[Hanoi5]

Bidding goes:

2♣-Pa-2♦-X
Pa-Pa-Pa

Dummy leads, the defender tables his hand and 2-3 tricks later somebody notices the mess.

How is this treated?

[barmar]

L.54E: If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 24 applies.

Based on L.24, I believe we revert back to the beginning of the play period, and all of the defenders' cards that have been exposed become major penalty cards, while declarer gets to pick up his cards. However, the cards that declarer and dummy have exposed are AI to the defenders.

[blackshoe]

You can't "revert" to the beginning of the play period, because it hasn't started yet. We're still in the auction period, and all exposed cards were exposed during this period. All defender's exposed card become penalty cards. This means one defender will have two or three PCs, and the other will have thirteen. Dummy and declarer restore their cards to their hands. The correct defender makes the opening lead (subject to whichever laws apply to the penalty cards). This starts the play period, which now proceeds. Question: Is this "normal play of the board"? (See Law 12). If it is, no further rectification. If it is not, Law 12 allows an artificial adjusted score. If you do that, neither pair should get average plus.

[RMB1]

When the real opening leader was to play to trick one, 15 cards had been exposed during the auction period. But real opening leader's play to trick one was a valid opening lead. The play to trick two was legal and as both sides have played to trick two, the cards apparently played to trick one will remain as cards played to trick one. When the wrong dummy is discovered, the correct dummy should be exposed and defender's exposed card are penalty cards (and all thirteen were from trick one). The revoke law may apply to earlier tricks. The law on penalty cards may apply to the last play by defenders, otherwise play continues.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2012-February-22, 16:54, said:

But real opening leader's play to trick one was a valid opening lead.

I don't buy this. What law?

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-22, 17:18, said:

I don't buy this. What law?

Law 41: the opening lead is made by the player on declarer's left; Law 45C: the player has exposed a card and therefore must play it, (regardless of the fact that he subsequently exposed further cards); Law 47: this provides for when cards played can be retracted, and makes clear that it is too late to be retracted even if there were grounds for doing so (which therefore I don't even consider); Absence of any law giving a defender power to accept an opening lead out of turn by the declaring side. So I think it is clear that this card must be played as the opening lead and cannot possibly be retracted. The impossibility of retraction under Law 47 makes it clear that the opening tricks are now tricks and cannot be undone: play has just take place with dummy concealed and illegally directed by declarer's partner, and with a defender's hand exposed and illegally directed by his partner.

So I think RMB's ruling is closer to legal reality than undoing the tricks. Depending exactly where we got to, maybe one or two cards at the end might be retracted, for example if a defender directed his partner's play by sight of the cards.

But I think I would probably use my directorial discretion in the preamble to Law 50 to rule that the 13 cards placed on the table by the defender are not penalty cards, on the grounds that the other side did not call me when they were exposed, but played on; sight of them remains UI to the other defender. Without this, I think the burden of the ruling is too strong on the defending side, when it could be argued that they were led astray.

If the defending side has gained advantage from being able to see and direct their resources in those early tricks, there should be an adjustment.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2012-February-22, 16:54, said:

But real opening leader's play to trick one was a valid opening lead.

I'm not sure about this: we have another situation in the Laws (L45E) where the director decides whether or not a card exposed was a lead. That seems to me to imply that intention is the thing that distinguishes between a lead and a card otherwise exposed, and if so the first card played by the real opening leader was not a lead.

[iviehoff]

gordontd, on 2012-February-23, 03:25, said:

I'm not sure about this: we have another situation in the Laws (L45E) where the director decides whether or not a card exposed was a lead. That seems to me to imply that intention is the thing that distinguishes between a lead and a card otherwise exposed, and if so the first card played by the real opening leader was not a lead.

But nevertheless it must be played and cannot be retracted. It only matters which card is considered the opening lead to the first trick if someone didn't follow suit to the first trick, in which case there may have been a revoke.

[blackshoe]

Cards are played during the play period (see the definitions). We're not in the play period. Those eight cards may have looked like plays, but they weren't. Aside from that, I don't believe 47 says what you think it does. 47A speaks of retracting played cards (if these were played cards) in the course of rectification, and that's what we're during under Law 24, rectifying.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-23, 06:51, said:

We're not in the play period.

I'm not sure I fully understand this. Doesn't the play period commence with a faced opening lead? So if one of the cards "played" is an opening lead (and they were all faced) then surely that kicks off the play period? If you say it wasn't an opening lead because we're not in the play period then surely we can never start the play period on a hand because the opening lead always has to be made outside the play period itself....

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 22B1: The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2 above, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn, then see Law 54.) The interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the clarification period.

The emphasis is mine. That bit makes clear that an "opening lead" faced by declarer or dummy does not end the auction period.

Quote

Law 41C: Following this clarification period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy’s hand is spread (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn).

Quote

Law 54E: If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead, Law 24 applies.

Quote

Law 24: When the director determines that during the auction period because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side. If the offender becomes declarer or dummy, the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender, every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50)…

The rest of Law 24 deals with situations where the auction (as opposed to the auction period) is still live. Here that is not the case.

[WellSpyder]

Thanks, blackshoe. I've nearly caught up with you, I think, but I'm still a bit confused by the section of Law22B1 you highlighted. Why do you think a defender hasn't faced an opening lead? I know neither defender made the first play, and you quote how the law treats the first cards revealed. But what about when we get to a card revealed by the correct opening leader? What is it that prevents that particular play kicking off the play period?

