presumably he expected dummy to be faced, as knowing a small diamond was led isn't much use to anyone unless they can see dummy. It is quite clear to me he expected this to be taken as his lead.

This is not a sufficient reason to say something is not a designation. The existence of Law 46B on the interpretation of incomplete designations makes this clear. If all incomplete designations had to be completed before they were designations, then Law 46B is of no effect. In practice, Law 46B is one of the most often applied laws in the game, frequently several times per hand.

Case law makes a crucial difference between
(1)a designation which is started but does not proceed to the degree completion that the speaker intended when he started speaking but rather is interrupted externally or volunatarily by the speaker (usually with the intention of making a correction if interrupted voluntarily), and
(2) a designation which is legally incomplete, but was all that the speaker intended to say.

Case Law is that situation (1) is not a designation, and can therefore be changed; but (2) is a designation, and, in the case of declarer instructing cards to be played from dummy, Law 46B is used to interpret them.

Thus the crucial factor is determing whether an incomplete designation is nevertheless a designation is whether the speaker said all that he intended to say on the matter. Here, he said all that he intended to say. It was clear that he thought he had given the opponents enough information to be able to proceed with the game as if he had led. Therefore, I rule, quite confidently, that it is a designation.

Rather than Law 46 I think the relevant law here is:

LAW 49 said:

EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER’S CARDS

Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but [...] (irrelevant here)

So the important question is if South actually named any card in this case, and I would vote NO; all he said was "I'm leading a diamond.".
(He did however give his partner UI, there is no doubt about that.)

[iviehoff]

ahydra, on 2012-September-13, 10:15, said:

Also - even if we did deem it designated, it's only a MPC, not an opening lead, since the Laws seem to suggest opening leads have to be faced.

The distinction between making an opening lead and facing it relates to the fact that in some circumstances the lead may be withdrawn on the instruction of the director if it is not yet faced. The auction period only ends at the point it is faced. Even if you haven't faced it, you are still compelled to lead it unless the director rules it may be withdrawn. Clearly a face down lead out of turn will be instructed to be withdrawn - that's so obvious we don't even bother to call the director. But you can only have an opening lead that is not yet faced if you complied with the law on making a face down opening lead. If the identity of the card is already public knowledge, it is not a face down opening lead. It is in effect already faced.

It will of course become an MPC if the lead out of turn is refused. If you want to argue it is a MPC without ever being led, I think you need to cite under which law it is a MPC. I think the only chance you have is to argue it is a card exposed in the auction period (L24). Naming a card as being in your hand is clearly equivalent to exposing it, so I am not going to argue that trivial point. We may not yet know precisely which diamond it is, but we know it is a small one, small enough the player didn't think it made much difference to anything. That's a bit like the small diamond which was dropped and retrieved before we could see exactly which spot it was, (though clearly what has happened is not equivalent to dropping it accidentally). Such a card is exposed even though we don't know exactly what it is, and if it is a penalty card it will now be placed face up on the table so we know exactly which one it is.

Now a small card exposed in the auction period only becomes a penalty card if it was exposed with the intention of leading it (L24A). So by saying it is a MPC, you are in effect acknowledging it was exposed with the intention of leading it. I suspect you didn't read L24A carefully, and would now prefer to revise your position to "not a penalty card", as ruled the TD. I think if you wish to argue this card was not led, then you have agree it isn't a penalty card.

At that strange time interval, the "clarification period", when the auction has finished (but may still be reopened if misinformation is identified), but the "auction period" has not yet finished until the opening lead has been faced, we have sometimes have a difficulty distinguishing whether card is "exposed in the auction period" or "played".

When we add up the possibilities in L24, we conclude that no card attempted to be played in the auction period can become a played card, except if it is a card led during the clarification period (because any other lead is "premature"). All other attempts to play a card in the auction period result in "card exposed in the auction period", even if it is in the clarification period.

But since it is possible for the auction period to end, even with a lead out of turn, it must be possible for a player to lead a card in the clarification period, and to do so out of turn. The distinction between a card (attempted to be) led and a card (attempted to be) played, (where the distinction matters - eg was a player playing to the previous trick or leading to the next) is whether the player thought he was leading it. This is a matter of case law - you won't find it in the laws, the laws are silent on this. Thus when a player has proceeded with his attempt to play a card to the point that the card must now be played, that attempt to play is an attempt to lead if the action of attempting to play it was undertaken with the conscious intention of leading it.

