BBO Discussion Forums: Opening Lead by dummy - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Opening Lead by dummy

#1 User is offline   indp 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 2010-December-20

Posted 2013-July-04, 20:33

Dummy makes a face up opening lead. Can declarer's RHO accept this and play second after the whole of dummy is exposed?
0

#2 User is offline   axman 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 2009-July-29
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-July-04, 20:52

View Postindp, on 2013-July-04, 20:33, said:

Dummy makes a face up opening lead. Can declarer's RHO accept this and play second after the whole of dummy is exposed?


What you have described is an exposed card during the auction period.
3

#3 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2013-July-04, 21:47

And, it sounds like the actual auction part of the auction period has ended since you know whom to call Dummy. So, there is likely to be no consequence other than opening leader having the privilege of seeing a card before he leads.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#4 User is offline   indp 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 2010-December-20

Posted 2013-July-04, 22:21

So is the answer to my question - no RHO cannot accept the lead and play second?
0

#5 User is online   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,216
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2013-July-04, 22:28

This is a known gambit in an attempt to get a sleepy LHO to generate 13 penalty cards.
1

#6 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2013-July-04, 22:30

View Postindp, on 2013-July-04, 22:21, said:

So is the answer to my question - no RHO cannot accept the lead and play second?

As pointed out, it is not a lead. There is nothing to accept.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#7 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2013-July-05, 00:29

What surprises me here is that nobody called attention to Law 54E (which directly refers to Law 24).

Yes, it is a card exposed during the auction period.

And there may be important consequences, remember Law 21B2: If during the clarification period it is revealed that presumed declaring side has given incorrect information during the auction the last opponent to pass may be given the opportunity to withdraw this pass and continue the auction.

The originally presumed declaring side will then be subject to restrictions during this continued auction, and it is even fully possible that they eventually will find themselves the defending side.
0

#8 User is offline   iviehoff 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,165
  • Joined: 2009-July-15

Posted 2013-July-05, 03:21

View Postindp, on 2013-July-04, 22:21, said:

So is the answer to my question - no RHO cannot accept the lead and play second?

Correct. If the following player did attempt to play a card to the trick, that would be another card exposed in the auction, not a play to a trick or a lead. Even though it would be a card exposed by the defending side, it wouldn't be treated as a lead out of turn, as the exposure of a card is not a lead unless the player playing it is consciously leading it. Though of course in some circumstances a player exposing a card might then be obliged to lead it, though not this circumstance.

Notice that if it is declarer rather than dummy who leads a card, and the defender following in turn attempts to play at this point, we arrive at a contentious point of law. We now have the situation that the rightful opening leader has a card exposed in the auction. But the law says that such an exposed card does not become a penalty card (which would have to be led) until the play period starts, but the play period does not start until the opening leader has faced a lead. So it would appear that even when the rightful opening leader has a card exposed in the auction, he is not obliged to lead it. I'm inclined to suspect this was not the conscious intention of the authors of the laws, as it is the only situation where a player on lead possessing an exposed card is not obliged to lead it.

There was a case discussed on this forum where a player from the declaring side led, and then players continued to play in turn without a dummy being exposed, or attention being drawn, until some distance into trick two, when a halt was called. There was massive disagreement on what to do in this situation. Some felt that there were 7 cards exposed in the auction. Others felt that the play period had now started with things having gone so far. Fortunately such nonsenses are very rare.
0

#9 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2013-July-05, 07:14

View Postiviehoff, on 2013-July-05, 03:21, said:

If the following player did attempt to play a card to the trick, that would be another card exposed in the auction, not a play to a trick or a lead. Even though it would be a card exposed by the defending side, it wouldn't be treated as a lead out of turn, as the exposure of a card is not a lead unless the player playing it is consciously leading it. Though of course in some circumstances a player exposing a card might then be obliged to lead it, though not this circumstance.
[...]

This, I believe is a misunderstanding of the current laws:

The "lead" by presumed dummy or declarer is specifically handled in Law 54E and as such is a card exposed during the auction period.

