[swanway]

English Bridge Union

This incident happened recently in our club. I was playing North. It was the last round. We had just played the first board and the cards had been returned to the board. I turned over the top card in my hand which is our normal procedure to show that the board was finished. Unfortunately the card I exposed was from the next board to be played.

The card exposed was the 10D. This is where we need your guidance. South my partner was prevented from bidding for one round (Law 24). Not sure about this because the card was exposed before the auction period had started. Does taking one card from the board constitute being in the auction period or are you required to remove the whole hand? West became declarer in 3NT and North was on lead. The next part we are not sure about. North has now got a major penalty card and has to make the opening lead. Does the opening lead have to be the 10D or can declarer prevent this card from being played? We think he can prevent it.

[RMB1]

I do not think the ♦10 is exposed during the auction period.

Instead I think it is covered by Law 16C1 "... or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, ...". The TD has to decide if sight of ♦10 could interfere with normal play and rule according to Law 16C2.

If the ♦10 was exposed after partner had looked at his own cards and someone had called, then there would be bidding and lead penalties as you suggest: partner must pass once and ♦10 is a penalty card to be played at the first legal opportunity, including the opening lead.

[axman]

swanway, on 2011-December-31, 01:58, said:

English Bridge Union

This incident happened recently in our club. I was playing North. It was the last round. We had just played the first board and the cards had been returned to the board. I turned over the top card in my hand which is our normal procedure to show that the board was finished. Unfortunately the card I exposed was from the next board to be played.

The card exposed was the 10D. This is where we need your guidance. South my partner was prevented from bidding for one round (Law 24). Not sure about this because the card was exposed before the auction period had started. Does taking one card from the board constitute being in the auction period or are you required to remove the whole hand? West became declarer in 3NT and North was on lead. The next part we are not sure about. North has now got a major penalty card and has to make the opening lead. Does the opening lead have to be the 10D or can declarer prevent this card from being played? We think he can prevent it.

North took his side's card[s] from the board to be played, the auction period for his side has begun. L17A. Subsequently, the DT was exposed- thus during the auction period.

North's PC must be played at the first legal opportunityu which in this case is OL. [EW were a bit silly to bid a contractr that 'depended on' preventing the lead f the DT as they had seen the DT al during the auction <g>]

Personally, I never liked players that boxed a card while a session was in progress- it seemed that if there was some reason like a late play that the board might be fouled because of it.

[blackshoe]

One card is not "cards". Axman's interpretation of Law 17A is incorrect.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-31, 10:20, said:

One card is not "cards". Axman's interpretation of Law 17A is incorrect.

Come on! This is lawyering.

Would you rule that the auction period has begun for a side if a player on that side has removed twelve of his cards from the board? (What if the thirteenth card was missing in the board?)

What if he removed just two of his cards?

Why not suggest for your comfort that Law 17 be rewritten to say: The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws any of his cards from the board.

I assume the rest of us are comfortable with the reasonable understanding that the auction period begins for a side as soon as either partner has begun removing his cards from the board?

[blackshoe]

I read what the law says. I rule accordingly, unless I'm told by proper authority to do something else.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-December-31, 12:10, said:

Come on! This is lawyering.

What do you mean by that? Ed and Robin have made the obvious interpretation of the Law, so while you are free to disagree with them, wrongly in my view, not by calling it "lawyering", please.

If you take some cards out, obviously intending to take some more, you have removed your cards from the board.

If you merely remove the top card and turn it up you have not removed your cards from the board.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-31, 10:20, said:

One card is not "cards". Axman's interpretation of Law 17A is incorrect.

As is his understanding of the word "subsequently".

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-December-31, 13:47, said:

What do you mean by that? Ed and Robin have made the obvious interpretation of the Law, so while you are free to disagree with them, wrongly in my view, not by calling it "lawyering", please.

If you take some cards out, obviously intending to take some more, you have removed your cards from the board.

If you merely remove the top card and turn it up you have not removed your cards from the board.

And if you are taking two cards out, obviously intending to box them (because you think the board is finished)?

Or, as I have seen: If the pløayer takes all thirteen cards out boxing them because the board was completed, only it wasn't?

Law 17A in my book says nothing about intent, obvious or not.

OH, now I see: I may take just the first of my cards from the board, even look at it, and then remember that I need to discuss some agreement with my partner. As the auction period has not yet begun for my side (I haven't removed cards) I am free to do just that!???

[blackshoe]

Now who's "lawyering"?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-31, 17:07, said:

Now who's "lawyering"?

Me, absolutely and deliberately.

Incidentally I came to think about it:

Law 17A says: The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board, it doesn't say some of his cards, at least one of his cards or use words with similar effect.

According to what I learned in Grammar school "his cards" means the complete set of all his thirteen cards, a subset does not "qualify".

So if we are to take Law 17A literally without any consideration on what is the (obvious?) intention then the auction period doesn't begin until either player withdraws the last of his thirteen cards from the board!

BTW: we have crossed midnight here so a happy New Year to you!

[barmar]

The thing that bugs me about this is that it hinges so much on which hand he took the card from. If North boxes a card from the North slot in the board, it could be considered the start of the auction period, because he's started withdrawing his cards. But if instead he boxes a card from one of the other slots, it's a card exposed before the auction period.

I think we know the difference between withdrawing cards from the board and boxing a card because you think the board is done for the evening. It's not dependent on how many cards you pull out of the slot (some people just flip a single card, some flip the entire hand). When you're withdrawing cards, you take them out of the board, start looking at them, sorting them, etc.; you don't just blindly turn them over and put them back in the board.

I find it hard to believe that the Lawmakers intended this Law to be applied by simply interpreting all actions of taking cards out of the board as equivalent. We're reasonable people, we can make obvious distinctions like this.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-January-01, 00:42, said:

We're reasonable people

Where on earth did you get that idea from?

[campboy]

barmar, on 2012-January-01, 00:42, said:

The thing that bugs me about this is that it hinges so much on which hand he took the card from. If North boxes a card from the North slot in the board, it could be considered the start of the auction period, because he's started withdrawing his cards. But if instead he boxes a card from one of the other slots, it's a card exposed before the auction period.

Why should it not hinge on which hand he takes the card from? It makes sense to me that there is a difference between exposing a card partner shouldn't be able to see and exposing a card neither you nor your partner should be able to see.

I do, however, agree that the auction period has not begun and this should be dealt with under 16C. But then, supposing we allow play to continue, to whom is the exposed card UI?

[barmar]

campboy, on 2012-January-01, 04:43, said:

But then, supposing we allow play to continue, to whom is the exposed card UI?

If we allow play to continue, we might as well treat it as if the card had been exposed during the auction period.

[campboy]

barmar, on 2012-January-01, 18:44, said:

If we allow play to continue, we might as well treat it as if the card had been exposed during the auction period.

Whether or not it would be advisable for the TD to allow play to continue, he is entitled to do so (16C2c). He is not entitled to treat it as if the card had been exposed during the auction period, since it wasn't.

[swanway]

Thank you for replying to my questions. However, could you clarify the following.

Let's say that we are in the auction period and North drops the KS by accident. This would mean that his partner cannot call for one round. If West becomes declarer in 3NT and North is on lead can East prevent North from playing the KS?

[RMB1]

swanway, on 2012-January-02, 08:37, said:

Let's say that we are in the auction period and North drops the KS by accident. This would mean that his partner cannot call for one round. If West becomes declarer in 3NT and North is on lead can East prevent North from playing the KS?

No. Law 24 says ♠K becomes a penalty card, Law 50B says it is major, Law 50D1a says "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping."