[lamford]

 pran, on 2020-August-17, 02:04, said:

The Director made one major error: He didn't wait until the conclusion of the auction before using Law 24D or Law 24E.
Alternatively
if the auction was already concluded at the time he was called to the table he apparently failed to realize the importance of the fact that the irregularity was committed by a player before that player became (in this case) a defender.

Having read the various tales from this club I consider either of these errors excusable, but I cannot understand using such an ignorant AC?

I would suggest you re-read the OP. OO stated:

"OK, that means that your partner is silenced, CC, and if you become a defender there will be further penalties; and the fact that SB originally selected pass is UI to RR."

"Everyone passed, and now SB did OO's job for him." Although it should have been OO dealing with the premature lead, not SB (for which he was fined 3 IMPs), he had waited until the auction ended.

I suggest that the following may be of interest to you:
https://www.youtube....h?v=lccrmYjBWGU

jhenrikj may also benefit, as he thought this was a LOOT!

[pran]

 lamford, on 2020-August-17, 02:22, said:

I would suggest you re-read the OP. OO stated:

"OK, that means that your partner is silenced, CC, and if you become a defender there will be further penalties; and the fact that SB originally selected pass is UI to RR."

"Everyone passed, and now SB did OO's job for him." Although it should have been OO dealing with the premature lead, not SB (for which he was fined 3 IMPs), he had waited until the auction ended.

I suggest that the following may be of interest to you:
https://www.youtube....h?v=lccrmYjBWGU

jhenrikj may also benefit, as he thought this was a LOOT!

You never fail to surprise with your ignorance:

The state at the conclusion of the auction is:

North is declarer in the contract: 3NT XX
West has a major penalty card: ♣6
East has the opening lead but must await the decision by North on his selection among the alternatives specified in Law 50D2.

Do you think that you are able to sort out the correct ruling further from there on?

[lamford]

 pran, on 2020-August-17, 04:00, said:

You never fail to surprise with your ignorance:

The state at the conclusion of the auction is:

North is declarer in the contract: 3NT XX
West has a major penalty card: ♣6
East has the opening lead but must await the decision by North on his selection among the alternatives specified in Law 50D2.

Do you think that you are able to sort out the correct ruling further from there on?

You never fail to surprise with your ignorance:

The state at the conclusion of the auction is:

South is declarer in the contract: 3NT XX
West has a major penalty card: ♣6
West has the opening lead and he is told by the director that the six of clubs is a MPC and must be led (as it has already been led). The next question is what to tell South and East about the disposition of the MPC. And whether to adjust because of the enforced pass if he decides that Law 50 applies but Law 57 does not.

Do you think that you are able to sort out the correct ruling further from there on?

If I were you, I would read the introduction to the Laws again, in particular:
Declarer: the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced <snip?

Now it is true that North was the first person to redouble, but that is not a "denomination".

[axman]

 pran, on 2020-August-17, 00:41, said:

The question in Law 24, whether a single card below the rank of an honour was led or not, is a matter of judgement by the Director and depends on the manner in which it was exposed.
(This is the only point in Law 24 where an inexperienced Director can get astray)

If the Director judges that it was faced accidentally he applies Law 24A
If the Director judges that it was faced deliberately he applies Law 24B
Otherwise the Director applies Law 24C.

Then no further action is taken by the Director until the auction is completed! after which he will apply either Law 24D or Law 24E, and in case go to Law 50 or 51.

Specifically he shall never apply Law 57 in this situation because there is no reference to Law 57 from Law 24!

If the law was concerned with whether a card was exposed accidently the TD would so judge. But the law 24 is not concerned with whether a card was exposed accidentally and so there is no need by law for the TD to so judge; it is concerned about a card being led, or not. And the two are not equivalent.

in regard to 'because there is no reference to ' references can be merely a reminder- that is, a provision of law applies when it applies- whether or not there is a reference

[pran]

 lamford, on 2020-August-17, 04:37, said:

You never fail to surprise with your ignorance:

The state at the conclusion of the auction is:

South is declarer in the contract: 3NT XX
West has a major penalty card: ♣6
West has the opening lead and he is told by the director that the six of clubs is a MPC and must be led (as it has already been led). The next question is what to tell South and East about the disposition of the MPC. And whether to adjust because of the enforced pass if he decides that Law 50 applies but Law 57 does not.