The clarification period explicitly ends and the play period begins when (Law 41C) either player on the presumed defending side and subsequent to the end of the auction (i.e. following the three consequtive passes in rotation) leads a card face up. This is in no way changed by presumed dummy or declarer having (previously) exposed one or more cards during the auction period.

(The way I understand Law 41 any exposure of a (presumed) defender's card occurring during the clarification period automatically terminates the clarification period.)
0

#10 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,694
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2013-July-05, 08:29

I disagree with Sven somewhat. And to a lesser extent with Iviehoff.

First, until the play period starts, there is no defending side or declaring side. Second, the clarification period is part of the auction period. Third, careful reading of Law 24 leads to the conclusion that if a player exposes a card during the auction period because of that player's own error (as in "following suit" to another player's exposed card), "every such card shall be left face up on the table until the auction period ends". This implies that the auction period does not end just because a particular player has exposed a card. So, primus, Law 24 is applied. Now, secundus, if we are in the clarification period, that period ends when "either defender faces an opening lead" (Law 22B1). But that has not happened - the "defender" was "following suit", not leading. So the clarification period is not ended, and players can still exercise whatever rights they have during that period (request a review and/or explanation of calls, withdraw calls made under the influence of MI, and so on). Once all that is resolved, the "defender's" exposed card becomes a penalty card (major or minor per Law 50, in this case major regardless of its rank, because it was exposed deliberately). Law 54 does not apply to this case, because the exposed card was and is not an opening lead. So the (putative still, at this point) defender on putative declarer's left now makes his lead (face down). Note that penalty cards only become such during the play period, so the restrictions in Law 50D2 do not apply to this face down opening lead (which IAC may have been made before the partner exposed his card - but it doesn't matter if it wasn't). Once the opening lead is faced, the defender's exposed card becomes a MPC, and the requirements of Law 50D1 apply.

It's even (remotely) possible that the two players with exposed cards will end up not as dummy and defender respectively, but as defender and either dummy or declarer!
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#11 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,703
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2013-July-05, 08:41

Yeah, pran's position leads to an unfortunate sequence of events. Say I am Dummy but, thinking I am a defender on lead, I play a card and absent-mindedly do so face up. LHO follows and the Director is called. He says that the Clarification Period is now over and play has begun. Unfortunately, I wanted to correct partner's explanation but now I have missed my correct legal opportunity to do so. And perhaps if I did, an opponent might want to take back their final pass - now look what a mess we are in.

But more than that, I simply see no evidence in Law 24 for the assertion that the Clarification Period has ended. And the clause in 41C refers specifically to 54A, which does not apply here (it is 54E).
(-: Zel :-)
0

#12 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2013-July-05, 10:37

View Postblackshoe, on 2013-July-05, 08:29, said:

I disagree with Sven somewhat. And to a lesser extent with Iviehoff.

First, until the play period starts, there is no defending side or declaring side.

The laws use the term presumed declarer and presumed defender to identify the players that are to become declarer and dummy if the auction is definitely closed at this time. (They further use the term Leader and Leader's partner to identify presumed declarer's LHO and RHO.)

So we do indeed have a presumed declaring side and a presumed defending side with all the relevant effects from their states eventually being changed from presumed to actual.

View Postblackshoe, on 2013-July-05, 08:29, said:

Second, the clarification period is part of the auction period.

The clarification period is indeed (the last) part of the auction period, they both end simultaneoously when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in Law 22A2, either defender faces an opening lead.

(The fact that Law 22B says defender rather than presumed defender is obviously irrelevant.)

View Postblackshoe, on 2013-July-05, 08:29, said:

Third, careful reading of Law 24 leads to the conclusion that if a player exposes a card during the auction period because of that player's own error (as in "following suit" to another player's exposed card), "every such card shall be left face up on the table until the auction period ends". This implies that the auction period does not end just because a particular player has exposed a card. So, primus, Law 24 is applied.

I feel (for several reasons, including older commentaries to the laws) quite sure that Law 24 has absolutely no intention of distinguishing between an exposed card being led and being played. The important judgement to be made by TD when ruling Law 24A or 24B is whether the exposure was accidental (like dropping a card) or deliberate (like playing it).

The choice of the word "led" in Law 24 is apparently due to the fact that this law treats each exposure individually also when a second player exposes his card in an act of "following suit" to another player's exposure. Law 24 considers each such exposured card as being "led".

View Postblackshoe, on 2013-July-05, 08:29, said:

Now, secundus, if we are in the clarification period, that period ends when "either defender faces an opening lead" (Law 22B1). But that has not happened - the "defender" was "following suit", not leading. So the clarification period is not ended, and players can still exercise whatever rights they have during that period (request a review and/or explanation of calls, withdraw calls made under the influence of MI, and so on). Once all that is resolved, the "defender's" exposed card becomes a penalty card (major or minor per Law 50, in this case major regardless of its rank, because it was exposed deliberately).
Law 54 does not apply to this case, because the exposed card was and is not an opening lead. So the (putative still, at this point) defender on putative declarer's left now makes his lead (face down). Note that penalty cards only become such during the play period, so the restrictions in Law 50D2 do not apply to this face down opening lead (which IAC may have been made before the partner exposed his card - but it doesn't matter if it wasn't). Once the opening lead is faced, the defender's exposed card becomes a MPC, and the requirements of Law 50D1 apply.

I can only hope that you will understand the impossible consequences of this Logic.
One example:
During the auction which ends with me as declarer my RHO has exposed a card that eventually becomes a major penalty card.
Let me just give you one example:
Are you really claiming that I may not exercise my right to request or forbid an opening lead in the suit of that MPC? (A right that I certainly enjoy at later tricks.)

View Postblackshoe, on 2013-July-05, 08:29, said:

It's even (remotely) possible that the two players with exposed cards will end up not as dummy and defender respectively, but as defender and either dummy or declarer!

This possibility is certainly not remote (with or without cards having been exposed during the auction). I have had it happen more than once.
0

#13 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2013-July-05, 10:42

View PostZelandakh, on 2013-July-05, 08:41, said:

Yeah, pran's position leads to an unfortunate sequence of events. Say I am Dummy but, thinking I am a defender on lead, I play a card and absent-mindedly do so face up. LHO follows and the Director is called. He says that the Clarification Period is now over and play has begun. Unfortunately, I wanted to correct partner's explanation but now I have missed my correct legal opportunity to do so. And perhaps if I did, an opponent might want to take back their final pass - now look what a mess we are in.

But more than that, I simply see no evidence in Law 24 for the assertion that the Clarification Period has ended. And the clause in 41C refers specifically to 54A, which does not apply here (it is 54E).

Just look up Law 22B1
0

#14 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,694
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2013-July-05, 14:16

View Postpran, on 2013-July-05, 10:37, said:

The laws use the term presumed declarer and presumed defender to identify the players that are to become declarer and dummy if the auction is definitely closed at this time. (They further use the term Leader and Leader's partner to identify presumed declarer's LHO and RHO.)

The word "presumed" appears five times in my law book. Three times as an adjective modifying the word "declarer", once as an adjective modifying the word "dummy", and once modifying the nominative phrase "mistaken explanation". The laws do not use the term "presumed defender" anywhere.

The word "leader" appears once, in Law 20B: "Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer…" I agree there is a presumption in this law that the "leader" is the correct player to be leading.

View Postpran, on 2013-July-05, 10:37, said:

So we do indeed have a presumed declaring side and a presumed defending side with all the relevant effects from their states eventually being changed from presumed to actual.

You didn't read what I wrote.

View Postpran, on 2013-July-05, 10:37, said:

The clarification period is indeed (the last) part of the auction period, they both end simultaneoously when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in Law 22A2, either defender faces an opening lead.

In the case at hand, neither defender did that.

View Postpran, on 2013-July-05, 10:37, said:

I feel (for several reasons, including older commentaries to the laws) quite sure that Law 24 has absolutely no intention of distinguishing between an exposed card being led and being played.

Law 24A explicitly makes that distinction.