This player thought he was leading. It was in the clarification period. He made a designation which results in a card which must now be played. A play made with the intention of leading is a lead. This is why I interpret this as designation as now being an irrevocable lead.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-September-14, 04:39, said:

Rather than Law 46 I think the relevant law here is (Law 49 EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER’S CARDS)

Edit: You mean Law 45, specifically L45C4.

You can't make Law (Edit) 45 go away just because you prefer to apply a different law. If it was designated, it was designated, and Law (Edit) 45 applies. It is possible to lead a card during the clarification period, therefore it is possible to designate a card for leading in the clarification period.

But Law 49 can't apply, because it specifically applies to defender. But we are still in the auction period, and no one is a defender yet.

Edit: Regardless of that, I would argue that Law 49 would apply to a defender saying "I possess a small diamond". Just like it would apply to someone dropping a small diamond and picking it up without us being able to tell exactly which spot it was.

[Zelandakh]

My first thought on this was the same as ivie's but after reviewing the various Laws it looks like that is wrong and this is a simple UI case. Answering the specific questions on lead is impossible without a full auction - how can we possibly judge for sure what is a LA and what is not? From the information we have though, "I am leading a diamond" would suggest leading a diamond - partner most likely has shortage. "I am leading a club" on the other hand might also suggest a diamond (partner is now unlikely to hold the ♣A) but it might still suggest a club (if partner is likely to hold ♠A). They are probably leading from length hoping we can ruff. I think this is the most difficult case. "I am leading a heart" suggests a heart and the lead of the jack would appear to be a pretty serious breach, worth a penalty if done by an experienced player.

[ahydra]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-14, 03:46, said:

Its perfectly obvious he was trying to save time.

My first thought was that he was just talking to himself as he entered the lead into the Bridgemate, given the OP's use of the word "muttered" and the fact South was entering stuff into the Bridgemate at the time of the muttering. Either, or neither of us could be correct here.

Quote

as knowing a small diamond was led isn't much use to anyone unless they can see dummy.

He didn't say "small diamond".

Quote

This is not a sufficient reason to say something is not a designation. The existence of Law 46B on the interpretation of incomplete designations makes this clear. If all incomplete designations had to be completed before they were designations, then Law 46B is of no effect. In practice, Law 46B is one of the most often applied laws in the game, frequently several times per hand.

Law 46B refers to incomplete designations of a card from dummy.

iviehoff, on 2012-September-14, 05:18, said:

The distinction between making an opening lead and facing it relates to the fact that in some circumstances the lead may be withdrawn on the instruction of the director if it is not yet faced. The auction period only ends at the point it is faced. Even if you haven't faced it, you are still compelled to lead it unless the director rules it may be withdrawn. Clearly a face down lead out of turn will be instructed to be withdrawn - that's so obvious we don't even bother to call the director. But you can only have an opening lead that is not yet faced if you complied with the law on making a face down opening lead. If the identity of the card is already public knowledge, it is not a face down opening lead. It is in effect already faced.

It will of course become an MPC if the lead out of turn is refused. If you want to argue it is a MPC without ever being led, I think you need to cite under which law it is a MPC.

As pran mentioned, Law 49 was what I was thinking of.

Quote

I think the only chance you have is to argue it is a card exposed in the auction period (L24).

The card was not exposed. L24 requires that the face of the card could have been seen by the partner, which is not the case here. L49 seems infintely more applicable.

Quote

Naming a card as being in your hand is clearly equivalent to exposing it,

I have to disagree. The first one offers the possibility of lying, the second does not. Plus there is the Law's usage of "possible for his partner to see the face" or similar and no such wording exists for spoken card designations.

Quote

We may not yet know precisely which diamond it is, but we know it is a small one, small enough the player didn't think it made much difference to anything.

Again, how do you know it's a small diamond? It could be the 10 (admittedly North holds the other high diamonds). But the exact rank could make a difference, and there is no way we can tell whether the player thought the exact rank made a difference or not.

Quote

At that strange time interval, the "clarification period", when the auction has finished (but may still be reopened if misinformation is identified), but the "auction period" has not yet finished until the opening lead has been faced, we have sometimes have a difficulty distinguishing whether card is "exposed in the auction period" or "played".

A good point - thankfully L49 covers all situations.

Despite the above, we both seem to have missed L45C4a, which suggests that "I'm leading a diamond", if deemed to be a designation, would constitute a play and therefore a lead out of turn. This would conflict with L49 though (since declarer might accept the opening lead out of turn) - I wonder if Lamford would like to make another one of his creative threads about this... Come to think of it, if I agreed that "I'm leading a diamond" constituted a designation I would probably rule that it is an OLOOT since that also brings about the MPC-ness of the card.

ahydra

[ahydra]

Argh, multi-cross-post! I see now you reference L45C4a.

