Join Bridge Winners
Lead out of turn accepted and then what

Declarer leads the ace of spade from the dummy (the declarer had won the previous trick and this was lead out of turn), the next person follows suit (thus accepting the lead out of turn) and the declarer discards a loser. At the end of the play the defenders find out about the out-of-turn lead. Furthermore, the declarer had no entry to the board and thus gained the advantage of shedding a loser. The director was called who allowed the table result to stand. "Obviously" when a defender follows suit to a lead out of turn, he has accepted the lead and has to live with it.

Is this result allowable under any law? According to the Directors Guild of ACBL (November 2018 Bulletin, "Ruling the Game", page 36), there is indeed a law that covers this situation, law 72C: "If the director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of irregularity that it could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). At the conclusion of the play, the director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity." Based on this law, the Directors Guild concluded that the Director's table ruling was wrong and that the score should have been adjusted.

I wonder how many club directors know about law 72C and under what circumstances to apply this law. I offer an extreme example. I bid one and my LHO bids one . My partner, not realizing that the bid was insufficient, now bids 1 NT (thus accepting the insufficient bid) and eventually becomes declarer in 3 NT. Sure enough his LHO finds a opening lead of a  which holds the contract to nine tricks while all other declarers, without a  lead, are making two overtricks. Obviously the insufficient bid of one  is an irregularity. Does law 72C apply now? One can think of all sorts of irregularities where law 72C might apply.

47 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top