[hirowla]

Hi, I was wondering what the proper procedure was when the following occurs:

My partner and I have bid to a contract (bad one, but that's another story!), my partner is declaring. The correct person leads, and my partner has a brain spasm and puts his hand down as dummy! Naturally the director is called. What is the correct procedure in this case? I can think of two options, but I'd like to know what others thing the law says to do.

Thanks,

Ian

[blackshoe]

Declarer has exposed his cards. Unless he is clearly not claiming, this is treated as a claim. On the evidence presented, I would not so treat it. If it is not treated as a claim, then declarer gets to pick up his hand. Play continues. There is no further rectification. The relevant law is #48, which refers to Law 68 in the event of a claim.

[hirowla]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-29, 18:02, said:

Declarer has exposed his cards. Unless he is clearly not claiming, this is treated as a claim. On the evidence presented, I would not so treat it. If it is not treated as a claim, then declarer gets to pick up his hand. Play continues. There is no further rectification. The relevant law is #48, which refers to Law 68 in the event of a claim.

Ok, that was the option I thought of afterwards but I didn't know which law it was under. The director offered two options (well, he said one and if I didn't like it he would give me the other one!) - just let declarer's hand be dummy and play it, or have all of declarer's cards exposed. I thought the first option was a possibility given I know it mentions that in the law elsewhere (just not in that context - in the context of an opening lead out of turn). I knew the 2nd option was utter crap!

The amusing part was that the opponents wanted a penalty imposed - their reasoning was we did something wrong, therefore we deserve a penalty! I don't think they believed me when I commented that the laws try to restore equity, not impose penalties.

[blackshoe]

Maybe you should buy your director a law book.

[kenrexford]

I got confused when I read the title to this post. I mean, my partner puts the wrong hand down in Dummy all the time, but that does not seem actionable other than some therapeutic yelling and perhaps a visit to the partnership desk tomorrow.

[hirowla]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-29, 23:14, said:

Maybe you should buy your director a law book.

Funny, when I mentioned something to him later (see another recent of mine) he said the rule book is here and you can look it up. So he had one available to him! He didn't have a good night on my table - I reckon he was 0/3! But you need to be careful (I'm a new director myself) and our club strongly suggests that you don't obviously disagree with the ruling director at the time - if you still disagree, take it up with him later. In my case it would only be to confirm or contradict my understanding of the law in case it happens to me in the future. In this case I wasn't 100% sure at the time - I'm now sure if it ever comes up again.

And no, I won't be trading in my partner at the partnership desk - we just had one of those nights. One of those nights where I discarded when having 2 of that suit left (didn't cost thank goodness - they won 13 tricks anyway).

Thanks,

Ian

[hirowla]

kenrexford, on 2011-November-30, 09:10, said:

I got confused when I read the title to this post. I mean, my partner puts the wrong hand down in Dummy all the time, but that does not seem actionable other than some therapeutic yelling and perhaps a visit to the partnership desk tomorrow.

I think I said to my partner one time he put his hand down "where's the hand you bid?" !!

[blackshoe]

hirowla, on 2011-November-30, 18:04, said:

[snip]
our club strongly suggests that you don't obviously disagree with the ruling director at the time - if you still disagree, take it up with him later.

The laws do say that we should "accept gracefully" any ruling by the TD. Even so, I think it not beyond the bounds of propriety to ask him at the table to read the law from the book, particularly if it's a straightforward "book" ruling like this one.

[hirowla]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-30, 18:31, said:

The laws do say that we should "accept gracefully" any ruling by the TD. Even so, I think it not beyond the bounds of propriety to ask him at the table to read the law from the book, particularly if it's a straightforward "book" ruling like this one.

I agree except for 2 factors:
1. He didn't have the rulebook on him.
2. I didn't realize what the correct ruling was and hence question his ruling (hence why I've asked the question here!).

Maybe it's just a way of doing things. I know in the last meeting that 2 directors got told off for disputing a ruling at the table, so I'm just being careful. Maybe I'm just trying to set an example to other players - but if they asked for a rule reading I can't see what is wrong with that, I just probably wouldn't and would use the research afterwards as a learning exercise.

[barmar]

hirowla, on 2011-November-29, 22:45, said:

The amusing part was that the opponents wanted a penalty imposed - their reasoning was we did something wrong, therefore we deserve a penalty! I don't think they believed me when I commented that the laws try to restore equity, not impose penalties.

Isn't the free glance at declarer's hand, so that they can defend double dummy (assuming they remember what they saw), enough of a penalty?

[hirowla]

barmar, on 2011-November-30, 20:14, said:

Isn't the free glance at declarer's hand, so that they can defend double dummy (assuming they remember what they saw), enough of a penalty?

That's not what happened - they never ended up seeing the proper dummy's hand (it was just played out with declarer's hand as dummy).

[barmar]

Oops. So if the director had made the correct ruling, they would have gotten the penalty they wanted.

[schulken]

While I haven't seen this before, I can immediately picture some knuckleheads that would be good candidates to do it.

In your case, it strikes me that 57C2 is applicable here. Assuming you agree with the "demonstrably did not intend to claim" language in 68A and since 54 doesn't apply since it was not a faced lead out of turn, it appears to me that declarer has "premature(ly) played" all 13 cards. Dummy should come down and it should result in some real fun for the defenders having a chance to view 26 cards rather than the usual 13.

[helene_t]

There was such a case in a top-level match in the netherlands some years ago (I think a team champship semifinal or such). Declarer, thinking he was dummy, put his card down faced up and rushed to the toilet. so the defenders had plenty of time to study his cards before he came back and was told he had to play the contract. the amusing thing was that despite the defenders seeing his cards, he made a trick more than his competitor at the other table who was in the same contract.

[pran]

schulken, on 2011-December-02, 11:57, said:

While I haven't seen this before, I can immediately picture some knuckleheads that would be good candidates to do it.

In your case, it strikes me that 57C2 is applicable here. Assuming you agree with the "demonstrably did not intend to claim" language in 68A and since 54 doesn't apply since it was not a faced lead out of turn, it appears to me that declarer has "premature(ly) played" all 13 cards. Dummy should come down and it should result in some real fun for the defenders having a chance to view 26 cards rather than the usual 13.

Law 48B2 is the primary law in this situation. I believe this has already been pointed out earlier in the thread, but apparently needs to be pointed out again.

As declarer obviously did not intend to claim he simply picks up his cards, and play on the board continues. (He shall not be allowed to become dummy and have his partner play as declarer.)