View Postpran, on 2013-July-05, 10:37, said:

Are you really claiming that I may not exercise my right to request or forbid an opening lead in the suit of that MPC? (A right that I certainly enjoy at later tricks.)

A right given to you (for later tricks) in the play period. We're not in the play period.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#15 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2013-July-05, 14:59

View Postblackshoe, on 2013-July-05, 14:16, said:

[...]
A right given to you (for later tricks) in the play period. We're not in the play period.

So to make it quite clear:

The situation: During the auction my RHO exposes his Ace. I eventually become the declarer.

Your ruling is that because the exposure occurred before the auction period ended (and not as an opening lead out of turn in which case Law 54D applies) I have no right to request or forbid an opening lead in Diamonds by my LHO?

Such right is only granted me beginning with trick 2 (and provided that my RHO still has his penalty card at that time)?

I believe that any TD making such a ruling in Norway will have his director's authorization immediately revoked.
0

#16 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,694
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2013-July-05, 20:37

Okay. Here's the question: a player has an exposed card face up on the table. It was exposed during the auction period, which is not yet over. The next step in the sequence of the auction and play is that the player's partner is to lead face down, but he has not yet done so. Is the card a penalty card? Which laws say so? Be specific, please. If it's only a penalty card once we're in the play period (after the opening lead is faced) then how can you justify applying law 50 to the opening lead?

I'm coming to the conclusion that either I'm losing it, and might as well give up any connection whatsoever to directing, or that reading the law book in order to determine how to make rulings is an exercise in futility. :(
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#17 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2013-July-06, 01:21

View Postblackshoe, on 2013-July-05, 20:37, said:

Okay. Here's the question: a player has an exposed card face up on the table. It was exposed during the auction period, which is not yet over. The next step in the sequence of the auction and play is that the player's partner is to lead face down, but he has not yet done so. Is the card a penalty card? Which laws say so? Be specific, please. If it's only a penalty card once we're in the play period (after the opening lead is faced) then how can you justify applying law 50 to the opening lead?

I'm coming to the conclusion that either I'm losing it, and might as well give up any connection whatsoever to directing, or that reading the law book in order to determine how to make rulings is an exercise in futility. :(

1: The auction continues (with possible restrictions on the partner[s] of the player[s] having exposed card[s]) until it is ended with three consecutive passes (Law 22B).
2: During the following clarification period we have a presumed declarer and a presumed dummy, each of which must (unasked) announce any misinformation from their partner that they might be aware of (Law 20F5{b}).
3: The presumed declarer is given the option to treat any card[s] exposed by his opponents as penalty card[s], subject to the condition that the auction will not be continued.
4: The presumed declarer's LHO asks any question he might have about the auction.
5: The presumed declarer's LHO selects his opening lead (in case subject to possible opening lead restrictions chosen by presumed declarer) and places this lead face down on the table in front of him.
6: The presumed declarer's RHO asks any question he might have about the auction.
7: If at any time so far the presumed declarer's opponent that made the last pass during the auction is allowed (Law 21B2) to withdraw this call and does so, any card lead face down is restored to the player's hand from which it was led and the auction continues. In that case we go back to step 1 above. (The final outcome of this continued auction may well be that a different player becomes the new presumed declarer.)
8: Eventually presumed declarer's RHO indicates to his partner that the opening lead may be faced, and the play period begins.
0

#18 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-July-06, 08:29

View Postpran, on 2013-July-06, 01:21, said:

2: During the following rectification period we have a presumed declarer and a presumed dummy, each of which must (unasked) announce any misinformation from their partner that they might be aware of (Law 20F5{b}).


"Rectification period"? Do you mean "clarification period"?
0

#19 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2013-July-06, 08:36

View Postjallerton, on 2013-July-06, 08:29, said:

"Rectification period"? Do you mean "clarification period"?

I do indeed!
Thanks for the notification and sorry for the typo. ("rectified" :P B-) )
0

#20 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,694
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2013-July-06, 09:35

RE: your #5 and #6: which law(s)?
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users