Page 1 of 1
confusion
#1
Posted 2012-April-05, 12:06
I am relaying a situation that happened at a local club recently.
There is an auction to some contract. The player who is supposed to be declarer puts an opening lead face down on the table and asks if there are any questions. There are none so he faces his lead, and his LHO who is supposed to be on lead puts his hand face up on the table as dummy. The players then realize what has happened and call the director. What should be done?
There is an auction to some contract. The player who is supposed to be declarer puts an opening lead face down on the table and asks if there are any questions. There are none so he faces his lead, and his LHO who is supposed to be on lead puts his hand face up on the table as dummy. The players then realize what has happened and call the director. What should be done?
"What's the big rebid problem? After 1♦ - 1♠, I can rebid 1NT, 2♠, or 2♦."
- billw55
- billw55
#3
Posted 2012-April-05, 12:29
CSGibson, on 2012-April-05, 12:11, said:
13 penalty cards, declarer calls them as he sees fit.
Initially that is the correct ruling, but I have second thoughts:
Proposed declarer clearly committed an irregularity with his initial action, thereby triggering the confusion, and I am tempted to apply Law 23 here:
Law 23 said:
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.
Declarer could very well "have been aware that his action could well damage opponents", so I would probably use my authority to rule that none of the exposed cards are penalty cards but shall be picked up, and that normal play of the board shall be attempted.
If eventually it becomes apparent that normal play cannot be carried out I would then award an artificial score considering both sides to be (at least partly) at fault.
#4
Posted 2012-April-05, 13:12
I think you need the "unless declarer designates otherwise" bit in Law 50, too, for that ruling.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#5
Posted 2012-April-05, 13:13
This could be the greatest coup I have ever seen, depending on the ruling.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#6
Posted 2012-April-05, 13:57
blackshoe, on 2012-April-05, 13:12, said:
I think you need the "unless declarer designates otherwise" bit in Law 50, too, for that ruling.
Sure.
That is precisely what I implied when writing: so I would probably use my authority to rule that none of the exposed cards are penalty cards but shall be picked up
#8
Posted 2012-April-06, 03:14
pran, on 2012-April-05, 13:57, said:
Sure.
That is precisely what I implied when writing: so I would probably use my authority to rule that none of the exposed cards are penalty cards but shall be picked up
That is precisely what I implied when writing: so I would probably use my authority to rule that none of the exposed cards are penalty cards but shall be picked up
If you used this authority, would knowledge of this defender's cards be authorised or unauthorised to (i) the other defender; (ii) declarer? If authorised information to both, declarer and one of the defenders will be playing the hand double dummy. Will your judgement of "normal play" depend on whether declarer takes a normal (single dummy) line rather than a double dummy line (and the other defender, similarly)?
#9
Posted 2012-April-06, 04:10
jallerton, on 2012-April-06, 03:14, said:
If you used this authority, would knowledge of this defender's cards be authorised or unauthorised to (i) the other defender; (ii) declarer? If authorised information to both, declarer and one of the defenders will be playing the hand double dummy. Will your judgement of "normal play" depend on whether declarer takes a normal (single dummy) line rather than a double dummy line (and the other defender, similarly)?
I would eventually rule that normal play was impossible if I find that any player had taken a (successful) line of play apparently selected because of premature knowledge of the 14 exposed cards.
In other words: I consider all information from the premature exposures UI until the cards are faced in a regular way.
Page 1 of 1