February 2008 - 38

Ruling the Game
sions. "It is improper to request this
inspection unless it is desired for
the player's own information."
May I have the official ACBL
position on this issue?

Mike Flader
Associate National
Tournament Director
rulings@acbl.org
I need a clarification about something that happened at a recent
club game.
I was declaring a contract and
on the third trick, my right-hand
opponent asked to see all the cards
played to that trick after he had
turned his own card face down.
(My card was already face down,
as was dummy's, but LHO still had
his card face up.) The director was
called and ruled that as long as any
player had not turned their card
face down, RHO was entitled to see
the cards of that trick.
This is not, however, what Law
66A says. It reads, "Current Trick:
So long as his side has not led or
played to the next trick, declarer or
either defender may, until he has
turned his own card face down on
the table, require that all cards just
played to the trick be faced."
RHO definitely had turned his
card face down. Nor do I believe
that LHO should be able to make
this request to aid his partner. This
is not directly covered in the Laws,
but it is covered in Duplicate Deci38

If RHO has already turned his card
over, you are correct: He may not now
ask that the other quitted cards be exposed again, per Law 66A (Inspection
of Tricks).
For LHO to make this request for
partner would constitute unauthorized information. It also violates
Law 73B1 (Gratuitous Information).
Laws 74 (Conduct and Etiquette) and
90 (Procedural Penalties) give the
director broad discretionary powers in
assessing procedural penalties.
While the director at your table may
have ruled in what he believed to be
the spirit of the game, your description, if accurate, does not sound as if
he made a lawful decision.
I am a director and I have a
question about "spectators." In two
recent games (of which I was not
the director), an idle pair pulled
their chairs up to a table with
boards in play that they had already
played. Without asking permission,
they kibitzed the pair playing in the
same direction that the spectators
themselves had played them.
Nothing strange happened, but
in this case it's certainly possible.
Law 11B (Forfeiture of the Right
to Penalize; Irregularity Called
by Spectator) refers to the calling
of an irregularity "by a spectator
for whose presence at the table the
offending or non-offending side is
responsible."
Should a pair watch the play of
another pair without being invited
to do so? Also, does a participating
pair qualify as a "spectator" according to the Laws?
Technically, this is an irregularity
since pairs are not supposed to compare scores achieved at other tables

on boards they have already played,
but in practice, if the pairs being
kibitzed have no objection, it should
be allowed in club games which we
hope have a more relaxed attitude.
The word "spectator" is not defined
in the Laws. It refers to someone who
is watching but who is not otherwise
involved in the outcome. Clearly, Law
11 could apply if they point out an
irregularity.
Also, if the spectators noticed
something about the opponents' hands
that would have influenced the result
at their table on a previous round, (a
revoke, for example), they could not
ask that a penalty be applied per Law
64. (They would, however, still be
entitled to the protections afforded by
Law 64C.)
This week, one of our club players
made the opening lead when he was
declarer! I presume his opening
lead was preceded by a competitive
auction and he did not see that his
partner had "outbid" the opponents, making him the declarer.
Anyway, I ruled that declarer
could not make the opening lead
and as a consequence, neither opponent could exercise the option to
accept the lead as they could have if
the lead occurred during the play of
the hand.
One of the opponents, also a club
director, felt there is an option
available to the defenders to accept
declarer's "opening lead."
Am I correct that declarer's play
is null and void? Is there a rule
covering this situation?
According to Law 53A (Lead Out
of Turn Accepted), "Any lead faced
out of turn may be treated as a correct
lead."
Thus, the declarer can make the
opening lead out of turn, and his opponents may choose to accept the lead
or to require its retraction per Law 55
(Declarer's Lead Out Of Turn).
r
Bridge Bulletin
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of February 2008
