> To answer another posting, the most common "best" choice is to forbid
> lead of the suit. The next most common "best" choice is to insist on
> lead of the suit. This is usually easily diagnosed: If I hold AQ of
> the suit, I accept the lead.
You have this backwards, or are unsure who has the option - it is the declarer, as identified by the bidding. If you are the declarer and hold AQ, why would you want to accept the lead (by your RHO) through that AQ?
>> I take it as obvious that 5 options following an opening lead out of
>> turn is too many.
> I agree. I always just say thet there are three options. That's
> much more palatable. A little later I explain that choosing to
> not accept has three new options. I think that it's a bit easier
> to structure it in your mind this way.
I know a director who does the same thing. I think that such an approach is completely wrong and contrary to the intent of the laws unless, as a very minimum, the player is told beforehand that each of the choices will be followed by additional options. The player can then at least ask for a more complete explanation before making a binding decision.
This is particularly important for any one, experienced or not, who doesn't know what card play restrictions may or may not exist following each of declarer's choices.
> On May 4, 9:45 pm, Bob <rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote:
> > On May 4, 5:38 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 4, 2012 10:21:12 AM UTC-7, Bob wrote:
> > > > On May 4, 12:05 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 4, 2012 8:39:42 AM UTC-7, Bob wrote:
> > > > > > I take it as obvious that 5 options following an opening lead out of
> > > > > > turn is too many.
> > > > > It's certainly not obvious to me. I think you'll get a lot of disagreement on this.
> > > > I list the options. When I am done. Then I add "unless it's leap year,
> > > > then you get three more options". Everyone always chuckles; they get
> > > > the joke. I get blank stares. I get complaints. I have no problem with
> > > > experienced good players. They have heard the options enough. It's the
> > > > other people.
> > > I'm wondering--if they can't handle five options for dealing with a lead out of turn, how can they handle 13 options when it's their turn to lead?
> > > -- Adam
> > C'mon Adam, I am trying to make a serious proposal that (almost)
> > everyone would like. Sometimes I go to the table and the declarer
> > already knows what option he wants. Those declarers know what they are
> > doing. Other declarers have a pretty good idea of their options. They
> > listen to me to see if there is something new that might be useful,
> > but basically they already understand most of it. Maybe that is the
> > world you play in.
> > Then you get the players with 200 masterpoints. As noted -- they don't
> > want to have that many options, they don't want to have to listen to
> > that many options, and they don't want to have to choose. I am
> > required by law to include in my overwhelming list an option which, I
> > can be pretty sure, is a distractor -- it isn't the right choice and
> > no expert player would choose it.
> Your last statement is simply false. Suppose you are an expert and
> your partner is not. RHO makes a lead you can ruff. You should be
> able to accept that lead and still play the hand.
> Or suppose you and your partner are both experts, but your relay
> auction has revealed partner's shape. You should not have to lay down
> your own hand and make the rest of the defense double-dummy, just
> because you want to accept the lead.
> As for why you wouldn't demand a lead of the suit from the defender
> who was supposed to lead...The opening lead card goes back in RHO's
> hand then, and he may play something else to trick one, thus giving
> his partner information you don't want his partner to have. Or it may
> not even be a matter of information...RHO may have led an ace that you
> can ruff; LHO might have QJ and dummy might have the K. You are much
> better off accepting the lead and ruffing the ace than demanding that
> LHO lead the same suit.
> If there is any "irregular" option, it's the option of exposing your
> hand as dummy when you are not, in fact, dummy. Accepting the lead
> out of turn and remaining declarer is just like accepting any other
> lead. The defender's lead out of turn should not influence which hand
> is dummy. The old rubber bridge rules (pre-1993...I can't find it on
> line) used to clarify that as a matter of propriety, declarer's facing
> his hand was not proper, but it was allowed because, well, you
> couldn't really blame him for being confused if RHO was.
> If you don't like the long rigmarole of explaining five options after
> an opening lead out of turn, the solution isn't to shorten the list to
> four. It's to enforce a procedural penalty for making face-up opening
> leads out of turn. You don't have to be Miss Manners to chew with
> your mouth closed, and you don't have to be an expert to make an
> opening lead face-down and ask "any questions?" I think many posters
> here don't worry about listing five options because opening leads out
> of turn don't happen often in their games; if they happen often in
> games you direct, it might be wiser to address that than to suggest
> changing the laws to accommodate frequent irregularities with
> increased convenience.
> Christopher Monsour
I concede that there are some situations where the declarer can
diagnose that it is better to accept the lead. The opening lead of a
ace, when you can ruff (and do not want to force a lead from the other
suits) qualtifies. My claim is just that they are rare.
If you make LHO lead the suit, and dummy comes down with KQx, then you
have lost a trick compared to being able to ruff the ace. But is that
extra trick necessary to restore equity? Without the irregularity, if
LHO leads the suit, you get one trick. With the irregularity, you get
one trick. You have not suffered from the irregularity.
