(2017) eliminating one choice after an OLOOT

[Bob]

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.

Bob

[Bob]

For example, yesterday I opened a weak two diamonds, RHO became
declarer in 4 hearts, and my partner led a high diamond out of turn.
Declarer choose to accept the lead and see the dummy, holding Axxx in
diamonds. That can't possibly be the best decision -- it had to be
better to force me to lead a diamond, in case dummy had the queen.
(Forbidding a diamond would have in practice worked better.)

[Mark Brader]

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

[Adam Beneschan]

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.

-- Adam

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<a8022b96-b0ad-44e6...@l7g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

There's an old adage that you should often accept leads out of turn: if
they're clueless enough that they don't know whose lead it is, they
probably don't know what the best lead is.

But thinking back to the times that I've started to lead and been warned
that it isn't my lead, that may not be so true. Often the reason I'm so
eager to lead is because I have a really obvious lead like an honor
sequence. My eagerness to make the lead has simply distracted me from
the fact that I'm not on lead.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Bob]

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.

[Stu Goodgold]

On Friday, May 4, 2012 10:03:04 AM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article
> <a8022b96-b0ad-44e6...@l7g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> There's an old adage that you should often accept leads out of turn: if
> they're clueless enough that they don't know whose lead it is, they
> probably don't know what the best lead is.

One of the more memorable rgb postings a few years ago asked which option you should accept, then added "would it matter if your LHO was Bob Hamman?" A number of responders quoted your old adage. Then the poster added "what if the person making the OLOOT was Zia?"

So much for adages.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[derek]

On May 4, 12:39 pm, 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.

They don't _need_ 5 options. There are essentially two. Accept the
lead or reject it. I always stress this first.

>
> Unfortunately, 4 of the options seem to be needed. Fortunately, one
> seems unnecessary: Accepting the lead and seeing the dummy.

That is the most necessary of all, since it's exactly what one would
expect to happen if declarer simply accepts the irregularity. 41C:
"... the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably,
and dummy’s hand is spread". Opening lead is faced, dummy comes
down... This is perfectly consistent with every other law that deals
with the non-offending side condoning an irregularity.

> 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.

My experience is that non-expert players making a default choice
promptly slam down their hand as dummy (I still like to do that, as
letting my wife play is always worth an extra trick; but now at least
I think about the fact that I declared 3N in the first place to
protect my Kx in their suit).

> 2. I can't think of any reason it would be needed for purposes of
> equity.

More change for change's sake.

[derek]

On May 4, 3:25 pm, Stu Goodgold <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Friday, May 4, 2012 10:03:04 AM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:

> > There's an old adage that you should often accept leads out of turn: if
> > they're clueless enough that they don't know whose lead it is, they
> > probably don't know what the best lead is.
>
> One of the more memorable rgb postings a few years ago asked which option you should accept, then added "would it matter if your LHO was Bob Hamman?"  A number of responders quoted your old adage. Then the poster added "what if the person making the OLOOT was Zia?"

All the more reason why I accept the lead and let my wife declare...
She complains I play too many hands as it is, there's no way I'm not
letting her declare against Hamman and Zia if I have the choice.

[derek]

Huh? How high was your partner's lead? If it was the K, and dummy
has the Qx, then he's just guaranteed two natural diamond tricks as
long as he can keep LHO off lead until he's pulled RHO's trumps. If
it was smaller, it's a loss, admittedly, but then there's no reason to
expect dummy to have the Q - especially if you're known for
disciplined preempts. If dummy has the stiff Q, it won't matter, as
declarer will win the A and ruff a diamond. There are plenty of
times that it could be the best choice. I want the whole auction, and
to know what's in declarer's hand before I can say it "can't" have
been right.

[Bob]

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.

Taking this a step further, it would be really awkward if players lost
a choice because they called the director. So the declarer should
retain the right to accept the lead and put down his hand as dummy.

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.