Sorry, I overlooked the opening 1NT bid, so South is indeed declarer.
The only change in the story is that West, who now has become a defender and in turn to make the opening lead, must lead his ♣6 as instructed in Law 50D1a
(Technically this card has not already been led!)

Then of course, we have:

Law 72 said:

C. Awareness of Potential Damage
If the Director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that it could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). At the conclusion of play the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

I fail to see how West at the time he originally exposed the ♣6 could well have been aware that this irregularity could well damage the North/South side? Are the players involved capable of such foresight?

[lamford]

 pran, on 2020-August-17, 07:01, said:

I fail to see how West at the time he originally exposed the ♣6 could well have been aware that this irregularity could well damage the North/South side? Are the players involved capable of such foresight?

West did not "expose" the six of clubs. He led it because he mistakenly thought the auction was over. And he could have been aware that this would tell East that he had correctly interpreted his "unusual" double of 3NT which must, by a passed hand, ask for a club lead. So, the foresight is not great.

[blackshoe]

Sequence of events:

1. West led a card when North, who would be last to call in the auction if he passed, had not yet called.
2. North called the director in his usual boorish manner (frankly if SB were a member of my club, he would either have long since changed his ways or he would be an ex-member of my club).
3. When the director arrived, North made a ruling, for which the director properly fined him - although I'm not sure the fine was big enough.
4. Now, as to the ruling...

a. Law 24 applies. The card is left face up on the table while the auction continues. East has UI, but I don't see that mattering in the auction.
b. The auction continues: SB, North, redoubles, and East perforce (Law 24B) passes. South and West pass.
c. The contract is 3NTXX by South, putting West on lead.
d. The exposed card (♣6) at this point becomes a major penalty card; West must lead it.
e. The card was "prematurely led" - Law 24 says so.
f. West's intent was clearly to lead to trick one.
g. South, Declarer, elected under Law 57A (yes, it applies, in spite of the lawmakers' failure to clarify in this law that it does; see below) to have East play his lowest club.
h. The trick is won in dummy.
i. Now South makes the contract (there was a defensive error that helped).
j. SB, boorish to the last, violates "best behaviour at bridge" yet again. OO should have given him an additional penalty, perhaps enough to offset his "win".

IMO, the first sentence of Law 57A should read "When a player leads to the first trick during the auction, and later becomes a defender, or a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options…" I commend this change to the WBFLC (not that I expect any of them read this forum).

It would seem that Law 81C2 applies here: "The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:…
2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder."

The emphasis in that last is mine.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2020-August-17, 10:20, said:

Sequence of events:

1. West led a card when North, who would be last to call in the auction if he passed, had not yet called.
2. North called the director in his usual boorish manner (frankly if SB were a member of my club, he would either have long since changed his ways or he would be an ex-member of my club).
3. When the director arrived, North made a ruling, for which the director properly fined him - although I'm not sure the fine was big enough.
4. Now, as to the ruling...

a. Law 24 applies. The card is left face up on the table while the auction continues. East has UI, but I don't see that mattering in the auction.
b. The auction continues: SB, North, redoubles, and East perforce (Law 24B) passes. South and West pass.
c. The contract is 3NTXX by South, putting West on lead.
d. The exposed card (♣6) at this point becomes a major penalty card; West must lead it.
e. The card was "prematurely led" - Law 24 says so.
f. West's intent was clearly to lead to trick one.
g. South, Declarer, elected under Law 57A (yes, it applies, in spite of the lawmakers' failure to clarify in this law that it does; see below) to have East play his lowest club.
h. The trick is won in dummy.
i. Now South makes the contract (there was a defensive error that helped).
j. SB, boorish to the last, violates "best behaviour at bridge" yet again. OO should have given him an additional penalty, perhaps enough to offset his "win".

IMO, the first sentence of Law 57A should read "When a player leads to the first trick during the auction, and later becomes a defender, or a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options…" I commend this change to the WBFLC (not that I expect any of them read this forum).