I think to get an argument for equty, you are going to have to argue,
as you did but for some other example, that you don't want LHO to know
that RHO has the withdrawn card. LHO will know anyway in your ruffing
scenario. But should you succeed on another example, you have the
problem that at least in theory, the withdrawn card is UI and you can
complain to the director if LHO seems to use the information.
Um, one really good reason for posting to blml is to hear arguments
like yours. Thank you. I would love to hear an example where the
option is diagnosably the best option and needed to restore equity.
Bob wrote:
> On May 4, 10:00 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > On May 4, 2:25 pm, Bob <rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote:
> > > On May 4, 11:58 am, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> > > > Bob Frick:
> > > > > I take it as obvious that 5 options following an opening lead
> > > > > out of turn is too many.
> > > > I take it as obvious that it's the correct number.
> > > > > Unfortunately, 4 of the options seem to be needed.
> > > > > Fortunately, one seems unnecessary: Accepting the lead and
> > > > > seeing the dummy.
> > > > This is necessary under the general principle that an
> > > > out-of-turn lead or bid can always be accepted. There is no
> > > > reason to change it. --
> > > > Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
> > > > "sci fi: the plural of scum fum" -- Spider
> > > > Robinson
> > > Not really. The principle here, I am next to positive, is that we
> > > have to allow a player to accept a lead out of turn, because the
> > > player might not realize that the lead is out of turn. So
> > > declarer thinks the OLOOT is correct, starts putting down his
> > > hand as dummy, and needs the option of accepting the lead and
> > > being dummy.
> > And that's an option he has to have, too, but when the law clearly
> > says "opening lead is faced, ... dummy’s hand is spread", you have
> > to cater to that, too. Dummy is dummy until declarer says
> > otherwise.
> > So, "yes. really."
> > > But there is no reason here that declarer has to have the option
> > > to accept the lead and see the dummy. Maybe it is tradition, but
> > > that's all; there's no logical need for that choice.
> > Of course there's a logical reason. No other declarer has to plan
> > his play before seeing the dummy, and neither does leader's partner.
> > It's a basic principle of the deal that all players except the
> > opening leader get to see the dummy before they play.
> Sorry. I am not suggesting that we keep the 5 options but change the
> 5th one. I am saying just get rid of it. There is an OLOOT. Declarer
> has to decide what to do. Accept the lead, stay the declarer, and see
> the dummy is not one of them. That's my proposal. That option isn't
> needed, it really isn't useful, and declarer already has too many
> options.
You're missing the point.
There are two fundamental principles here that coincide:
a) declarer always get to plan the play by seeing dummy before
participating to trick 1, and
b) A LOOT can always be accepted by the LHO of the LOOTer.
The corollary of those two requires that declarer have the option to
accept the lead and for dummy to go down as normal. To take away this
option requires breaking one of those two principles.
> On May 5, 2:41 am, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 4, 9:45 pm, Bob <rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote:
> > > On May 4, 5:38 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 4, 2012 10:21:12 AM UTC-7, Bob wrote:
> > > > > On May 4, 12:05 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 4, 2012 8:39:42 AM UTC-7, Bob wrote:
> > > > > > > I take it as obvious that 5 options following an opening lead out of
> > > > > > > turn is too many.
> > > > > > It's certainly not obvious to me. I think you'll get a lot of disagreement on this.
> > > > > I list the options. When I am done. Then I add "unless it's leap year,
> > > > > then you get three more options". Everyone always chuckles; they get
> > > > > the joke. I get blank stares. I get complaints. I have no problem with
> > > > > experienced good players. They have heard the options enough. It's the
> > > > > other people.
> > > > I'm wondering--if they can't handle five options for dealing with a lead out of turn, how can they handle 13 options when it's their turn to lead?
> > > > -- Adam
> > > C'mon Adam, I am trying to make a serious proposal that (almost)
> > > everyone would like. Sometimes I go to the table and the declarer
> > > already knows what option he wants. Those declarers know what they are
> > > doing. Other declarers have a pretty good idea of their options. They
> > > listen to me to see if there is something new that might be useful,
> > > but basically they already understand most of it. Maybe that is the
> > > world you play in.
> > > Then you get the players with 200 masterpoints. As noted -- they don't
> > > want to have that many options, they don't want to have to listen to
> > > that many options, and they don't want to have to choose. I am
> > > required by law to include in my overwhelming list an option which, I
> > > can be pretty sure, is a distractor -- it isn't the right choice and
> > > no expert player would choose it.
> > Your last statement is simply false. Suppose you are an expert and
> > your partner is not. RHO makes a lead you can ruff. You should be
> > able to accept that lead and still play the hand.