[dak...@aol.com]

The one that seems bridge odd is switching declare into dummy.
The auction established who declares, that should be the declaring
across the field.
Is it fair/equitable to allow THIS pair to switch?
That affects the whole field in a pairs game. No other South
(declaring) can get the overtrick - but this one does by LOOT.

[Adam Beneschan]

Any of the five options could, on the right hand, affect the field by letting declarer make an extra trick or more. So why pick on this one?

-- Adam

[blackshoe]

On Friday, May 4, 2012 1:25:05 PM UTC-4, Bob wrote:
> 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.

Nonsense. If "declarer" puts his hand down before the OLOOT is pointed out, then he has, by law, accepted the OLOOT. However, if someone points out the irregularity, and proper procedure is followed, then he still gets (and should get) the option to do this, after the director has explained the options.

> Taking this a step further, it would be really awkward if players lost
> a choice because they called the director. So the declarer should
> retain the right to accept the lead and put down his hand as dummy.
>
> 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.

So, what? Are you suggesting that dummy shouldn't come down until after *third* hand has made his play? That would be a fundamental change in the way the game is played.

[Adam Beneschan]

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

[Bob]

No, I am suggesting that declarer not have the option of accepting the
lead and remaining declarer. To repeat the first posting, the option
isn't needed for purposes of equity, and anyway is rarely diagnosable
as the best option. Meanwhile, there are too many options.

This would be a minor change in the way the game is played. It would
speed the game up and be pleasing to common players and directors
alike. The most likely change in actual play would be the elimination
of confused declarers selecting a suboptimal option.

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.

Accepting the lead and becoming dummy is usually chosen by players who
would rather let their partner play the hand.

[Bob]

Maybe there is a better answer to this. I could say "You are allowed
to require LHO to lead this suit. RHO will pick up his card and may
play whatever he wants. This is a good option to choose if you have a
good tenace position in that suit. You are my require LHO not to lead
this suit, for as long as LHO is on lead. Again RHO gets to pick up
this card. This is the best option to choose if you don't want this
suit led or at least suspect you would rather have another suit led.
You may allow LHO to lead whatever he wants, and the OLOOT stays on
the table as a penalty card, to be played at its first legal
opportunity. This is not a commonly-selected option, but it might be
right if you don't know what you want led. Should you end up with a
tenace position in this suit in dummy, you can finesse and be sure of
winning. the finess. You can accept the lead and be the dummy. You
would do this when you are pretty sure that the lead is not damaging
to your cause and you have no tenace position. An example might be a
singleton ace in a suit contract. You would select this mostly when
you wanted your partner to play the contract. Finally, you may accept
the lead, see the dummy, and then play from hand. This is rarely a
good choice, but I am required by law to give you that option, and
there may be situations where you can diagnose this as being to your
advantage. Note that if you require his partner to lead the suit and
his partner has a void in the suit, then his partner will be able to
lead another suit."

That of course is longer than normal, and includes a lot of things I
am not supposed to say and don't say. My point is, WE EXPECT DECLARER
TO FIGURE THEM OUT. An experienced declarer, who has dealt with many
many OLOOTS already knows them. The 200 masterpoint player won't
figure them out, and it will take a long time to figure them out.
While everyone stares at the player and waits, not necessarilly
patiently. If the declarer can't figure them out, then really those
options aren't of much value. Then they are selecting kind of randomly
to the first one they understand. And sometimes choosing the last one.

Bob

[derek]

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.

[Bob]

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.

[Bob]

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.

[Mark Brader]

Bob Frick:

> C'mon Adam, I am trying to make a serious proposal that (almost)
> everyone would like.

You also claimed that this was obvious.

We now know that this is wrong.
--
Mark Brader | "The race is not always to the swift,
Toronto | nor the battle to the strong --
m...@vex.net | but that is the way to bet it." --Damon Runyon

[Mark Brader]

"Dake":

> The one that seems bridge odd is switching declare into dummy.