It would seem that Law 81C2 applies here: "The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:…
2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder."

The emphasis in that last is mine.

Please clarify exactly and in detail what (in your opinion) makes a single card below the rank of an honour that is exposed during the auction a card led rather than just a card exposed

The way I understand the laws this distinction is left for the Director to judge, of course after taking into consideration any apparent intention revealed by the offender.


PS. I cannot find any justification for your allegation that Law 57 applies and would appreciate a foundation for your allegation when you claim a lawmakers' failure to clarify in this law that it does

[lamford]

 pran, on 2020-August-17, 12:26, said:

Please clarify exactly and in detail what (in your opinion) makes a single card below the rank of an honour that is exposed during the auction a card led rather than just a card exposed

The way I understand the laws this distinction is left for the Director to judge, of course after taking into consideration any apparent intention revealed by the offender.

PS. I cannot find any justification for your allegation that Law 57 applies and would appreciate a foundation for your allegation when you claim a lawmakers' failure to clarify in this law that it does

I don't intend to reply to anything else you write on this subject, other than to repeat that.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2020-August-17, 10:20, said:

Sequence of events:

1. West led a card when North, who would be last to call in the auction if he passed, had not yet called.
2. North called the director in his usual boorish manner (frankly if SB were a member of my club, he would either have long since changed his ways or he would be an ex-member of my club).
3. When the director arrived, North made a ruling, for which the director properly fined him - although I'm not sure the fine was big enough.
4. Now, as to the ruling...

a. Law 24 applies. The card is left face up on the table while the auction continues. East has UI, but I don't see that mattering in the auction.
b. The auction continues: SB, North, redoubles, and East perforce (Law 24B) passes. South and West pass.
c. The contract is 3NTXX by South, putting West on lead.
d. The exposed card (♣6) at this point becomes a major penalty card; West must lead it.
e. The card was "prematurely led" - Law 24 says so.
f. West's intent was clearly to lead to trick one.
g. South, Declarer, elected under Law 57A (yes, it applies, in spite of the lawmakers' failure to clarify in this law that it does; see below) to have East play his lowest club.
h. The trick is won in dummy.
i. Now South makes the contract (there was a defensive error that helped).
j. SB, boorish to the last, violates "best behaviour at bridge" yet again. OO should have given him an additional penalty, perhaps enough to offset his "win".

IMO, the first sentence of Law 57A should read "When a player leads to the first trick during the auction, and later becomes a defender, or a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options…" I commend this change to the WBFLC (not that I expect any of them read this forum).

It would seem that Law 81C2 applies here: "The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:…
2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder."

The emphasis in that last is mine.

Thank you. Good to see some sanity prevail.

[pran]

Here is my own suggestion for a Law 24 modified to remove any ambiguity with the term "lead" (or past: "led") in Law 57:

LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED DURING THE AUCTION
When the Director determines that during the auction, 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 placed face up on the table until the auction ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side (see Law 16C).
A. Low Card Not Deliberately exposed
If it is a single card below the rank of an honour and not Deliberately exposed, there is no further rectification (but see E following).
B. Single Card of Honour Rank or Card Deliberately exposed
If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card Deliberately exposed, offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 72C when a pass damages the non-offending side).

The rest of Law 24 should remain unchanged.

PS.: The word Intentionally might possibly be better than the word Deliberately in this context?

[sanst]

Post-covid?? There are still some thousand new cases daily in the UK and rising. Over here, in The Netherlands, the bellowing of SB would be a criminal offense, even with a facial mask. We are still considering whether it’s safe or not to begin the physical play. Some clubs have started, but most members are quite reluctant and there might be a government announcement tonight banning groups of more than thirty people, which would make it more or less impossible.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2020-August-17, 23:53, said:

Here is my own suggestion for a Law 24 modified to remove any ambiguity with the term "lead" (or past: "led") in Law 57:

LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED DURING THE AUCTION
When the Director determines that during the auction, 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 placed face up on the table until the auction ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side (see Law 16C).
A. Low Card Not Deliberately exposed
If it is a single card below the rank of an honour and not Deliberately exposed, there is no further rectification (but see E following).
B. Single Card of Honour Rank or Card Deliberately exposed
If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card Deliberately exposed, offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 72C when a pass damages the non-offending side).

