[pescetom]

This one cropped up during an informal game with no Director available. Declarer seated in South is nearing the end of a hand in no trumps: he wins in a trick in the dummy, then before dummy can stop him he leads an Ace from his own hand. West looks at the lead and sits back and thinks.. and thinks.. until East finally chirps in "We accept your lead out of turn".

Obviously South's LOOT is an infraction, and either defender can refuse or accept the lead, but what about West's long pause? He had more than enough time to realise that the lead was out of turn and to evaluate his play if the lead was accepted. And what about East's silence until then? What if he was alerted to the fact that the lead was out of turn only by West's long pause. as seems probable?

If all is perfectly in order, or at least there are no grounds for Director to intervene, then would it be ok for West just to say "Your lead is out of turn, I will respect the decision of my partner on whether to accept it or not"?

[BudH]

East can prefer the lead out of turn to stand.

West can then object if he wants - his choice stands if defenders (without conferring) disagree.

[blackshoe]

One might wonder whether West's indecision is UI to East. I'm not sure East's "we accept" is appropriate. It sounds a bit like he's saying, "partner, we're accepting this, shut up."

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-26, 22:52, said:

One might wonder whether West's indecision is UI to East. I'm not sure East's "we accept" is appropriate. It sounds a bit like he's saying, "partner, we're accepting this, shut up."

No doubt the indecision IS UI - all it suggests is that West does not know whether or not to accept the LOOT. And it is quite probable that East just got impatient. The next question is: Does East's Statement "We accept your lead out of turn" provide UI to West - again it is quite clear that the tone of the question can convey UI.

Since the remark 'demonstrably suggests' accepting the lead out of turn and not accepting is presumably a logical alternative - West is obviously considering it, then West gets to make his decision: if he accepts and if NS are damaged then the director adjusts.

[gordontd]

weejonnie, on 2018-February-27, 02:29, said:

No doubt the indecision IS UI - all it suggests is that West does not know whether or not to accept the LOOT. And it is quite probable that East just got impatient. The next question is: Does East's Statement "We accept your lead out of turn" provide UI to West - again it is quite clear that the tone of the question can convey UI.

Since the remark 'demonstrably suggests' accepting the lead out of turn and not accepting is presumably a logical alternative - West is obviously considering it, then West gets to make his decision: if he accepts and if NS are damaged then the director adjusts.

I think we needed to be there. One interpretation is that West was doing no more than allowing his partner to choose, as is allowed, knowing that if he were to choose it would prevent his partner from doing so. Yes, saying "we accept" does suggest that West should not reject it, but since West didn't seem about to do that anyway I'm not sure we have a case here.

[lamford]

The law says that the lead out turn stands "if either defender accepts it by making a statement to that effect". So, it must be permitted for both defenders to analyse whether it is better to accept it or not, and as soon as either is certain, he makes the statement. Of course each defender may have a different view of the layout, and come to a different conclusion. It is not clear what happens if one defender says "I don't accept the lead out of turn" and the other defender then says "I accept the lead out of turn." I recall something in the White Book about the person next to play having priority. In practice, the stronger defender will decide.

[Tramticket]

lamford, on 2018-February-27, 02:56, said:

It is not clear what happens if one defender says "I don't accept the lead out of turn" and the other defender then says "I accept the lead out of turn." I recall something in the White Book about the person next to play having priority. In practice, the stronger defender will decide.

This is clarified in law 55:
LAW 55 - DECLARER’S LEAD OUT OF TURN
A. Declarer’s Lead Accepted
If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand then either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53 or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently then the option expressed by the player next in turn to the irregular lead shall prevail.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-February-27, 02:29, said:

No doubt the indecision IS UI - all it suggests is that West does not know whether or not to accept the LOOT. And it is quite probable that East just got impatient. The next question is: Does East's Statement "We accept your lead out of turn" provide UI to West - again it is quite clear that the tone of the question can convey UI.

Since the remark 'demonstrably suggests' accepting the lead out of turn and not accepting is presumably a logical alternative - West is obviously considering it, then West gets to make his decision: if he accepts and if NS are damaged then the director adjusts.

East could see from his cards that accepting the Ace lead was in his interest and of no harm to his partner, so I think it's more likely that for quite some time he was simply waiting for West to make a play and failed to realise that the lead was out of turn - but who knows, of course. I don't think East would know that West's decision has precedence over his. West should have been able to figure out from his hand, the bidding and previous play that accepting the lead would probably help East - but again, who knows. Not accepting the lead looks like a logical alternative to West but not to East, so I imagine that even if West's long pause did constitute UI East could still accept the lead, at least in his own name.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-February-27, 02:56, said:

The law says that the lead out turn stands "if either defender accepts it by making a statement to that effect". So, it must be permitted for both defenders to analyse whether it is better to accept it or not, and as soon as either is certain, he makes the statement. Of course each defender may have a different view of the layout, and come to a different conclusion.

I guess that makes some sense - the declarer made a clear infraction and the defenders have to come to a decision about how to handle it, and the lawmakers didn't see the need to spell out what happens inbetween, except to resolve any potential dispute between the defenders.

But that brings us back to my second question: where do we draw the line? For instance could one defender explicitly invite the other one to decide? Or just point out that the lead is out of turn, implicitly asking partner to decide?

[VixTD]

pescetom, on 2018-February-27, 08:22, said:

But that brings us back to my second question: where do we draw the line? For instance could one defender explicitly invite the other one to decide? Or just point out that the lead is out of turn, implicitly asking partner to decide?