The principle is that if you base an action on your opponent's
action, not realizing that it was irregular, you don't get penalized
for it. So if South should be declarer, East leads, and South
assumes the lead was correct and lays down his hand as dummy, you
don't penalize N-S for it. Allowing North to become declarer is
the *way* you don't penalize them. (If it makes a difference to
the result, about half the time it'll be favorable and half
unfavorable, so that's fair enough.)

In a previous edition of the Laws, this option was not allowed
as a deliberate choice by South but was allowed if South was just
being careless. There are no other cases if this in the Laws, so
it was appropriate to change it to a fifth option.
--
Mark Brader | "(I've been told that I suffer from rampant narcissism.
Toronto | Just to confirm the accuracy of this character assessment,
m...@vex.net | I have now shared it with the whole world.)" --Laura Spira

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Chris xxxxx]

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

[Thomas Dehn]

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

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Bob skrev:

> 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.

--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Bob skrev:

> lead and remaining declarer. To repeat the first posting, the option
> isn't needed for purposes of equity,

That is your oppinion. It obviously is not the oppinion of the
lawmakers. Neither is it mine.

There is no objective way of establishing what restores equity
and what does not.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Bob skrev:

> C'mon Adam, I am trying to make a serious proposal that (almost)
> everyone would like.

I don't understand the presence of the word "serious" in that
sentence - unless you remove the five last words.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Bob skrev:

> Maybe there is a better answer to this.

Yes, it makes things much clearer. Now I know that I will waste
no more time following this thread.

[Herb]

On 5/4/2012 6:38 PM, Bob wrote:

>
> 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?

- Herb

[Herb]

On 5/5/2012 8:26 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Bob skrev:
>
>> 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.

- Herb

[Bob]

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.

[Steve Foster]

> > 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.

IMHO, there's no justification for doing so.

--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net

[Chris xxxxx]

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.

Christopher Monsour

[Bob]

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.

[Chris xxxxx]

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.)

Christopher Monsour

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Herb skrev:

> 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.

[Bob]

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]

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.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Bob skrev:

> A player might not realize that a previous call or play is out
> of turn, hence just play.

A dummy might not realize that an opening lead was out of turn,
hence just put his hand down.

[Chris xxxxx]

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?

Christopher Monsour

[Mark Brader]

Bob Frick:
>>>>>>> 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

[derek]

And _I_ am saying it's a pathetic proposal. It goes against the basic
principle that a player may condone his RHO's irregularity.

[derek]

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".

[Thomas Dehn]

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.



Thomas

[Bob]

On May 6, 6:58 am, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:

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.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Bob skrev:

> I have never seen this happen.

Do you mean to say that we are to remove all the laws that you
have never seen broken?

You advocated one principle for a player. I used the same
principle for dummy.

Freedom for Thor, and Loke as well.

as a Danish saying goes.

[Bob]

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

[Bob]

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.

[Herb]

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!]

- Herb

[derek]

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.

[Chris xxxxx]

Well, I gave you the example of an auction that showed dummy's exact
distribution. *So they already knew*.

> Sorry, I don't see the problem in my reasoning.

Even if they don't know dummy's shape already, in which case I agree
that laying declarer's hand down as dummy would conceal the
distribution of the club suit, clubs are likely the least relevant
suit. I don't want them to know how many trumps I have. I don't want
them to know when I can start ruffing the other side suits.

> > 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.

Imagine the bid and raised clubs. The only club likely to set up in
dummy is a king is I ruff their ace. I'm not exactly going to set up
dummy's clubs. Their tricks to cash are in the *other* side suits.
If I have 7 or 8 trumps (say, spades), I want them to have to guess
when I can start ruffing each red suit, and which red suit has honors
that might allow me to set up a winner in dummy to take a pitch.

>   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.)

You show fewer cards in the other three suits if the hand with the
club length is exposed. That leaves more cards where they have to
guess whether their partner or the closed hand has them.

> > 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.

