[Vampyr]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-08, 18:20, said:

FYP

Er... thanks but I was hoping that my word would be the opposite of "irrelevent", which appeared in the post I was replying to.

Quote

This is what I am trying to ascertain in my latest posts here, or more specifically, what is the purpose of the law and its relevance to the opening lead.

But this time I'll just fix it instead of making fun.

[gnasher]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-08, 17:57, said:

Errr yeah, I know the laws says that a face down lead is a lead. What I am trying to ascertain is why does this law exist, why shouldn't I put the card back it my hand and lead another card?

Once you have led face-down, your partner is allowed to ask questions about the auction. Those questions can convey unauthorised information which might influence your lead. Even if partner doesn't ask any questions, that might convey unauthorised information. Other things being equal, reducing opportunities to misuse UI is a good thing.

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2012-May-09, 01:51, said:

Once you have led face-down, your partner is allowed to ask questions about the auction. Those questions can convey unauthorised information which might influence your lead. Even if partner doesn't ask any questions, that might convey unauthorised information. Other things being equal, reducing opportunities to misuse UI is a good thing.

Partner is also allowed to ask questions at his turn to play after the opening lead and dummy's cards have been faced.

But the important difference is that if misinformation by (presumed) declaring side is revealed before any card has been faced then the last call (pass) by defending side may (on certain conditions) be withdrawn and the auction resumed with even the possible result that the other side eventually becomes declaring!

This option no longer exists once the opening lead and/or any of dummy's cards has been faced.

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2012-May-09, 02:08, said:

Partner is also allowed to ask questions at his turn to play after the opening lead and dummy's cards have been faced.

But the important difference is that if misinformation by (presumed) declaring side is revealed before any card has been faced then the last call (pass) by defending side may (on certain conditions) be withdrawn and the auction resumed with even the possible result that the other side eventually becomes declaring!

This option no longer exists once the opening lead and/or any of dummy's cards has been faced.

I don't see how any of that bears upon Jillybean's question, which was "why does this law exist, why shouldn't I put the card back it my hand and lead another card?"

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2012-May-09, 02:33, said:

I don't see how any of that bears upon Jillybean's question, which was "why does this law exist, why shouldn't I put the card back it my hand and lead another card?"

Anticipation of the counter-argument that the other defender can ask after dummy has been faced.

[blackshoe]

If Jilly wants to know "why?" in the philosophical sense, I think others have shown good reason for it. If she wants to know in the historical sense ("how did we get to this point, where leads are made face down?") well, I haven't been around long enough to know. I suspect though that long ago face up leads caused some problems, and this is how the lawmakers decided to fix those problems. So the historical and the philosophical are intertwined.

[jillybean]

 gnasher, on 2012-May-09, 01:51, said:

Once you have led face-down, your partner is allowed to ask questions about the auction. Those questions can convey unauthorised information which might influence your lead. Even if partner doesn't ask any questions, that might convey unauthorised information. Other things being equal, reducing opportunities to misuse UI is a good thing.

I understand that, thank you. Does the fact that putting a card back in my hand and selecting another could give partner the information that perhaps I had an alternate lead and changed my mind have no relevance?

A lot of this discussion has been around 'when is the opening lead deemed to have been made'? I have no doubt that the first card played was the opening lead to this hand and am suprised it is the focus of attention. However, if the act of removing a card and then putting it back in your hand before the opening lead creates potential UI for your partner (other than sorting your cards, the act of rotating cards before selecting a lead, or accidently droppping a card on the table)
then how far the card is removed from the hand or how long it is held face down on the table is irrelevant.

I asked this back in post #31 and I have not received an answer.

[Zelandakh]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-09, 08:02, said:

I understand that, thank you. Does the fact that putting a card back in my hand and selecting another could give partner the information that perhaps I had an alternate lead and changed my mind have no relevance?

How does this have more relevance than being on lead during the play and taking a card out of your fan, holding it ready to play and then returning it and selecting another card? What matters is when the card is considered played and whether the partner uses any UI that they receive.

[c_corgi]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-09, 08:02, said:

I understand that, thank you. Does the fact that putting a card back in my hand and selecting another could give partner the information that perhaps I had an alternate lead and changed my mind have no relevance?

It could suggest more than one card he would like to lead, or that he had no card he felt comfortable leading at all. Taking a long time to decide which card to lead transmits the same inferences, so I doubt that this problem relates to UI from changing the lead.

[barmar]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-08, 17:57, said:

Errr yeah, I know the laws says that a face down lead is a lead. What I am trying to ascertain is why does this law exist, why shouldn't I put the card back it my hand and lead another card?

I think this law is just trying to specify correct procedure, not protect against any specific type of damage. It's simply an instruction to do all your thinking before placing the card on the table. It seems similar to chess's touch-move rule.

Maybe someone can come up with UI that's transmitted by changing the face-down card, but I have a hard time. It seems to me that the same UI would be transmitted simply from taking longer to come up with the lead in the first place. Nor does it seem likely that his partner could have done something to influence his change of lead.

Of course, changing the card after getting the answer to "Any questions, partner?" is different. At this point one could imagine that the response (even a simple "No") could influence the lead, and it would be inappropriate to allow it to be changed.

Perhaps the law was written this way simply to provide a simple threshold after which the lead can't be changed, rather than using this question as the deadline.

[TimG]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-08, 16:55, said:

I didn't ask the right question, let me try again
Why shouldn't the opening leader detach a card, place it face down, or nearly face down, put it back in her hand and then detach another before making her opening lead?

