[VixTD]

I ran a club TD training day at the weekend, and when we were discussing opening leads out of turn, I mentioned this case at the end, to show them how not every situation is straightforward.

After much thought, I think I agree with Pran. If dummy tabled their cards after a lead out of rotation, I wouldn't blame or penalise them; it's not an infraction, but it is an irregularity, and I would allow them to play the hand and then consider awarding an adjusted score under law 72C.

[Vampyr]

 VixTD, on 2017-October-02, 08:21, said:

I ran a club TD training day at the weekend, and when we were discussing opening leads out of turn, I mentioned this case at the end, to show them how not every situation is straightforward.

After much thought, I think I agree with Pran. If dummy tabled their cards after a lead out of rotation, I wouldn't blame or penalise them; it's not an infraction, but it is an irregularity, and I would allow them to play the hand and then consider awarding an adjusted score under law 72C.

Pran has said it was illegal. How is that not an infraction?

[axman]

 barmar, on 2017-September-28, 09:32, said:

That Law is explaining what to do if dummy exposes his cards, not giving dummy license to do so. Just as there's a law that says what to do after a call out of rotation, but that doesn't mean COOT is legal.

Unfortunately, the Laws don't seem to spell out this particular case as being explicitly illegal. This is kind of like the previous edition, which never explicitly stated that bids MUST supercede the previous bid, so some people interpreted that as saying that insufficient bids were not an infraction.

When rules are constructed well, they provide a balanced inducement to adhere to them. I will offer some analysis. The instant of exposure of dummy's card has both created dummy, and, Dummy has participated in the play by selecting the penalty to the opponent's infraction. Such participation breaches 43A, even though it falls within the remedies otherwise available to declarer; yet, it suggests a search for an answer to the question, 'is it right, as in, is it a wise rule to not penalize the dummy?'

If the rule is conceived well, it balances the harm considering the future permutations. For instance, the infraction could be a strategic mistake of which the NOS might take advantage. And, say dummy interferes thereby sending the advantage to the dust bin, what administrator ought to interfere with the NOS's wisdom? And then there is the other side, namely, when dummy's behavior has the fortuitous happenstance of choosing the remedy that a. declarer would not have taken and b. gains a high score. Is that score unfair? Considering that the OS broke the rules and caused the situation, is it so wrong that they achieve the worst of it... by that route?

[VixTD]

 Vampyr, on 2017-October-02, 08:24, said:

Pran has said it was illegal. How is that not an infraction?

I think that it would be illegal to do it intentionally, but how would you ever tell if the action was intentional or not? As you suggested, it's quite plausible that South was expecting to put their hand down as dummy as soon as the opening lead was faced. They did so, but just didn't notice in time that the lead was from the wrong side. Maybe Pran and I don't agree in every detail, but I meant that I agree the TD should allow play to continue and adjust the score under law 72C.

[barmar]

If they were expecting to put their hand down as dummy as soon as the opening lead is faced, surely they were also expecting RHO to be the defender making that opening lead.

Unless these are the same newbies who perpetrated the multiple-revoke errors in a couple of other threads.

[Lovera]

 VixTD, on 2017-October-03, 05:43, said:

I think that it would be illegal to do it intentionally, but how would you ever tell if the action was intentional or not? As you suggested, it's quite plausible that South was expecting to put their hand down as dummy as soon as the opening lead was faced. They did so, but just didn't notice in time that the lead was from the wrong side. Maybe Pran and I don't agree in every detail, but I meant that I agree the TD should allow play to continue and adjust the score under law 72C.

I am in this topic because i try to intercept VixTD as i've mailed you and yet i'm waiting for an answer. Anyhow, reading this case, let you to say my thinking. How is possibile to invert dummy and declar hands? Put the case that the (right) declarer hand be rich in points and the first (right) dummy hand as black with no entries. If you invert the position dummy can have the possibility to make an impasse that i.e. could fullfill a contract that instead is down for a trick if invertion is not allowed. Are you agree or i am wrong ?

[barmar]

 Lovera, on 2017-October-03, 09:42, said:

I am in this topic because i try to intercept you as i've mailed you and yet i'm waiting for an answer. Anyhow, reading this case, let you to say my thinking. How is possibile to invert dummy and declar hands? Put the case that the (right) declarer hand be rich in points and the first (right) dummy hand as black with no entries. If you invert the position dummy can have the possibility to make an impasse that i.e. could fullfill a contract that instead is down for a trick if invertion is not allowed. Are you agree or i am wrong ?

Too bad. Don't lead out of turn.

But declarer normally has to make the decision about whether to invert dummy and declarer before seeing dummy, so he can't always be sure whether it will give him an advantage.

[Lovera]

 barmar, on 2017-October-03, 09:48, said:

Too bad. Don't lead out of turn.

But declarer normally has to make the decision about whether to invert dummy and declarer before seeing dummy, so he can't always be sure whether it will give him an advantage.

Perhaps, but in my proposed case, if as here as opp the hand is also much rich in points that the declarer can with a (good) probabilty to think to have a gain for inversion and do so ?

[barmar]

 Lovera, on 2017-October-03, 09:59, said:

Perhaps, but in my proposed case, if as here as opp the hand is also much rich in points that the declarer can with a (good) probabilty to think to have a gain for inversion and do so ?

Too bad. You make a mistake, it can cause you to lose.