[iviehoff]

(rubbish deleted)

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2012-February-23, 09:07, said:

Thanks, blackshoe. I've nearly caught up with you, I think, but I'm still a bit confused by the section of Law22B1 you highlighted. Why do you think a defender hasn't faced an opening lead? I know neither defender made the first play, and you quote how the law treats the first cards revealed. But what about when we get to a card revealed by the correct opening leader? What is it that prevents that particular play kicking off the play period?

He was not intending to lead, he thought he was following to someone else's lead. And since that someone else was dummy, 54E applies, and then we go to 24. The defender's card is an exposed card, not a lead.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-23, 07:34, said:

The rest of Law 24 deals with situations where the auction (as opposed to the auction period) is still live. Here that is not the case.

I think you may have overlooked parts of Law 24 that are potentially important. Here is the whole of Law 24.

When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side. If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50), then:
A. Low Card Not Prematurely Led
If it is a single card below the rank of an honour and not prematurely led, there is no further rectification.
B. Single Card of Honour Rank or Card Prematurely Led
If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card prematurely led offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side).
C. Two or More Cards are Exposed
If two or more cards are so exposed offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side).

Suppose you expose a card during the auction, due to your own error, and then you are on lead at the end of the auction. Law 24A and 24B make clear that if it is a small card, you don't have to lead it, but if it is an honour, you must now lead it. If you expose 2 or more cards, then the privilege of Law 24A is lost, and you will have to lead one of the cards, according to the law on penalty cards.

Now we first need to decide whether this law applies at all. Did the player expose cards due to his own error? I think so. He exposed them because he thought he was playing to a trick, which he wasn't, and the no one was under any duty to point this out to him, so I think that is his own error. I think he could only claim he was not in error if he had explicitly asked the opposition what was going on and they had misadvised him.

So I think it is now clear that if the first card exposed by the player on declarer's (edit) left was an honour card, he must lead it as the opening lead. The business about leading face down and having a clarification period is lost because the card is already exposed, so in fact the card is immediately led and the auction period is immediately over at that point; after that point there are no further cards exposed in the auction period. We don't need someone explicitly to say "because that card must be led the auction period is over" to make the auction period over. The tricks cannot be undone.

If it is a small card that is the first card exposed by the player on declarer's left, then if he had caught it at this point he would have had a claim to say he hasn't led and doesn't have to lead that card, because it was a small card exposed in the auction period. But he went on to expose a second card, at which point I think that argument is lost. Now neither card is a minor penalty card and one of them must be led. Now in theory with two penalty cards the opposition has the right to choose which one he leads, but I think they have lost that right by playing on, they implicitly selected the first one exposed. So with two cards exposed by the player intended to lead, and one of them implicitly selected by the declaring side, I think we have got into the play period. The tricks cannot be undone.

[mjj29]

gordontd, on 2012-February-23, 03:25, said:

I'm not sure about this: we have another situation in the Laws (L45E) where the director decides whether or not a card exposed was a lead. That seems to me to imply that intention is the thing that distinguishes between a lead and a card otherwise exposed, and if so the first card played by the real opening leader was not a lead.

So, how about dummy 'leads' everyone else 'follows', with one of the defenders 'winning' the 'trick' (since neither defender intended to lead, these are all in the auction period). Now, the defender with the highest exposed card in the auction period leads to the next trick. Is this now the faced opening lead? They definitely _intended_ to lead...

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2012-February-23, 10:56, said:

I think you may have overlooked parts of Law 24 that are potentially important.
[snip]
So I think it is now clear that if the first card exposed by the player on declarer's right was an honour card, he must lead it as the opening lead. The business about leading face down and having a clarification period is lost because the card is already exposed, so in fact the card is immediately led and the auction period is immediately over at that point; after that point there are no further cards exposed in the auction period. We don't need someone explicitly to say "because that card must be led the auction period is over" to make the auction period over. The tricks cannot be undone.

Not relevant to this case, unless the player in question, in facing his entire hand as supposed dummy, put the first one down all by itself, a situation I think is unlikely at best.

iviehoff, on 2012-February-23, 10:56, said:

If it is a small card that is the first card exposed by the player on declarer's left, then if he had caught it at this point he would have had a claim to say he hasn't led and doesn't have to lead that card, because it was a small card exposed in the auction period. But he went on to expose a second card, at which point I think that argument is lost. Now neither card is a minor penalty card and one of them must be led. Now in theory with two penalty cards the opposition has the right to choose which one he leads, but I think they have lost that right by playing on, they implicitly selected the first one exposed. So with two cards exposed by the player intended to lead, and one of them implicitly selected by the declaring side, I think we have got into the play period. The tricks cannot be undone.

I disagree. First, "he has a claim" to say whatever he likes; it's up to the TD to decide how to apply the law. And as I said, we aren't in the play period, and I don't see how we can legally get there, whatever reason people had for exposing their cards during the auction period.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-23, 22:48, said:

Not relevant to this case, unless the player in question, in facing his enter hand as supposed dummy, put the first one down all by itself, a situation I think is unlikely at best.

Sorry I meant "left". Fixed.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-23, 22:48, said:

I disagree. First, "he has a claim" to say whatever he likes; it's up to the TD to decide how to apply the law. And as I said, we aren't in the play period, and I don't see how we can legally get there, whatever reason people had for exposing their cards during the auction period.

Apologies for using language colloquially. For "he has a claim" read "the director would have a case to rule".

Once a player has exposed a card that must be led, it must be led, and I do not think you can say that you are in the auction period after that.

[blackshoe]

So a defender who happens to be the putative opening leader puts a card down on the table, and willy-nilly he must lead it, regardless of the circumstances? I don't think so.

Apparently neither of us is going to convince the other to change his mind, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.