> > Or suppose you and your partner are both experts, but your relay
> > auction has revealed partner's shape. You should not have to lay down
> > your own hand and make the rest of the defense double-dummy, just
> > because you want to accept the lead.
> > As for why you wouldn't demand a lead of the suit from the defender
> > who was supposed to lead...The opening lead card goes back in RHO's
> > hand then, and he may play something else to trick one, thus giving
> > his partner information you don't want his partner to have. Or it may
> > not even be a matter of information...RHO may have led an ace that you
> > can ruff; LHO might have QJ and dummy might have the K. You are much
> > better off accepting the lead and ruffing the ace than demanding that
> > LHO lead the same suit.
> > If there is any "irregular" option, it's the option of exposing your
> > hand as dummy when you are not, in fact, dummy. Accepting the lead
> > out of turn and remaining declarer is just like accepting any other
> > lead. The defender's lead out of turn should not influence which hand
> > is dummy. The old rubber bridge rules (pre-1993...I can't find it on
> > line) used to clarify that as a matter of propriety, declarer's facing
> > his hand was not proper, but it was allowed because, well, you
> > couldn't really blame him for being confused if RHO was.
> > If you don't like the long rigmarole of explaining five options after
> > an opening lead out of turn, the solution isn't to shorten the list to
> > four. It's to enforce a procedural penalty for making face-up opening
> > leads out of turn. You don't have to be Miss Manners to chew with
> > your mouth closed, and you don't have to be an expert to make an
> > opening lead face-down and ask "any questions?" I think many posters
> > here don't worry about listing five options because opening leads out
> > of turn don't happen often in their games; if they happen often in
> > games you direct, it might be wiser to address that than to suggest
> > changing the laws to accommodate frequent irregularities with
> > increased convenience.
> > Christopher Monsour
> I concede that there are some situations where the declarer can
> diagnose that it is better to accept the lead. The opening lead of a
> ace, when you can ruff (and do not want to force a lead from the other
> suits) qualtifies. My claim is just that they are rare.
> If you make LHO lead the suit, and dummy comes down with KQx, then you
> have lost a trick compared to being able to ruff the ace.
Or Kxx in dummy.
> But is that
> extra trick necessary to restore equity? Without the irregularity, if
> LHO leads the suit, you get one trick. With the irregularity, you get
> one trick. You have not suffered from the irregularity.
Once RHO leads the ace, I have a right to accept it as a played card.
I should not have to give up my right to play the hand in order to do
that.
> I think to get an argument for equty, you are going to have to argue,
> as you did but for some other example, that you don't want LHO to know
> that RHO has the withdrawn card. LHO will know anyway in your ruffing
> scenario. But should you succeed on another example, you have the
> problem that at least in theory, the withdrawn card is UI and you can
> complain to the director if LHO seems to use the information.
The laws are painfully ambiguous (since they are not clear as to
whether information from a penalty card is still UI to the offending
side after the penalty card is picked up when declarer demands or
forbids a lead), and directors are notoriously unreliable. One of the
reasons to give declarer so many options is to avoid messy rulings
later, which take a whole lot more time than reading a fifth option.
I'd say that from that point-of-view, the law is a big success.
> Um, one really good reason for posting to blml is to hear arguments
> like yours. Thank you. I would love to hear an example where the
> option is diagnosably the best option and needed to restore equity.
I think it's obvious that I should be able to accept a lead out of
turn without giving up any other aspect of equity, and sometimes which
hand is concealed is a key part of that. Accepting a lead or call out
of rotation by the opponents is part of the game, and, if one has to
pay a price to do so, that certainly violates my sense of equity. It's
no different than if I led x from Kxx in dummy, RHO played the ace,
and I was told that if I wanted to ruff, my partner would have to play
the rest of the hand. If normal play can continue after RHO's
mistake, RHO should have to live with it with no further inconvenience
to his opponents.
> > I take it as obvious that 5 options following an opening lead out of
> > turn is too many. Common players don't want to hear that many, don't
> > want to have that many, and can't process that many.
> > Unfortunately, 4 of the options seem to be needed. Fortunately, one
> > seems unnecessary: Accepting the lead and seeing the dummy.
> > 1. While there are situations where it would be the best choice, I
> > think those are very difficult to diagnose. As near as I can tell,
> > this option is most likely selected by nonexpert players making a poor
> > choice, who are probably overwhelmed by the number of options.
> > 2. I can't think of any reason it would be needed for purposes of
> > equity.
> > The point isn't to make the laws shorter, though it does that. The
> > point is to save time and trouble and confusion and make the game
> > smoother. So I am lobbying for this change.
> Declarers must be able to accept the LOOT,
> and yet stay declarer. Putting down declarer's
> hand as dummy frequently is undesirable
> If a pair's bidding is good, they will right side
> declaring on most hands.
> Lets say you open 2C, strong, and
> become declarer in 5C, with a dummy you know does
> not have much. You receive an opening
> lead out of turn by RHO. Nobody would
> consider putting the strong hand on the table
> as dummy in such a situation.