Yes, this could transmit unauthorized information that opening leader has more than one viable lead, or doubt about the actual lead. This unauthorized information is also available when OL detaches a card and puts it back in her hand without tabling it.

Consider the OL of a singleton. If OL detaches a card, replaces it, and then selects another lead, OL's partner can be pretty sure that OL is not leading a singleton and looking for a ruff. Again, this would apply whether or not the lead hit the table.

I think you make a valid point that the detaching is probably more important than the hitting the table. I thought I read a rule, or maybe a guideline, in ACBL recently that a detached OL is the same as a tabled face down OL, that is, OL cannot change his mind unless it is without pause for thought as in a mechanical error of pulling the wrong card.

[blackshoe]

 TimG, on 2012-May-09, 08:30, said:

I thought I read a rule, or maybe a guideline, in ACBL recently that a detached OL is the same as a tabled face down OL, that is, OL cannot change his mind unless it is without pause for thought as in a mechanical error of pulling the wrong card.

Without a reference, it's difficult to say what impact this thought of yours may have on rulings in North America. Absent some indication that this is indeed how the ACBL wants us to interpret the law, I'm sticking with this: the lead is not made until it is on the table (Law 41A).

[TimG]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-09, 08:52, said:

Without a reference, it's difficult to say what impact this thought of yours may have on rulings in North America. Absent some indication that this is indeed how the ACBL wants us to interpret the law, I'm sticking with this: the lead is not made until it is on the table (Law 41A).

Indeed. I can't find reference. I was hoping my comment would spark someone else's memory.

[jillybean]

Ah ok, I have always been very careful to choose my lead before detaching a card. If it makes no difference if I detach a card or not then I can do more thinking with a card in my hand and simply put it back if I change my mind.

The law may be better written as:
A face-down lead may be withdrawn only before the question period or upon
instruction of the Director after an irregularity

[blackshoe]

Law 41A notwithstanding, it is good practice to do your thinking before you choose your card, so I'd be leery of choosing and then thinking, even if you're sure you won't run into problems doing so.

[jillybean]

 TimG, on 2012-May-09, 08:30, said:

I think you make a valid point that the detaching is probably more important than the hitting the table. I thought I read a rule, or maybe a guideline, in ACBL recently that a detached OL is the same as a tabled face down OL, that is, OL cannot change his mind unless it is without pause for thought as in a mechanical error of pulling the wrong card.

Phew, a voice of reason . This seems to be most sensible way of applying the law.

[mycroft]

Jillybean, if all you wanted was agreement with your opinion, that's fine. I won't get into that issue.

However, if you want a real reason as to why, I think it's simply 'hysterical raisins' - i.e. that's just the way they decided to word it when they brought in face-down opening leads. There needs to be a point (well, there doesn't, really, but the lawmakers chose to put in a point) where the lead, even though not seen by anyone, has been made.

As for the UI from pulling a card, putting it back, taking another, vs. putting a lead face-down and pulling it back, to lead another - sure, that's the same, and the TD should be called on the UI, if you think it may be relevant. But that's *another issue* to whether the lead's been made and *is allowed to be* changed. We deal with UI all the time.

As a companion case, the ACBL has regulations on when a bid is made using bidding boxes. Much of the world thinks our regulation is hugely inappropriately friendly to the "bidder" (it was written that way to get people comfortable with bidding boxes. I think we can say now that everyone is at least as comfortable with boxes as with spoken bidding, and no longer do we need to be generous about "this new tool"; but it hasn't been considered important enough to change), and the UI implications from "that bid hasn't been made" are many and often. BUT - when it's in position X, even though everyone who was watching knows what it was, it wasn't made, and can be "changed", passing lots of UI; when it's in position Y, it was, and can't be changed save for "inadvertent call". Where the line is, is a matter of regulation or law.

If the TD, after questioning and perhaps seeing with demonstrations, judges that the original face-down card was led, then that's one case. If he (in this case) judges that it was not led, then it's another case. That's his job, and he does it to the best of his ability. Barring video replay of every table, and *lots* of niggling corner-case regulation, you're going to get that, and you're going to get "wrong" rulings occasionally (which look "obviously right" to the other side).

[PeterAlan]

 jillybean, on 2012-May-08, 12:15, said:

What is the purpose of this sentence in law41A "The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity" ?

I suspect the answer is really quite simple - there needs to be a way of determining when you have actually made your lead. It's not sufficient to say "when you turn it over" because there needs to be a Clarification Period first. And how do we know when the Clarification Period begins if you're free to change your selected face-down lead? The only alternative would be to allow you to faff around, changing your face-down card at will, and finally announce "I'm ready [at last]" or some such mechanism for embarking on the Clarification Period. This obviously would be unsatisfactory for all sorts of reasons (including all the UI you could transmit), so it's best to go with a straightforward "you make one choice and take it from there".

[Zelandakh]

 PeterAlan, on 2012-May-09, 18:32, said:

and finally announce "I'm ready [at last]"

"Any questions partner?" is traditional where I come from. The current Law does not support this as the beginning of the Clarification Period, it begins when the faced down lead is made. I have not personally found any problems with the Law as it stands other than, occasionally, a player putting their lead back in their hand when partner does ask a question.

[PeterAlan]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-May-10, 01:15, said:

"Any questions partner?" is traditional where I come from.

As it is here. The idea was to highlight the contrast between current practice and what would have to apply in a different scenario ("The only alternative ...") - I'm sorry if the differentiation didn't come across clearly enough for you.