[Fluffy]

---

West plays 4♥ after a 3♣ opening.
Spade lead won by ace, next comes ♦A+ ruff, a spade ruff in hand for another diamond ruff, this time overruffed.

I quickly return a spade, the same time declarer asks for a spade from dummy. Both declarer and dummy have put the previous trick the wrong way as if they had won it. Declarer now thinks I am following to his spade, and ruffs, to continue with the play.

I though I could gain from hiding ♥10 from declarer who might not draw trumps fearing of a bad break that is not really there, and also benefit from the problem declarer has misscounting current losers. But it didn't feel like ethical so I sorted out the missunderstanding, still got me wondering if I needed to or not.

[barmar]

It's too late for you to point out that declarer and dummy pointed the trick the wrong way. Law 65B3 says that the right to point out this error ends when a lead has been made to the next trick. If pointed out later, 16B (UI from partner) applies, but I wonder how that applies when you're pointing it out to the opponent, not partner.

[mycroft]

Hmm, this is interesting.

If you point out you won that trick, Barmar's comment applies.

If you point out that the spade lead from dummy is OOT, then:
- your lead stands (as "simultaneous plays are considered subsequent to correct lead")
- declarer played from dummy out of turn to your spade lead
- we'll finish this trick and keep going, with the spade required to be played because it's legal.
But, of course, you've now allowed declarer to understand the count.

You could choose not to point out the play out of turn (so called "lead"), and I *think* if nobody else mentions it, we just keep going. It was a legal play out of turn, and you've made your own ruling on it, but in this case it's legal. At the end of the hand, you can point out that you overruffed the second diamond. At this point, the TD will be called, and it should get very interesting, but I don't think there would be a problem, even if you admitted that the reason you didn't call the TD earlier was you wanted to keep that trick in your pocket.

If you did that and I was the opponent, I'd put you in the "play *right* to the letter of the Law against this one" category. There's nothing *wrong* with that - there are several VERY GOOD and extraordinarily ethical players (including one World Champion) that are in that category for me - it just means "I know that this player plays right to the letter of the Law, and expects me to as well, so I will". I actually enjoy that version of Bridge - but only because I know all the Law.

If you did this, with me as the TD, repeatedly to weaker players; especially if you didn't worry when said weaker players let stuff on your side slide (whether because they're just like that, or they didn't know there was an issue) - then you'd get put on my list of "people who I enjoy giving rulings against, not that you'd notice at the table". I'm sure that a) that doesn't matter, and b) that I'm not the only one.

It is an interesting question, and were declarer "someone who can actually play bridge" too, I'd enjoy the fallout. If delarer was a Player, it might even be more fun.