> After a relay auction showed that partner has
> exactly 2-4-3-4 distribution with exactly 12 HCP,
> you become declarer in 3NT. Again, opening lead
> out of turn by RHO. Nobody would consider putting
> down declarer's hand as dummy, and thus
> let opponents defend double dummy.
> In a slam auction, you made a psychic cue bid
> of 4D, even though you do not hold a D control.
> The psyche works in unforeseen ways when RHO leads
> a H out of turn. Nobody would consider putting
> down declarer's hand as dummy and thus expose that you
> actually do not have a D control.
> A very strong player is playing with a weak player.
> Perhaps a client, perhaps a substitute player in a team match.
> Again, RHO makes an opening lead out of turn.
> Nobody would consider transferring playing
> the hand to the weak player.
> You are in a slam contract. From the auction, you can see
> that given the lead out of turn made by RHO, you
> can make the hand 99% on a certain line. You do not
> want to make partner declarer, because partner might
> overlook that 99% line.
> Bob, you are not an expert player,
> and not even close to that level.
> Please do not make any statements about what expert
> players might or might not do.
> Thomas
I think you missed a critical point. No one is suggesting that the
only option be to put down your hand as dummy. You still have the
option to require the suit to be led by LHO.
1. You need to argue that there are situations where accepting the
lead and being the declarer is the best diagnosable option.
2. Then, since I have already conceded that those occur, but they are
rare, you need to argue that they are common. How often do you really
choose this option?
3. Then you need to argue that accepting the lead is necessary to
restore equity.
I can make the argument that, one way or another, the other four
choices are needed. The best I can come up for this fifth choice is
that it might benefit an expert declarer sometimes to have this choice
but that it probably isn't needed for equity. So it gets a tiny little
plus and a huge minus.
On May 4, 11:39 am, Bob <rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote:
> I take it as obvious that 5 options following an opening lead out of
> turn is too many. Common players don't want to hear that many, don't
> want to have that many, and can't process that many.
> Unfortunately, 4 of the options seem to be needed. Fortunately, one
> seems unnecessary: Accepting the lead and seeing the dummy.
As I have argued elsewhere, all 5 options should be retained.
However, it's interesting to note that I've seen this option chosen
more often than the option of leaving the lead as a major penalty card
and letting the correct leader lead whatever he wants. (I've never
seen anyone else but me do that, and that only once, and everybody
looked at me like "no one ever does that", but I didn't need a
particular lead, and I figured the penalty card might be useful
later...and it was.)
> I know a director who does the same thing. I think that such an approach > is completely wrong and contrary to the intent of the laws unless, as a > very minimum, the player is told beforehand that each of the choices > will be followed by additional options.
You misunderstand (and maybe my explanation was inadequate). I do
not stop explaining until the players have heard about all the
options. I just structure my explanation as described because I
think that remembering 3 mains plus 3 subs is easier than 5
mains.
That is my own experience when I hear a 5-explanation of
something that I do remember already.
I had a partner once who answered to questions that our
multi-agreement had 5 options. He counted spades as one and
hearts as another, and I could see the opponents lose focus while
he explained.
On May 5, 4:39 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once RHO leads the ace, I have a right to accept it as a played card.
> I should not have to give up my right to play the hand in order to do
> that.
Under the current law, you have that right. If they take out that
option, then you don't have the right. If they take it out, then
sometime after 2017 you *might* get a hand where you want to accept
the lead and still be declarer. You will regret not having that
option, say to yourself "oh well", and choose among your remaining
four options. No problem, no outrage, no sense of unfairness.
BTW, in your example, other things being equal, it is much better to
put down your hand as dummy. When you ruff the ace of clubs OLOOT in
hand and opponents can see your partner's hand because it is the
dummy, they know the whole club suit. So they are one step closer to
knowing the whole distribution of the hand, and they can accurately
assess the club threat.
Of course, that comment applies to your specific example. But so far
it is the only example I know of where one can confidently assess that
this option is the best.
> Bob wrote:
> > On May 4, 10:00 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > > On May 4, 2:25 pm, Bob <rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote:
> > > > On May 4, 11:58 am, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> > > > > Bob Frick:
> > > > > > I take it as obvious that 5 options following an opening lead
> > > > > > out of turn is too many.
> > > > > I take it as obvious that it's the correct number.
> > > > > > Unfortunately, 4 of the options seem to be needed.
> > > > > > Fortunately, one seems unnecessary: Accepting the lead and
> > > > > > seeing the dummy.
