[dickiegera]

Opening lead out of turn

Is Dummy allowed to be first to bring attention to this infraction??

Thank you

[Gerardo]

No.

Dummy can't bring attention to any infraction, except maybe declarer's revoke, if allowed to do that ("No xxxxx, partner?").

Dummy can call the TD after someone else brings attention to the infraction.

[blackshoe]

Erm. Dummy isn't dummy until the opening lead (in or out of turn) is faced, so if an out of turn opening lead is made face down, and no one else leads face up at the same time, dummy can call attention to it.

I have been told by ACBL HQ that in the ACBL anyone, including dummy, can call attention to a "zero tolerance" violation at any time.

[ggwhiz]

I don't know the law per se but it can't possibly matter can it?

Is there a penalty if I point this out as dummy because my partner may not have noticed that they were supposed to declare? Would I demand such a penalty as an out to lunch defender? Gheesh.

[pran]

Presumed dummy may call attention to a face down opening lead by his LHO or by any opening lead (whether face up or face down) by his partner.

He becomes dummy at the moment an opening lead by any of his opponents is faced.

I would rule that if (no longer presumed) dummy is the first to call attention to a faced opening lead by his LHO then declarer must accept this opening lead out of turn by analogue application of Law 54C since dummy's action can imply information to declarer similar to declarer having seen one or more of dummy's cards.

[Gerardo]

Thanks for correction.

[blackshoe]

There seems to be an opinion that players can demand the TD impose a penalty. I suppose they can, but that doesn't mean they'll get it. Where a penalty or rectification (they aren't the same thing, in spite of some players' belief that they are) is required by law, the TD will impose it. Where it is a matter of the TD's discretion, he will not base his decision on demands from a player.

[MBV53]

dummy is not decided yet as one of the options says declarer can opt to become dummy.

MBVSubrahmanyam.
India

[JoAnneM]

It has never occurred to me when responding to a table for a lead out of turn ruling to ask "who called me". My first question has always been "did anyone tell you that it was your lead?" I would consider it an unfriendly atmosphere to be playing in a game where players were concerned about things like who called.

[mjj29]

JoAnneM, on 2010-November-06, 18:32, said:

It has never occurred to me when responding to a table for a lead out of turn ruling to ask "who called me". My first question has always been "did anyone tell you that it was your lead?" I would consider it an unfriendly atmosphere to be playing in a game where players were concerned about things like who called.

I often see directors saying "who called?" when getting to the table (although I prefer "how can I help?"). I think the idea is to start by having one person (the person who called you over) tell you what's going on before hearing everyone else's opinion. Asking a direct person a question, rather than an open one to the table, is more likely to get a less confused answer from a single person and the person who called you over is obviously aware of the issue and likely to be able to tell you it. Note - this is before you know whether the issue is a lead out of turn, a revoke, reserving their rights or asking for the air conditioning to be turned down.

Matt

[Bbradley62]

mjj29, on 2010-November-06, 18:49, said:

JoAnneM, on 2010-November-06, 18:32, said:

It has never occurred to me when responding to a table for a lead out of turn ruling to ask "who called me". My first question has always been "did anyone tell you that it was your lead?" I would consider it an unfriendly atmosphere to be playing in a game where players were concerned about things like who called.

I often see directors saying "who called?" when getting to the table (although I prefer "how can I help?"). I think the idea is to start by having one person (the person who called you over) tell you what's going on before hearing everyone else's opinion. Asking a direct person a question, rather than an open one to the table, is more likely to get a less confused answer from a single person and the person who called you over is obviously aware of the issue and likely to be able to tell you it. Note - this is before you know whether the issue is a lead out of turn, a revoke, reserving their rights or asking for the air conditioning to be turned down.

Matt

As a player, if I call the director, I certainly expect to be allowed to explain to him/her why I called before the opponent refutes my statement. Similarly, when the opponent calls, I do not speak first. I don't consider this to be unfriendly; I think it's simply the orderly way to do things.