I see you didn't answer the question about how frequently face-up
opening leads are made (out of turn) in the games you direct. Perhaps
the man who can not keep order in his own household should not try to
make rules for others.

Christopher Monsour

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

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. 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.

All of the options are normal and would be available on all other leads out of turn except that at the opening lead, you have the choice of who should play the hand.
In Bridge, it has always been, and still is, an option to "Decline the Penalty" as we would say in American Football.

Your two choices are to accept the lead or not accept the lead.
If you accept the lead, the question is who should play the hand.

If you do not accept the lead, partner of the player on lead has a penalty card and thus you may restrict the lead, or leave the penalty card (and you can change your mind after any trick where the opponent on lead keeps the lead).

In fact, "Accept the lead and see the dummy before playing from the hidden hand" is a normal option. Equity requires that it be allowed whenever it advantages the declarer.

The big complication comes from the fact that directors rattle off the choices and the five-way choice can be daunting.

I look at the choice as three deep.
I) Accept or reject
A) Accept
i) See the dummy and Play it yourself
ii) Lay down your hand and let your partner play it (as if you handn't noticed the lead was wrong).
B) Reject
i) Restrict Lead or leave penatly card
a) Restrict Lead
1) Require lead of suit of penalty card (if they have one)
2) Forbid lead of suit of penatly card (as long as they have anything else)
b) Leave Penatly Card
1) Remember that you can change your mind, if lead holds
2) Remember that you have all of the B=Reject options avaiable again, if a penalty card is still unplayed when Opening Leader gets back on lead.

[Bob]

Probably you should add that the player will play next.

> ii) Lay down your hand and let your partner play it (as if you handn't noticed the lead was wrong).
> B) Reject
> i) Restrict Lead or leave penatly card
> a) Restrict Lead
> 1) Require lead of suit of penalty card (if they have one)
> 2) Forbid lead of suit of penatly card (as long as they have anything else)

I think it is important here to say that they are forbidden to lead
the suit for as long as they are on lead.

> b) Leave Penatly Card
> 1) Remember that you can change your mind, if lead holds
> 2) Remember that you have all of the B=Reject options avaiable again, if a penalty card is still unplayed when Opening Leader gets back on lead.

If you are not going to "rattle" off the choices, you probably want to
warn the inexpert player how many choices are coming, to avoid having
them select a choice before you are through.

So it is just a little longer than what you describe. That's my only
point here.

If I do not "rattle" off the choices -- should I describe a choice,
then give declarer chance to think about that choice and what it means
and how it would work given her hand? Maybe 15-30 seconds per choice?
Then, since she is liable to forget the initial choices when she is
thinking about the last ones, I should then review the choices but now
I can rattle them off.

[Bob]

On May 6, 11:41 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I see you didn't answer the question about how frequently face-up
> opening leads are made (out of turn) in the games you direct.  Perhaps
> the man who can not keep order in his own household should not try to
> make rules for others.
>
> Christopher Monsour

My primary concern is that the players enjoy the game. There are good
economic reasons for this. Well, compelling. But I am that way when I
play rubber bridge with my friends or trying to teach my family.

That's my goal here. I am overwhelming some nonexpert with choices. If
it has to be done, it has to be done. But this option is so pointless.
My guess is that they are more likely to make the best choice for
themselves if I left this option out -- it is more like a distractor
than a real option. I am no fan of inefficiency, and this option loses
every efficiency test.

Anyway, you would think the laws are sufficient reward -- face down,
you can take it back if it is an OLOOT. I have tried mentioning that
to the OLOOTer when I make a ruling. I just get dirty stares. More
judiciously, I mentioned it to a player on the cusp of being good who
was ready to learn that. Dirty stare. I mentioned it to my good
friend, thinking it would be taken as a friendly suggestion. Dirty
stare.

I haven't given up on the project. But basically, people are people. I
want to be teammates with them in making the game a happy game for
everyone, and there is only a limited amount of harassing and nagging
that I can do. Shuffling their hand before putting in the board and
not putting their results sheet on the table when they write in
results would have higher priority for me. The kitchen help wish I
would urge them to clean up their trash, and other directors always
tell them to return their board and table cards.