> > > > > This is necessary under the general principle that an
> > > > > out-of-turn lead or bid can always be accepted. There is no
> > > > > reason to change it. --
> > > > > Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
> > > > > "sci fi: the plural of scum fum" -- Spider
> > > > > Robinson
> > > > Not really. The principle here, I am next to positive, is that we
> > > > have to allow a player to accept a lead out of turn, because the
> > > > player might not realize that the lead is out of turn. So
> > > > declarer thinks the OLOOT is correct, starts putting down his
> > > > hand as dummy, and needs the option of accepting the lead and
> > > > being dummy.
> > > And that's an option he has to have, too, but when the law clearly
> > > says "opening lead is faced, ... dummy’s hand is spread", you have
> > > to cater to that, too. Dummy is dummy until declarer says
> > > otherwise.
> > > So, "yes. really."
> > > > But there is no reason here that declarer has to have the option
> > > > to accept the lead and see the dummy. Maybe it is tradition, but
> > > > that's all; there's no logical need for that choice.
> > > Of course there's a logical reason. No other declarer has to plan
> > > his play before seeing the dummy, and neither does leader's partner.
> > > It's a basic principle of the deal that all players except the
> > > opening leader get to see the dummy before they play.
> > Sorry. I am not suggesting that we keep the 5 options but change the
> > 5th one. I am saying just get rid of it. There is an OLOOT. Declarer
> > has to decide what to do. Accept the lead, stay the declarer, and see
> > the dummy is not one of them. That's my proposal. That option isn't
> > needed, it really isn't useful, and declarer already has too many
> > options.
> You're missing the point.
> There are two fundamental principles here that coincide:
> a) declarer always get to plan the play by seeing dummy before
> participating to trick 1, and
> b) A LOOT can always be accepted by the LHO of the LOOTer.
> The corollary of those two requires that declarer have the option to
> accept the lead and for dummy to go down as normal. To take away this
> option requires breaking one of those two principles.
I would rate the first as a fundamental principle. I would rate the
second as merely being the state of the current laws. It is very close
to a principle. A player might not realize that a previous call or
play is out of turn, hence just play. I don't think that player should
be punished/rectified, and neither does anyone else. Another
principle, which is not always easy to hold but that people try to do,
is that a player does not lose options just by noting an irregularity
or calling the director.
Putting these two together, we need to allow declarer to put down his
hand as dummy and accept the lead. As far as I can tell, there is no
other justification for this option; there is no need for it to
restore equity (except, as Chris remarks, if the UI injunctions aren't
clear or don't work very well.)
There is nowhere in these two principles any need to allow declarer to
see the dummy and play from hand.
If the lawmakers wanted to have just one law for LOOT's, then it would
be awkward to remove this option. But they don't. You just eliminate
L54B.
On May 6, 6:33 am, Bob <rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote:
> On May 5, 4:39 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Once RHO leads the ace, I have a right to accept it as a played card.
> > I should not have to give up my right to play the hand in order to do
> > that.
> Under the current law, you have that right. If they take out that
> option, then you don't have the right. If they take it out, then
> sometime after 2017 you *might* get a hand where you want to accept
> the lead and still be declarer. You will regret not having that
> option, say to yourself "oh well", and choose among your remaining
> four options. No problem, no outrage, no sense of unfairness.
You asked what options in the law were needed to restore equity. Now
you are acting as though the law defines equity. If that's the case,
why ask the question?
Also, perhaps you need a good dictionary to explain to you the
difference between "law" and "equity".
> BTW, in your example, other things being equal, it is much better to
> put down your hand as dummy. When you ruff the ace of clubs OLOOT in
> hand and opponents can see your partner's hand because it is the
> dummy, they know the whole club suit. So they are one step closer to
> knowing the whole distribution of the hand, and they can accurately
> assess the club threat.
This reasoning (that seeing the hand without the void gives them more
information than seeing the hand with the void) is silly. Either way
they see 14 cards (one full hand plus the card the other hand
played). Either way they know how many clubs their partner has.
Seeing the hand without the club void gives them more information
about the placement of club honors and spots, which isn't very useful
if they are all being ruffed and declarer has plenty of trumps. On
the other hand, facing the hand with the club void gives away the
location of more specific cards in the other three suits, the ones
more likely to matter to the play.
Maybe you need to stop directing games long enough to actually play
bridge for a while, and then perhaps you would not make such silly
statements.
> Of course, that comment applies to your specific example. But so far
> it is the only example I know of where one can confidently assess that
> this option is the best.
I really hate it when people ask a question on an NG and then
summarize the discussion by omitting most of the information that
doesn't support their point-of-view. I gave an example of dummy's
entire distribution being known from the auction. So your comment
does NOT apply to that specific example.
If you want to post to a newsgroup to get people's opinions, that's
one thing. If you want to try to twist your summary of those
responses to suit your preconceived notions, that's another. If you
don't understand the effort that sometimes goes in to making a
particular hand the closed hand and a particular hand dummy, then,
again, I don't think you have the practical experience to have an
informed opinion on how the laws should handle opening leads out of
turn.
