BudH

Thanks for finding that. I thought I had or found every document associated with the 2017 law changes and had been looking for a passage similar to what you found. That at least gives some evidence to what we expected we should do. I still think the laws themselves should clarify the clarification period and disposition of exposed cards.

I never said that (for exposed cards happening "during the auction". You are stating that the exposed card happened during the auction. Law 24 clearly covers this case.

True, when I put this on BridgeWinners as a poll, I knew those being polled would be on average a higher standard than the West in question. Although since I know the West player, she is at a pretty decent level for an average Flight A club player. What I think it does show is how clearly 5D is likely a logical alternative even for a moderately high club player skill level. And that 3D even for a club game was probably too much influenced by the UI.

"Presumed Declarer: The player, who in the absence of an irregularity, would become declarer." "Defender: An opponent of (presumed) declarer." So it appears the term "defender" becomes defined when the auction (presumably) ends, although we know misinformation might lead to the non-offender's final pass being changed and the auction therefore continuing. It appears to me if Law 24 (CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION) was instead titled "CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION OR CLARIFICATION PERIOD" with a minor change to the wording of this law, it would additionally cover the clarification period for accidentally dropped (or deliberately exposed) cards.

Under the 2007 laws CHAPTER VI — The Play is Laws 41 to 71. This is a strong indicator that Laws 49 and 50 apply only to the play period.

I included some key definitions and laws below. (I did paraphrase in some cases and didn't include every word.) Note that Law 24, applicable during the auction, is not applicable between the final pass and the facing of the opening lead. Law 50B (DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD, Major or Minor Penalty Card) presumably applies only during the play of the hand (following facing of the opening lead). Nor does Law 49 (EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER’S CARDS) apply. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Auction Period: (1) from removal of cards from board to first call of auction, plus (2) auction period, plus (3) clarification period. Auction period: from when a partnership removes one of the two hands from the board to the facing of the opening lead Clarification period: from the final pass to the facing of the opening lead (that is, the latter part of the auction period) Auction: from the first call of the auction to the final pass of the auction Law 16D (Extraneous Information from Other Sources) 1. "When a player accidentally receives extraneous information about a board he is playing or has yet to play ... by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith ...." 2. "If the Director considers that the information would likely interfere with normal play he may, before any call has been made, ... allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that the extraneous information affected the result." Law 24 (CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION): "When ... 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 nonoffending side but unauthorized for the o‘ending side (see Law 16C)." Law 50B: (Major or Minor Penalty Card): "A single card below the rank of an honor exposed unintentionally (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honor rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (for example in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card ...."

For accidentally dropped card(s) during clarification period: Law 16D applies for accidentally dropped card before the start of the auction. Dropped card(s) do NOT become penalty cards. Law 24 applies during auction (from first call to final pass). Dropped card(s) become penalty cards if offender becomes a defender. Does Law 16D apply during the clarification period? If the opening leader accidentally drops a card(s) as he is making his face down lead, will the dropped cards not become penalty cards? If they do become penalty cards, which law specifies that?

One issue that comes into play is ATTRIBUTABLE meanings of 2NT: 1. 2NT was bid thinking the opening bid was 2!H, not 1!H. (perhaps good 15 to bad 19 HCP) 2. 2NT was bid thinking he was dealer or that RHO had passed. (perhaps 20-22 HCP) 3. Something else

BridgeWinner poll: 4 votes for 3D 7 votes for 4D 20 votes for 5D

My error - West. Corrected.

If you were given a problem on paper and told you hold with nobody vulnerable as dealer ♠T9 ♥9xx ♦QJ98x ♣Axx with an auction Pass-1♥-2NT-Pass-?, I would expect with a group of good players given this problem that few of them are going to choose 3♦ and a significant minority or majority are bidding 5♦. If I had been West and had this happen to me, I would have felt that a significant number of good players would bid 5♦ and I would have felt obligated to commit possible suicide by bidding 5♦.