The rest of Law 24 should remain unchanged.

PS.: The word Intentionally might possibly be better than the word Deliberately in this context?

That does not help at all. It is the disposition of the penalty card that is at issue. The only change that is needed is to Law 50, to change "(but not led, see Law 57)" to "(but not led to trick two or later, see Law 57)". If that is what is wanted.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2020-August-18, 02:49, said:

That does not help at all. It is the disposition of the penalty card that is at issue. The only change that is needed is to Law 50, to change "(but not led, see Law 57)" to "(but not led to trick two or later, see Law 57)". If that is what is wanted.

No problem with my suggested change:
The point is that Law 24 will no longer cause any confusion with the ambiguous term "premature lead", they will all be named "exposures".
And a single exposed card below the rank of an honour will eventually be defined as a major or a minor card just as today depending on whether the exposure was deliberate or not.

The situations we discuss will be handled precisely as I am convinced the intention of WBFLC is today. Try it out if you bother?

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2020-August-17, 12:26, said:

Please clarify exactly and in detail what (in your opinion) makes a single card below the rank of an honour that is exposed during the auction a card led rather than just a card exposed

The way I understand the laws this distinction is left for the Director to judge, of course after taking into consideration any apparent intention revealed by the offender.


PS. I cannot find any justification for your allegation that Law 57 applies and would appreciate a foundation for your allegation when you claim a lawmakers' failure to clarify in this law that it does

1. My judgement of the intent of the action, based on my investigation of the facts pertinent to the case.
2. See above.
3. Law 24, titled "card exposed or led during the auction, leading via Law 24E to Law 50, which for a card led leads to Law 57, which does not refer directly to cards led during the auction. Since it does not, this invokes Law 81C2, under which I apply my interpretation of the relevant law, in this case Law 57.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2020-August-17, 07:09, said:

West did not "expose" the six of clubs. He led it because he mistakenly thought the auction was over. And he could have been aware that this would tell East that he had correctly interpreted his "unusual" double of 3NT which must, by a passed hand, ask for a club lead. So, the foresight is not great.

It is possible for a card to be both exposed and led. If West didn't expose the ♣6 when he led it, then he led it face down. In that case, I trust, we would not be having this discussion.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2020-August-18, 09:48, said:

It is possible for a card to be both exposed and led. If West didn't expose the ♣6 when he led it, then he led it face down. In that case, I trust, we would not be having this discussion.

The heading of Law 24 "CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION" suggests that "exposed" means "exposed but not by being led". Otherwise it would just say "card exposed during the auction". As you say if it were face down, then there would be no infraction.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2020-August-18, 09:59, said:

The heading of Law 24 "CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION" suggests that "exposed" means "exposed but not by being led". Otherwise it would just say "card exposed during the auction". As you say if it were face down, then there would be no infraction.

WBFLC official commentaries to the laws make it quite clear that "exposed" includes "led". That is one reason why I suggested that the term led should be completely removed from Law 24.

Instead the terms "intentionally" and "accidentally" can be used to distinguish the two types of exposure where needed.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2020-August-18, 12:11, said:

WBFLC official commentaries to the laws make it quite clear that "exposed" includes "led". That is one reason why I suggested that the term led should be completely removed from Law 24.

Instead the terms "intentionally" and "accidentally" can be used to distinguish the two types of exposure where needed.

One of the problems with "intentionally" is that ChCh is well capable of "accidentally" dropping the six of clubs and uttering "Dearie me, I should have wiped my hands after using that slippery sanitiser".

[pran]

 lamford, on 2020-August-18, 16:05, said:

One of the problems with "intentionally" is that ChCh is well capable of "accidentally" dropping the six of clubs and uttering "Dearie me, I should have wiped my hands after using that slippery sanitiser".

And so what?
Would you ever rule that a single card below the rank of an honour exposed (by ChCh) during the auction was exposed accidentally (i.e. not led)? Under what circumstances?