Considering how you've been challenging the contributors to this NG,
it's time for someone to ask you a challenging question: Of all these
opening leads out of turn that cause you so much trouble in the games
you direct, what proportion of them were made face-up?
>>>>>>> I take it as obvious that 5 options following an opening lead
>>>>>>> out of turn is too many.
> I would rate the first as a fundamental principle. I would rate the
> second as merely being the state of the current laws. It is very close
> to a principle. A player might not realize that a previous call or
> play is out of turn, hence just play. I don't think that player should
> be punished/rectified, and neither does anyone else. Another
> principle, which is not always easy to hold but that people try to do,
> is that a player does not lose options just by noting an irregularity
> or calling the director.
> Putting these two together, we need to allow declarer to put down his
> hand as dummy and accept the lead. As far as I can tell, there is no
> other justification for this option; there is no need for it to
> restore equity (except, as Chris remarks, if the UI injunctions aren't
> clear or don't work very well.)
> There is nowhere in these two principles any need...
No, sorry. You needed to include this argument in your original claim
that it was obvious. Taking it into account now would be a violation
of Law 70D1 on claims. :-)
-- Mark Brader, Toronto "Asps. Very dangerous. You go first."
m...@vex.net -- Raiders of the Lost Ark
> On May 4, 10:00 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > On May 4, 2:25 pm, Bob <rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote:
> > > On May 4, 11:58 am, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> > > > Bob Frick:
> > > > > I take it as obvious that 5 options following an opening lead out of
> > > > > turn is too many.
> > > > I take it as obvious that it's the correct number.
> > > > > Unfortunately, 4 of the options seem to be needed. Fortunately, one
> > > > > seems unnecessary: Accepting the lead and seeing the dummy.
> > > > This is necessary under the general principle that an out-of-turn
> > > > lead or bid can always be accepted. There is no reason to change it.
> > > > --
> > > > Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
> > > > "sci fi: the plural of scum fum" -- Spider Robinson
> > > Not really. The principle here, I am next to positive, is that we have
> > > to allow a player to accept a lead out of turn, because the player
> > > might not realize that the lead is out of turn. So declarer thinks the
> > > OLOOT is correct, starts putting down his hand as dummy, and needs the
> > > option of accepting the lead and being dummy.
> > And that's an option he has to have, too, but when the law clearly
> > says "opening lead is faced, ... dummy’s hand is spread", you have to
> > cater to that, too. Dummy is dummy until declarer says otherwise.
> > So, "yes. really."
> > > But there is no reason here that declarer has to have the option to
> > > accept the lead and see the dummy. Maybe it is tradition, but that's
> > > all; there's no logical need for that choice.
> > Of course there's a logical reason. No _other_ declarer has to plan
> > his play before seeing the dummy, and neither does leader's partner.
> > It's a basic principle of the deal that all players except the opening
> > leader get to see the dummy before they play.
> Sorry. I am not suggesting that we keep the 5 options but change the
> 5th one. I am saying just get rid of it. There is an OLOOT. Declarer
> has to decide what to do. Accept the lead, stay the declarer, and see
> the dummy is not one of them. That's my proposal.
And _I_ am saying it's a pathetic proposal. It goes against the basic
principle that a player may condone his RHO's irregularity.
> On May 5, 3:31 am, Thomas Dehn<thomas-use...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> On 05/04/2012 05:39 PM, Bob wrote:
>>> I take it as obvious that 5 options following an opening lead out of
>>> turn is too many. Common players don't want to hear that many, don't
>>> want to have that many, and can't process that many.
>>> Unfortunately, 4 of the options seem to be needed. Fortunately, one
>>> seems unnecessary: Accepting the lead and seeing the dummy.
>>> 1. While there are situations where it would be the best choice, I
>>> think those are very difficult to diagnose. As near as I can tell,
>>> this option is most likely selected by nonexpert players making a poor
>>> choice, who are probably overwhelmed by the number of options.
>>> 2. I can't think of any reason it would be needed for purposes of
>>> equity.
>>> The point isn't to make the laws shorter, though it does that. The
>>> point is to save time and trouble and confusion and make the game
>>> smoother. So I am lobbying for this change.
>> Declarers must be able to accept the LOOT,
>> and yet stay declarer. Putting down declarer's
>> hand as dummy frequently is undesirable
>> If a pair's bidding is good, they will right side
>> declaring on most hands.
>> Lets say you open 2C, strong, and
>> become declarer in 5C, with a dummy you know does
>> not have much. You receive an opening
>> lead out of turn by RHO. Nobody would
>> consider putting the strong hand on the table
>> as dummy in such a situation.
>> After a relay auction showed that partner has
>> exactly 2-4-3-4 distribution with exactly 12 HCP,
>> you become declarer in 3NT. Again, opening lead
>> out of turn by RHO. Nobody would consider putting
>> down declarer's hand as dummy, and thus
>> let opponents defend double dummy.