You raise a valid point about the fact that NS are not yet defenders. The Law does mention presumed defenders though (L41A), and it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to apply L49 to them during the clarification period. One now has to wonder why there is no explicit Law against naming cards in your hand during the auction period! (It would of course count as UI, but shouldn't it be included under L24 or L49?)

In the case of applying L49 to "I have a small diamond", are you going to make the offender expose ALL his small diamonds as MPCs? What counts as small? Your analogous case is much more clear-cut since the law explicitly states "if partner could possibly see its face" - I don't think these cases are similar at all.

ahydra

[iviehoff]

ahydra, on 2012-September-14, 05:49, said:

My first thought was that he was just talking to himself as he entered the lead into the Bridgemate, given the OP's use of the word "muttered" and the fact South was entering stuff into the Bridgemate at the time of the muttering.

That didn't occur to me, and I see it is quite possible. I agree, we need to know why he said this. If he was just thinking aloud to the bridgemate, then he wasn't actually leading, because leading requires conscious intent to lead. In that circumstance I now agree with the TD. It is (at worst) an exposed card in the auction period, and as (I am sure we shall find) a small card exposed in the auction not a penalty card.

ahydra, on 2012-September-14, 05:49, said:

He didn't say "small diamond".

Since I assumed he was addressing the opposition to say what he was leading, surely everyone would understand "I'm leading a diamond" as "a small one, sufficiently small it isn't important for you to know which one, otherwise I wouldn't say such a vague thing".

ahydra, on 2012-September-14, 05:49, said:

Law 46B refers to incomplete designations of a card from dummy.

Quite so. I mention it merely to make clear that an incomplete designation is nevertheless a designation to be acted upon, which someone had denied. Law 46B would not be there if that was not the case. It is a matter of case law that an incomplete designation only fails to be a designation if it has been interrupted - if it was as much as the player intended to say, it is a designation. We can take that case law conclusion to other laws on designation, even though Law 46B does not apply here.

ahydra, on 2012-September-14, 05:49, said:

Despite the above, we both seem to have missed L45C4a,

You have now realised I did mention it in a crosspost, but actually I mentioned it well before that in a post I made yesterday. My whole argument has been based on it.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-14, 05:24, said:

Edit: You mean Law 45, specifically L45C4.

You can't make Law (Edit) 45 go away just because you prefer to apply a different law. If it was designated, it was designated, and Law (Edit) 45 applies. It is possible to lead a card during the clarification period, therefore it is possible to designate a card for leading in the clarification period.

But Law 49 can't apply, because it specifically applies to defender. But we are still in the auction period, and no one is a defender yet.

Edit: Regardless of that, I would argue that Law 49 would apply to a defender saying "I possess a small diamond". Just like it would apply to someone dropping a small diamond and picking it up without us being able to tell exactly which spot it was.

The post to which I commented specifically referred to Law 46B and mentioned no other law.

So NO, I indeed meant Law 46.

And NO, a card "led" during the clarification period is not neccessarily led.

If it is accidentally faced regardless of by whom, or even deliberately led by presumed declarer or dummy, it is a card exposed during the auction period and not led.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-September-14, 12:14, said:

The post to which I commented specifically referred to Law 46B and mentioned no other law. So NO, I indeed meant Law 46.

I apologise for mistaking your intention here. You quoted a post in which I explicitly said that L46 does not apply (though I mentioned it for other reasons). By asserting that L49 applied, you appeared to me to be implicitly disagreeing with my earlier and sustained point that L45C4 applies. But perhaps you overlooked that I was making that argument. I am now happy to acknowledge you did not intend to comment on whether L45C4 applies, and have not said whether you agree or disagree with it.

You have not said whether you agree or disagree with my point that L49 cannot apply in the clarification period.

pran, on 2012-September-14, 12:14, said:

And NO, a card "led" during the clarification period is not neccessarily led.
If it is accidentally faced regardless of by whom, or even deliberately led by presumed declarer or dummy, it is a card exposed during the auction period and not led.

Although you write "NO", which other readers might take as a sign of some kind of disagreement, I can't find one. As far as I can see, I said precisely that, and have not asserted you said anything else.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2012-September-14, 12:14, said:

If it is accidentally faced regardless of by whom, or even deliberately led by presumed declarer or dummy, it is a card exposed during the auction period and not led.

There is plenty of case Law that a card is led when a player intends to lead it and does so, whether it is in turn or out of turn, whether he is declarer, dummy or whoever.