[pran]

jallerton, on 2013-August-29, 16:31, said:

You suggest starting with Laws 9B and 11A, but which Laws do you use after those?

IMHO these laws justify

pran, on 2013-August-25, 14:26, said:

[...]
The whole situation appears to me caused by lack of attention, more or less by all four players, and the best ruling seems then to be that they play out the contract in 2♦ N

(Had East not faced his "opening lead" we would have had a clear Law 24C case.)

This post has been edited by pran: 2013-August-30, 01:28

[StevenG]

Am I missing something here?

If West hasn't passed, then the auction period hasn't ended. How then can any cards be played? Doesn't Pran's solution require a ruling that West has passed? If so, how do you get there, when West has not pulled out a little green card to make three in a row?

[gnasher]

StevenG, on 2013-August-30, 07:50, said:

Am I missing something here?

If West hasn't passed, then the auction period hasn't ended. How then can any cards be played? Doesn't Pran's solution require a ruling that West has passed? If so, how do you get there, when West has not pulled out a little green card to make three in a row?

East has led a card during the auction. Therefore West is forced to pass at his next turn. When he does that, the auction will end and East will be obliged to lead his exposed card.

[pran]

StevenG, on 2013-August-30, 07:50, said:

Am I missing something here?

If West hasn't passed, then the auction period hasn't ended. How then can any cards be played? Doesn't Pran's solution require a ruling that West has passed? If so, how do you get there, when West has not pulled out a little green card to make three in a row?

Technically we do not know exactly what happened at the table, but apparently all the other three players assumed that West had acted in a way essentially meaning that he passed.

The first severe irregularity (according to the description by Jallerton) was South facing his cards as Dummy before any opening lead had been made. So far we have a Law 24C irregularity.

But when East subsequently faced his "opening lead" this was a second severe irregularity, now by the other side.

The laws generally leave the task of resolving such situations to the Director as best he can, with the main objective to have the players play bridge if at all possible.

Here the Director (IMHO) has the choice either letting the board be played in 2♦N or ruling that it has been destroyed beyond repair and award Ave- to both sides. I prefer the former unless circumstances unknown to us show that the board was indeed destroyed by the irregularities.

[campboy]

StevenG, on 2013-August-30, 07:50, said:

If West hasn't passed, then the auction period hasn't ended. How then can any cards be played? Doesn't Pran's solution require a ruling that West has passed? If so, how do you get there, when West has not pulled out a little green card to make three in a row?

In the EBU there is a relevant regulation.

White Book 2013 said:

Some players do not always complete the auction properly by laying a pass card on the table in the pass out seat. Usually this does not cause a problem. When a player acts in such a way as to indicate they have passed and an opening lead is faced they have passed. An action may be deemed by the TD to be a pass in the pass out seat (e.g. general ‘waft’ of the hand, tapping cards already there, picking up the cards).

[barmar]

campboy, on 2013-August-30, 08:52, said:

In the EBU there is a relevant regulation.

Except that West says he didn't do anything like that. East started leading before West did anything. Then his reaction to East's face-down lead (slapping the table and pointing out that it's not East's lead) was somehow misunderstood as one of these implied passes.

[ahydra]

Well we do seem to be forced into playing 2D by N one way or another: either if we apply Law 24C (to both South and East), where West is forced to pass because East has exposed a card, or if we just want to play bridge. I can't see a way we can rule in which West gets another call that isn't pass.

ahydra

[gordontd]

pran, on 2013-August-30, 08:12, said:

Here the Director (IMHO) has the choice either letting the board be played in 2♦N or ruling that it has been destroyed beyond repair and award Ave- to both sides.

I don't see that he has such a choice: there were cards exposed during the auction period and a law that tells us what happens in those circumstances. So we apply the law, West and North are barred from bidding, and the contract becomes 2D by North with East's exposed card as the lead. Nothing that I can see would lead to the conclusion that the board had been destroyed beyond repair.

[campboy]

barmar, on 2013-August-30, 09:06, said:

Except that West says he didn't do anything like that. East started leading before West did anything. Then his reaction to East's face-down lead (slapping the table and pointing out that it's not East's lead) was somehow misunderstood as one of these implied passes.

No, even according to the EW version of events, West did do something before East started leading: he wrote down a contract on his scorecard, which the other players interpreted as an indication that he was passing.

Please note that I did not say whether I believe the TD should rule that there has been a pass in this instance. I merely said the regulation was "relevant", and I think it is undeniably relevant to StevenG's question which I was answering. If the TD were to rule that West had passed, this would be the legal basis for doing so.

FWIW the original case which caused mjj29 to propose the regulation was iirc one where a player in the passout seat put his bidding cards away believing the auction to be already over, and the other players assumed he had passed.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2013-August-30, 10:53, said:

I don't see that he has such a choice: there were cards exposed during the auction period and a law that tells us what happens in those circumstances. So we apply the law, West and North are barred from bidding, and the contract becomes 2D by North with East's exposed card as the lead. Nothing that I can see would lead to the conclusion that the board had been destroyed beyond repair.

That is a matter of the Director's judgement after learning all the facts (which we haven't).

From what we have been told here I wouldn't rule that the board was destroyed, but some years ago I came into a discussion at the Norwegian bridge festival where some of the Directors on duty voted for ruling destroyed board in a somewhat similar situation.

Obviously opinions may differ when we have to rely on judgements.