>> In a slam auction, you made a psychic cue bid
>> of 4D, even though you do not hold a D control.
>> The psyche works in unforeseen ways when RHO leads
>> a H out of turn. Nobody would consider putting
>> down declarer's hand as dummy and thus expose that you
>> actually do not have a D control.
>> A very strong player is playing with a weak player.
>> Perhaps a client, perhaps a substitute player in a team match.
>> Again, RHO makes an opening lead out of turn.
>> Nobody would consider transferring playing
>> the hand to the weak player.
>> You are in a slam contract. From the auction, you can see
>> that given the lead out of turn made by RHO, you
>> can make the hand 99% on a certain line. You do not
>> want to make partner declarer, because partner might
>> overlook that 99% line.
>> Bob, you are not an expert player,
>> and not even close to that level.
>> Please do not make any statements about what expert
>> players might or might not do.
>> Thomas
> I think you missed a critical point. No one is suggesting that the
> only option be to put down your hand as dummy. You still have the
> option to require the suit to be led by LHO.
That is not the same option.
When declarer chooses the option
to force LHO to lead that suit, RHO
now can play any card he wants to play. He does
not have to play the card he selected for
the opening lead.
LHO might not even have a card in that suit, for
example if RHO made a preempt, and the final
contract is notrumps.
Why the heck do you want to
treat a defender's lead out of turn
differently at trick two than at trick one?
At trick two, declarer can accept the lead
out of turn, and at trick one, he can't??
That would add way more confusion for weaker
players than the current law.
I have never seen this happen. Some people said it could happen with
screens, but when I tried to put their hands to the coals to get them
to describe it, no one did. Basically, you don't see the player on
your left make the opening lead and then put down your hand as dummy.
Either you think it is an OLOOT or you think you are declarer.
Unless you think you can pull off something devious, and I suspect you
can. But that's another story.
> On May 6, 6:33 am, Bob <rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote:
> > On May 5, 4:39 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Once RHO leads the ace, I have a right to accept it as a played card.
> > > I should not have to give up my right to play the hand in order to do
> > > that.
> > Under the current law, you have that right. If they take out that
> > option, then you don't have the right. If they take it out, then
> > sometime after 2017 you *might* get a hand where you want to accept
> > the lead and still be declarer. You will regret not having that
> > option, say to yourself "oh well", and choose among your remaining
> > four options. No problem, no outrage, no sense of unfairness.
> You asked what options in the law were needed to restore equity. Now
> you are acting as though the law defines equity. If that's the case,
> why ask the question?
> Also, perhaps you need a good dictionary to explain to you the
> difference between "law" and "equity".
> > BTW, in your example, other things being equal, it is much better to
> > put down your hand as dummy. When you ruff the ace of clubs OLOOT in
> > hand and opponents can see your partner's hand because it is the
> > dummy, they know the whole club suit. So they are one step closer to
> > knowing the whole distribution of the hand, and they can accurately
> > assess the club threat.
> This reasoning (that seeing the hand without the void gives them more
> information than seeing the hand with the void) is silly. Either way
> they see 14 cards (one full hand plus the card the other hand
> played). Either way they know how many clubs their partner has.
Could you explain why you say this? Your RHO leads the ace of clubs.
You put down your hand as dummy. It contains a club void. How does LHO
know how many clubs RHO has?
Sorry, I don't see the problem in my reasoning.
> Seeing the hand without the club void gives them more information
> about the placement of club honors and spots, which isn't very useful
> if they are all being ruffed and declarer has plenty of trumps.
If your dummy has all club spots, it doesn't matter whether you accept
the lead from LHO or RHO. You only wanted to accept the lead from RHO
because you thought dummy might have club tricks, like if dummy has
KQx or KQxxx.
But anyway, if you don't know who has the king of clubs, then probably
one of the opponents doesn't either. If they see all small clubs in
dummy, they know there is no club threat there and they can be more
passive. If they have to worry about the should-have-been dummy having
club tricks, they might decide to be more active.
So it helps to hide dummies clubs in most scenarios.
On
> the other hand, facing the hand with the club void gives away the
> location of more specific cards in the other three suits, the ones
> more likely to matter to the play.
You give up the location the specific cards in the other three suits
no matter who is dummy. I think I am saying the obvious here. (Of
course there are situations where my clause "Other things being equal"
doesn't hold.)
> Maybe you need to stop directing games long enough to actually play
> bridge for a while, and then perhaps you would not make such silly
> statements.
On May 6, 2:34 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> On May 4, 10:45 pm, Bob <rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote:
> > C'mon Adam, I am trying to make a serious proposal that (almost)
> > everyone would like.
> C'mon, Bob. It's not serious, and I very much doubt even a small
> majority could be convinced they like it, rather than "(almost)
> everybody".