The only two answers that you could choose that had any chance of being correct were: 1. Play continues, no rectifications, OR 2. Play continues, but Director may adjust score if North-South gain from the infraction

Let's assume the Director is called and let's assume the Director takes East away from the table, at which point East tells the Director: "at the last moment, I realized my 2NT bid would be taken as the minors and immediately changed to a double. If my double is withdrawn, since I am aware of my error prior to my partner's next call, am I allowed to know my partner's next call will be required to assume I hold the minors? And can I try to make calls getting partner to bid notrump so that I can pass it, since if I bid notrump you may adjust the score?"

Let's pretend this was part of a written exam on the laws and that it said "when dummy (North) puts his cards on the table, West calls the director because he can see two ♠A. It becomes clear that dummy's ♠A was from the previous board. The extra ♠A is put back where it belongs. Besides that, what should be the director's decision?

Law 13C - Surplus Card - "Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue without further rectification. No adjusted score may be awarded unless such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick." The auction ends and when dummy is displayed, one of the defenders calls the Director because there are 14 cards in dummy. All other players have 13 cards. After the Director investigates, dummy's spade ace is removed (it was from the previous board). Declarer and the other defender know there is an excellent chance that defender who called the Director holds the spade ace. That being the case, does it make any sense that "no adjusted score may be awarded"?

West clearly has UI. But East knows that West is going to have to bid her hand as if 2NT shows the minors but knowing West knows it's probably a huge balanced hand (which it is). I know you should poll, although not easy in a 6-table club game at which this occurred. I would think West would be bidding 3♦, 4♦, or 5♦. If considering a group of experts, with the ♣Axx on the side, I'd consider 5♦ to likely be the expert's choice. And I assume East is not forced to bid any higher. Note 5♦ fails only on a heart lead which I doubt would be a clear majority choice and perhaps not a minor majority choice, either. We might be assuming West fails at 5♦ about half the time or perhaps slightly less. If West bid 3♦ or 4♦, what do we assume East's possible calls might be?

[hv=pc=n&s=sq8762h4dt7cj9642&w=st9h963dqj984ca73&n=s53hkjt852da532cq&e=sakj4haq7dk6ckt85&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1h2n(attempted%20replacement%20of%20Double%20for%202NT)p3dp3nppp]399|300|East attempted to replace 2NT with Double.[/hv] West dealer, none vulnerable, average level club game West North East South Pass - 1H - 2NT changed to Double - Director, please! The Director determines West pulled the 2NT bid out of the bidding box and had it touching the table when he put it back and changed it a Double. The Director ruled the 2NT bid was made with the attempted changed to Double (Law 25B). 2NT systemically shows the minors over the opponent's 1♥ opening bid. South did not accept the changed call and the initial 2NT bid stood. West was cautioned per Law 16B and 16C regarding unauthorized information and that a call (or later, a play, if a defender) suggested by the unauthorized information may not be chosen over a logical alternative. Said to West by the Director: "In simplified terms, if you have two or three choices all of which players similar to yourself would choose or seriously consider, you are not allowed to choose one likely to be more successful demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information." 11 tricks made, East-West +460. As Director, do you adjust the score and/or (seriously consider) penalizing East-West for using UI?

In the White Book, near the end of a section on Law 70 it says the following: Claim can be seen to break down – when can claimer change line? "The L&EC is aware that different attitudes to this question are sometimes expressed, in both rulings and TD training. Some would allow claimer the benefit of noticing that the suit has broken badly (for instance) and to depart from their original line. The interpretation/implementation of Law 70 in the EBU remains that it is careless, and therefore ‘normal’, for the claimer not to pay attention to cards played by the other side, and that claimer will continue with the original line ..." Why can't the World Bridge Federation issue the standards on these kind of decisions and not have it effectively be "zonal options" or whatever you want to call it? Wouldn't it make sense that no matter what continent you were on that subjects like this are all treated the same instead of (for this topic) claimers can sometimes change tack when their stated line of play won't work on some continents but not on others?

Another one: http://www.eurobridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/wbf-laws-committee.pdf Note this is a 2010 document based on 2007 laws but also commenting on future changes which did happen in our present 2017 laws. Interesting Paris 2001 claim situation on page 13 of 15 of this document. That exact board was one of my exam questions last night! (No, I didn't see this until today, after my exam - would have taken me less time if I had seen it previously!)