I think the second of these is fine, the first is not. Law 10C2 says:

Quote

If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner.

[blackshoe]

I would also say that pointing out that something (call, lead or play) is out of turn or insufficient calls attention to an irregularity and the proper next step is to call the director.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-28, 17:09, said:

I would also say that pointing out that something (call, lead or play) is out of turn or insufficient calls attention to an irregularity and the proper next step is to call the director.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[BudH]

blackshoe, on 2018-February-26, 22:52, said:

One might wonder whether West's indecision is UI to East. I'm not sure East's "we accept" is appropriate. It sounds a bit like he's saying, "partner, we're accepting this, shut up."

Of course, the proper choice, especially if you are offender’s RHO, is “Director, please.”

[lamford]

BudH, on 2018-March-01, 13:50, said:

Of course, the proper choice, especially if you are offender’s RHO, is “Director, please.”

I think that both players should always wait to see if their partner wants to accept it first. I have never seen the TD called over a play from the wrong hand, but I guess he should be.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-March-01, 13:57, said:

I think that both players should always wait to see if their partner wants to accept it first. I have never seen the TD called over a play from the wrong hand, but I guess he should be.

Even if TD was called, I wonder what he would decide and with what certainty.
This discussion has been enlightening, but my tentative conclusion is that the law as it stands is unnecessarily ambiguous.

I would sugest that law 55A:
"If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand then either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53 or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently then the option expressed by the player next in turn to the irregular lead shall prevail."

be modified as follows:
"If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand then any player may draw attention to this infraction. The player next in turn must then either accept the lead as provided in Law 53 or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1), or ask his partner to make the same decision."

Obviously this would also require small modifications to 53A and 10C2.
It might occasionally put the player next in turn in a difficult spot, but I think it still maintains defender's right to decide while indicating clearly how to proceed, without delays or risk of UI.

[axman]

pescetom, on 2018-March-01, 16:36, said:

Even if TD was called, I wonder what he would decide and with what certainty.
This discussion has been enlightening, but my tentative conclusion is that the law as it stands is unnecessarily ambiguous.

I would sugest that law 55A:
"If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand then either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53 or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently then the option expressed by the player next in turn to the irregular lead shall prevail."

be modified as follows:
"If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand then any player may draw attention to this infraction. The player next in turn must then either accept the lead as provided in Law 53 or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1), or ask his partner to make the same decision."

Obviously this would also require small modifications to 53A and 10C2.
It might occasionally put the player next in turn in a difficult spot, but I think it still maintains defender's right to decide while indicating clearly how to proceed, without delays or risk of UI.

A better resolution is to restrict the right to select the penalty to the player next in clockwise rotation. The reasons this is correct include 1. giving both opponents the ability to choose establishes that the penalty is a collaboration which entails communication between partners other than by call or play: a conflict with L73 2. allowing the RHO to select entails communication (I Have A Reason Pard) between partners other than by call or play. Notably, allowing RHO to select, effectively compounds the opponent's infraction of communicating OOT by communicating OOT themselves.

As for the consequence of RHO selecting the penalty in spite of the constraint? When the penalty is to accept the POOT require the person selecting the penalty to play a card, even if OOT and subject to penalty. This should be incentive to RHO to keep his mouth shut.

As for 'It might occasionally put the player next in turn in a difficult spot,…' players all the time have to answer the question, 'what do I do now?' all the time when it has an effect upon trying to get a fortuitous outcome. Such a position is not really such a strain.

[blackshoe]

That modification (of Pescetom's) would conflict with Laws 9A4 and 43A1{b}.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2018-March-03, 13:06, said:

That modification (of Pescetom's) would conflict with Laws 9A4 and 43A1{b}.

It looks to me as if it would be enough to insert in 42B "Dummy may advise the other players that declarer has played from the wrong hand."
I felt we should empower the dummy here because declarer is obviously not bound to realise or admit his mistake and leaving the onus to defenders would instigate the delays and collusion we are seeking to prevent.
But see below.

axman, on 2018-March-03, 10:41, said:

A better resolution is to restrict the right to select the penalty to the player next in clockwise rotation. The reasons this is correct include 1. giving both opponents the ability to choose establishes that the penalty is a collaboration which entails communication between partners other than by call or play: a conflict with L73 2. allowing the RHO to select entails communication (I Have A Reason Pard) between partners other than by call or play. Notably, allowing RHO to select, effectively compounds the opponent's infraction of communicating OOT by communicating OOT themselves.

I agree This was my indeed my first thought, but I decided to be pragmatic and to respect as far as possible the lawmakers intention that RHO can express a desire even if LHO prevails. It is evident that any bilateral intervention inevitably entails communication and that ideally this should be excluded. But if what you propose is too radical to be accepted, I think my previous compromise is still a great improvement on the current situation.

[barmar]

My impression is that the intent of the current law (which is pretty similar to how it's been for decades) is that the players can't consult each other to discuss why they want to accept or prohibit the LOOT. But it's OK that they know that their partner does or doesn't want it. Part of the penalty for this offense is that the NOS gets this tiny advantage.

It's not UI because the Laws explicitly allow this extraneous communication.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2018-March-03, 23:26, said:

My impression is that the intent of the current law (which is pretty similar to how it's been for decades) is that the players can't consult each other to discuss why they want to accept or prohibit the LOOT. But it's OK that they know that their partner does or doesn't want it. Part of the penalty for this offense is that the NOS gets this tiny advantage.

It's not UI because the Laws explicitly allow this extraneous communication.

I wish I could upvote...