Interesting. How often do you actually select this option? I mean, if
you never select it, then you don't care one way or another. If you
select it once a year, do you really care?
If you select it once a month, that's different. Tell me when you do.
Let's see who can be the first on this thread to see this option
taken. I am guessing it will be me, But hey, I don't know the world of
high-tournament bridge.
> On May 6, 10:04 am, Chris xxxxx<mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 6, 6:33 am, Bob<rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote:
>>> On May 5, 4:39 pm, Chris xxxxx<mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Once RHO leads the ace, I have a right to accept it as a played card.
>>>> I should not have to give up my right to play the hand in order to do
>>>> that.
>>> Under the current law, you have that right. If they take out that
>>> option, then you don't have the right. If they take it out, then
>>> sometime after 2017 you *might* get a hand where you want to accept
>>> the lead and still be declarer. You will regret not having that
>>> option, say to yourself "oh well", and choose among your remaining
>>> four options. No problem, no outrage, no sense of unfairness.
>> You asked what options in the law were needed to restore equity. Now
>> you are acting as though the law defines equity. If that's the case,
>> why ask the question?
>> Also, perhaps you need a good dictionary to explain to you the
>> difference between "law" and "equity".
>>> BTW, in your example, other things being equal, it is much better to
>>> put down your hand as dummy. When you ruff the ace of clubs OLOOT in
>>> hand and opponents can see your partner's hand because it is the
>>> dummy, they know the whole club suit. So they are one step closer to
>>> knowing the whole distribution of the hand, and they can accurately
>>> assess the club threat.
>> This reasoning (that seeing the hand without the void gives them more
>> information than seeing the hand with the void) is silly. Either way
>> they see 14 cards (one full hand plus the card the other hand
>> played). Either way they know how many clubs their partner has.
> Could you explain why you say this? Your RHO leads the ace of clubs.
> You put down your hand as dummy. It contains a club void. How does LHO
> know how many clubs RHO has?
> Sorry, I don't see the problem in my reasoning.
>> Seeing the hand without the club void gives them more information
>> about the placement of club honors and spots, which isn't very useful
>> if they are all being ruffed and declarer has plenty of trumps.
> If your dummy has all club spots, it doesn't matter whether you accept
> the lead from LHO or RHO. You only wanted to accept the lead from RHO
> because you thought dummy might have club tricks, like if dummy has
> KQx or KQxxx.
> But anyway, if you don't know who has the king of clubs, then probably
> one of the opponents doesn't either. If they see all small clubs in
> dummy, they know there is no club threat there and they can be more
> passive. If they have to worry about the should-have-been dummy having
> club tricks, they might decide to be more active.
> So it helps to hide dummies clubs in most scenarios.
> On
>> the other hand, facing the hand with the club void gives away the
>> location of more specific cards in the other three suits, the ones
>> more likely to matter to the play.
> You give up the location the specific cards in the other three suits
> no matter who is dummy. I think I am saying the obvious here. (Of
> course there are situations where my clause "Other things being equal"
> doesn't hold.)
>> Maybe you need to stop directing games long enough to actually play
>> bridge for a while, and then perhaps you would not make such silly
>> statements.
> Sorry, they still seem right to me.
> <snipping other discussion>
>> Christopher Monsour
Well then, in the interest of maximal equity restoral and maximum advantage to the non-offending side, instead of REMOVING a declarer option, why not ADD one?
Specifically, let declarer see the cards in what would have been dummy's hand BEFORE deciding which hand should be displayed as dummy and BEFORE he decides whether or not to accept the OLOOT.
[and before everybody jumps on this, no I'm not seriously suggesting such an option!]
> On May 6, 2:34 pm, derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > On May 4, 10:45 pm, Bob <rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote:
> > > C'mon Adam, I am trying to make a serious proposal that (almost)
> > > everyone would like.
> > C'mon, Bob. It's not serious, and I very much doubt even a small
> > majority could be convinced they like it, rather than "(almost)
> > everybody".
> Interesting. How often do you actually select this option? I mean, if
> you never select it, then you don't care one way or another. If you
> select it once a year, do you really care?
> If you select it once a month, that's different. Tell me when you do.
> Let's see who can be the first on this thread to see this option
> taken. I am guessing it will be me, But hey, I don't know the world of
> high-tournament bridge.
What does frequency have to do with it? If that's the reason for
laws, we should just allow the first guy who gets a card out of his
hand to lead, because OLOOTs really are exceedingly rare.
I _care_ because I have been known to select both of the options
involving accepting the lead, and at least the option forbidding LHO
to lead the suit which RHO has exposed. I honestly don't recall if
I've used either of the other options because I'd be surprised if I've
had to make that decision 5 times in my bridge career. It happened
more often when we played in I/N games, but we stopped doing that
pretty quickly. But, more importantly, I care about this specific
option being available to declarer because it's consistent with all
other laws about condoning RHO's irregularity.