[Bbradley62]

ggwhiz, on 2010-October-30, 16:09, said:

I don't know the law per se but it can't possibly matter can it?

Is there a penalty if I point this out as dummy because my partner may not have noticed that they were supposed to declare? Would I demand such a penalty as an out to lunch defender? Gheesh.

pran, on 2010-October-30, 16:21, said:

Presumed dummy may call attention to a face down opening lead by his LHO or by any opening lead (whether face up or face down) by his partner.

He becomes dummy at the moment an opening lead by any of his opponents is faced.

I would rule that if (no longer presumed) dummy is the first to call attention to a faced opening lead by his LHO then declarer must accept this opening lead out of turn by analogue application of Law 54C since dummy's action can imply information to declarer similar to declarer having seen one or more of dummy's cards.

Then, what is correct procedure for me if LHO makes a face-up opening lead out of turn? I don't want to either spread my hand or point out the infraction, as these may deprive my partner of some of her options. I should just sit there until someone else says/does something?

[blackshoe]

Bbradley62, on 2010-November-06, 19:59, said:

Then, what is correct procedure for me if LHO makes a face-up opening lead out of turn? I don't want to either spread my hand or point out the infraction, as these may deprive my partner of some of her options. I should just sit there until someone else says/does something?

Yep.

[MBV53]

Dummy — 1. Declarer’s partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced. 2. Declarer’s partner’s cards, once they are spread on the table after the opening lead.

Declarer — the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn).

so I feel any player may call TD.
MBVSubrahmanyam.
India.

[pran]

MBV53, on 2010-November-07, 01:10, said:

Dummy — 1. Declarer’s partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced. 2. Declarer’s partner’s cards, once they are spread on the table after the opening lead.

Declarer — the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn).

so I feel any player may call TD.
MBVSubrahmanyam.
India.

Sure.
But to make it clear: Dummy may not call attention to any irregularity, his rights in this respect are limited to calling the Director once attention to the irregularity has been called by any of the other three players.

And once an opening lead by any defender has been faced, presumed dummy becomes dummy unless Law 54A kicks in and until declarer then decides to reverse the roles of declarer and dummy.

[Zelandakh]

Something I have wondered about for a while on this. Say I, as presumed dummy, react to the faced lead from my left by starting to sort my cards, go to put a suit down but then stop before facing any card, look at the lead and sit back up resorting my hand. Have I breached my rights in this instance? If not then this represents a very simple way for me to point out the lead out of turn; if so then it penalises a player that just goes through a mechanical process as dummy while switching off.

[blackshoe]

If you do that, you've called attention to the irregularity. If you do it deliberately, you should get a procedural penalty in addition to any rectification for your transgression. If you do it accidentally, the only difference is that you would not ordinarily draw a PP.

In general, rectification is not penalty, in spite of players' attitude that it is. Suppose, for example, that before your irregularity, whatever it is, the expectation on the board is 50% of a top for both pairs. Now you commit an irregularity, and your opponents get only 40%. The TD adjusts the score back to 50%. This is not punishment, it's restoring to your opponents the score to which they were fairly entitled.

[cloa513]

Then dummy is not set by a lead of turn so no dummy yet as the card from the correct hand has not been lead. So any player is free to call director. What if both hands lead at the same time or so close to the same time that noone has reacted yet?

[blackshoe]

Your logic is flawed. The putative dummy becomes dummy when a defender — either one — faces an opening lead. If it's the wrong defender, putative declarer will later have the option to become dummy himself, but that doesn't change the fact that his partner has been dummy since the lead was faced.

[JoAnneM]

Bbradley62, on 2010-November-06, 19:32, said:

As a player, if I call the director, I certainly expect to be allowed to explain to him/her why I called before the opponent refutes my statement. Similarly, when the opponent calls, I do not speak first. I don't consider this to be unfriendly; I think it's simply the orderly way to do things.

If you will notice in my post I am at a table for an out of turn lead, so I already know that. I certainly know to ask why I am called.