Given that I am allowed to do some "harassing", I actually work on
sitting down when it is game time, turning their cell phones off, not
playing too slow (a biggie), not shouting across the room, and
mediating disputes (e.g., telling someone three times not to discuss
Board #23 so loudly). If they want to lead face up, that is kind of
not one of my big worries.

So that's me. I don't get mad when players revoke. If players foul a
board so the hands don't have the right number of cards, I just
happily fix the problem. I get a lot of face-up OLOOTS. And revokes
and calls out of turn and bad claims. And table cards left on the
table.

I did not respond sooner because I did not (and do not) see how this
is relevant.

[Stu Goodgold]

On Monday, May 7, 2012 8:29:28 AM UTC-7, Bob wrote:
> On May 6, 11:41 pm, Chris xxxxx <mc11001...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I see you didn't answer the question about how frequently face-up
> > opening leads are made (out of turn) in the games you direct.  Perhaps
> > the man who can not keep order in his own household should not try to
> > make rules for others.
> >
> > Christopher Monsour
>
> My primary concern is that the players enjoy the game. There are good
> economic reasons for this. Well, compelling. But I am that way when I
> play rubber bridge with my friends or trying to teach my family.
>
> That's my goal here. I am overwhelming some nonexpert with choices. If
> it has to be done, it has to be done. But this option is so pointless.
> My guess is that they are more likely to make the best choice for
> themselves if I left this option out -- it is more like a distractor
> than a real option. I am no fan of inefficiency, and this option loses
> every efficiency test.
>
> Anyway, you would think the laws are sufficient reward -- face down,
> you can take it back if it is an OLOOT. I have tried mentioning that
> to the OLOOTer when I make a ruling. I just get dirty stares. More
> judiciously, I mentioned it to a player on the cusp of being good who
> was ready to learn that. Dirty stare. I mentioned it to my good
> friend, thinking it would be taken as a friendly suggestion. Dirty
> stare.

Would you get dirty stares if you told them it is a law (41A) to lead face down?

Do you get dirty stares when someone revokes and you tell them there is a law that requires them to follow suit if possible (Law 44C)?

Sounds like a mean bunch of players.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[blackshoe]

On Monday, May 7, 2012 8:27:18 PM UTC-4, Stu Goodgold wrote:

> Do you get dirty stares when someone revokes and you tell them there is a law that requires them to follow suit if possible (Law 44C)?
>
> Sounds like a mean bunch of players.

Or an overly sensitive director.

[Chris xxxxx]

Either way it demolishes the premise of this thread.

As the old saying goes: "Hard cases make bad law."

Christopher Monsour

[David Stevenson]

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.

It is not obvious at all. People are not upset in any way by the
choices, they find it fun, and they are not confused if they are
explained properly.

>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.

The real point is to make an unnecessary change for no reason
whatever.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

Adam Beneschan 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.

No shi ... whoops, sorry. I seem to have spoken out of turn. Do you
get 5 options?

[Paul Hightower]

"Bob" <rfr...@rfrick.info> wrote in message
news:a8022b96-b0ad-44e6...@l7g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

>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.
>

> Bob
>

I see your point; there used to be, in fact, only four options, unless
declarer mistakenly spread his hand. What you are proposing is, in effect,
to replace the usual "accept the infraction" option with the spread-as-dummy
option. That certainly doesn't seem right, and I can't agree with
eliminating the option, consistent throughout the laws, of accepting the
lead out of turn.

If I were playing a gambling slam and RHO led to my void, I can imagine
accepting the lead and looking at dummy before ruffing.

So, we need a a good protocol for explaining these options. I'd suggest
something like: "You may accept or reject the lead. If you accept you have
two further options, if you reject you have three. Would you like to hear
those?" That lets them digest the basic accept-or-reject choice, and then
focus on the sub-options.