BBO Discussion Forums: Face down lead - BBO Discussion Forums

EBU law 41A: "the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face down".

I'm slightly puzzled by the way the law continues:

"The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity".

The most common reason for the lead to be withdrawn is because the wrong defender has led - which after all is the whole point of leading face down. Personally I have never regarded the making and withdrawing of a face-down lead in this case as an irregularity worth calling the Director for. However the law does not explicitly state what should happen if the wrong defender has led face down. Note that as far as I can tell the card is not "played" until it is faced so maybe we are meant to treat it more as a kind of statement of intent to lead than as an actual lead - except in the specific case where the right defender has led face down and now wants to change their mind (maybe after partner has clarified the meaning of bids). In which case it is Director time.

Second part of this query, is it OK for the about-to-be dummy to inform the face-down leader that the lead is not in their hand? Again, I would presume yes since they are not yet dummy?

Tim

timjand, on 2017-February-21, 06:49, said:

The most common irregularity leading to a face-down lead being changed is when misinformation comes to light at this stage. It's important that the TD be called because it may be that the auction can be re-opened and the person on lead needs to understand that they can only change the lead if it was made because of the misinformation, not for any other reason.

gordontd, on 2017-February-21, 07:02, said:

Thanks Gordon, but are you agreeing that the face-down lead from the wrong hand is not really an irregularity, or if it is, a very minor one?

Tim

timjand, on 2017-February-21, 07:24, said:

I think it's definitely an irregularity, as it's a deviation from correct procedure. However, it's one with little consequence usually.

Another good reason to insist the director has to allow a change of lead is that players sometimes try to change their card when they hear answers to partner's questions, while the lead is face down. If there was no misinformation during the auction, and the opening leader could have asked the same questions before choosing a card, they have no right to change their lead now.

Most of the time when the wrong defender thought they were on lead, there's no problem and the lead is withdrawn without bothering the TD.

timjand, on 2017-February-21, 07:24, said:

From the White Book:

Quote

Ideally, a member of the declaring side should correct the misinformation before the face-down lead is made, but sometimes the sequence of events is too fast. So when the opening leader's partner takes the opportunity to ask questions while the bidding cards are displayed, normally no MI will come to light unless the declaring side has a disagreement about what an unexplained call means.

The past tense and past participle of "lead" is "led".

gordontd, on 2017-February-21, 07:43, said:

Thanks! So just to wrap this up, is it OK for the about-to-be dummy to point out that the face-down lead is from the wrong hand?

Tim

timjand, on 2017-February-21, 09:11, said:

Yes and then the director should be called, but not often is!

Vampyr, on 2017-February-21, 08:01, said:

Indeed. Sometimes the too fast opening lead is face up. Now there may be a problem. If putative dummy was about to correct his partner's mis-explanation, he can no longer do so. This is because doing so calls attention to an irregularity, and dummy becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced (see the definitions in chapter one of the laws). Dummy is not permitted to call attention to an irregularity until after the play.

Proper procedure here would be for dummy to wait until the end of play, then call the director and explain in the director's presence that there was a mis-explanation in the auction, but that he was unable to correct it before the opening lead was chosen because of the tempo of the opening lead and the fact that leader led face up. If the mis-explanation caused damage, the TD has to adjust the score. In such a case, I would be inclined to issue the opening leader a PP, even though leading is a "does" situation, and even though in such a situation the law does not suggest that the violation be penalized. That's probably controversial.

Hm. The White Book, §8.41.3, says "it is possible to retract a faced opening lead if it can be done before dummy is faced." In the particular case in my last paragraph, does this imply that dummy should call the director and correct the MI? In the more general case, I suppose if someone else (i.e., not dummy) calls attention to an irregularity, it could happen that the faced opening lead would be retracted. What's the disposition of that card? Major penalty card, I guess.

In practice, I would not be surprised to see dummy correct the MI, without calling the director, even after the face up opening lead.

Law 47E allows a change of play based on misinformation. (but an opening lead cannot be changed if dummy has been put down). In EBUland directors are taught the 5 options, but, certainly in the club director's course, no mention is made of the right of the defender to withdraw the card. The law does say that there is no further rectification. Law 49 (exposure of a defender's cards) specifically refers to law 47E so the card would NOT be a penalty card and in fact 16D would kick in so the information is AI for defenders but UI for declarer.

Dummy becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced so presumably cannot draw attention to an irregularity committed by declarer BUT:-

I am not sure of this but the law for being aware of your own misexplanation (16F4) states that "If a player subsequently realises that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete then he MUST (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed) call the director". So I think that dummy will have to call the director to correct his own misexplanation - but not that of his partner.

I agree you still have to correct your own misexplanation immediately, even as dummy. It's Law 20F4.

Vampyr, on 2017-February-21, 08:01, said:

As a non-native speaker, I don't want to be pedantic (and I may be wrong), but shouldn't this be: 'The past tense and past participle of "lead" are "led".'?

I would think that in a language where "the police" and "a set" deserve a plural, an enumeration (even if it contains only two elements) should deserve one too.

Rik

blackshoe, on 2017-February-21, 23:05, said:

Yep - sorry mistyped.

It might be preferable if, the opening lead having been withdrawn, we could return to the auction period and apply law 21B1a, however law 41C makes that impossible and the director may have to offer an adjusted score.

weejonnie, on 2017-February-22, 02:07, said:

The auction period ends when the opening lead is faced.

Until then the auction may well be rolled back under Law 21B1a (in case of misinformation being revealed).

Note that the auction period does not end by any of Dummy's cards being faced!
Until the opening lead is faced such cards are cards exposed durinig the auction period and Law 24 applies.

Trinidad, on 2017-February-22, 02:00, said:

Possibly. I thought "are" seemed a little odd.

gordontd, on 2017-February-21, 07:02, said:

The most common cause for a lead, face down or not, is tthat he player who puts the card on the table thinks it's his or her turn to lead. Even when the bidding cards are still in clear view, which more often than not is not the case, the player makes his lead, hopefully face down. If the TD is called every time this happens, he is constantly running from table to table. I've only been called for a LOOT face up.

The TD is frequently not called when he should be. There are several possible reasons for this, none of them good.

If the TD is called, what else is he going to do but tell the player to take back his card and instruct the correct defender to make his lead? There's no other rectification as long as the card hasn't been faced.

barmar, on 2017-February-23, 09:37, said:

In cases of MI, the TD may consider offering the leader his last call back.
In other cases, the TD should also warn the actual leader that they should carefully avoid taking advantage from the knowledge of the fact that their partner has tried to lead, or in the manner in which they have tried to lead. (73C)(At least 1 would).

weejonnie, on 2017-February-23, 09:51, said:

NO !!!!!
In cases of MI the TD may offer the last defender to call his last call back.