From Gordon Rainsford in 2018 - https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/adjudicating-claims.pdf A few excerpts related to the cases I mentioned in my original post: "If a claimer states which tricks they are taking, eg “four hearts, three spades and a diamond”, it does not necessarily follow that the intention is for the tricks to be taken in that order. However, slightly different wording, eg “four hearts then three spades and a diamond” does suggest an order of play. Each case needs to be considered on its own merit, taking into account what has been stated, what has happened thus far in the play and therefore what lines might be considered normal." "If a player thinks that all their cards are good, it is normal for them to play their suits in any order and so we usually rule the most disadvantageous order of play." "Having once started to play a suit by cashing winners, it is normal to continue that suit until it is exhausted before switching to another suit." "If a player is conceding a trick as part of the claim, unless it has been otherwise specified in the claim it is normal for the player to either play to lose the trick immediately or at the end of play, so once again we rule according to the more disadvantageous of the two. It is not normal to play some winners and then attempt to concede the trick in the middle of the play."

Took the exam for the new ACBL designation "Local Director" last night. Scored over 96%. I did have some trouble on one topic (which led to one of my two incorrect answers out of 52 questions) regarding contested claims and determining what is considered "careless" and what is considered "irrational". A couple of examples: 1. Declarer claims all the tricks holding one trump, side winners in two suits, and a void in the other side suit, but never mentions an outstanding higher trump. Do you have to assume declarer plays his trump early before side suit winners allowing the defense to potentially cash one or more tricks in the void side suit? 2. Declarer says "I have all four remaining tricks: two spades, a heart, and a diamond." If declarer cashes his two spade tricks (one in his hand and one in dummy) before cashing a red suit trick, he can't get back to the other red suit trick and gets only three tricks. Is that to be assumed when adjudicating this contested claim? I'd like to see a bunch of these borderline cases to have a firm idea of what to allow or not allow as Director. Other than ACBL's Duplicate Decisions, is there any other reference material out there with contested claim cases like this (not just the "easy" situations) from ACBL, WBF, EBU, ABF, or others?

Does opener's hand have 3-card spade support or a high doubleton honor, especially with a non-minimum hand? If so, he can be expected to "raise" to 3♠, not bid 3♦.

Case 1: Assuming 2♣ is Michaels, if 3♣ is natural, even if it shows a weak hand with long clubs that would not typically open the bidding 1♣, then 3♣ as the cheapest bid that shows clubs can be chosen by offender to keep offender's partner from being required to pass for the rest of the auction. Law 27B1(a). Case 2: Per Law 23A1, a negative double is comparable.

I was just told in an ACBL director course in the last two weeks that the "subset option" is not "large majority". It has to be completely within. Here is a key quote from our course material: "Any of the three definitions in Law 23 may be used to rule a call comparable, but they are independent tests. They should not be mixed together in an attempt to find a way to allow a call as comparable. For example, 23A2 refers to a subset. Subset has a definite meaning: for a call to be defined as a subset, all the meanings of the replacement call must fit into the meaning of the withdrawn call (the replacement call shows only some of the hands the original call showed, and none that the original call didn’t show). There is no such thing as “more or less similar to a subset.”

From page 4 of the associated ACBL daily bulletin: "At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be called, as North had meant to call low club, and there could be some restitution. The Director was called, and after consultation with the other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b) that North misspoke (a slip of the tongue). Law 45C4(b) states in part: “A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought.” As the law allows an inadvertent card called from dummy to be withdrawn even if the next player has played to the trick, the Director ruled that the (apparently) inadvertent call could be withdrawn and replaced by the call she had intended. The contract was changed to 6♣ made six, plus 1370. E/W appealed the Director’s ruling. E/W believed that the correction was not without pause for thought and that the Director had not been called until the hand had been completed. The Committee first considered the evidence as to whether the call had been an error in play or an inadvertent (slip of tongue) call. Two significant points of evidence favored the slip of the tongue interpretation. 1. At this stage of play there were 12 top tricks. Declarer had no apparent reason to be playing a low spade at this time, but was virtually certain to be planning on drawing trumps. 2. When the ♠K was played, the declarer appeared stunned and said “oh *****.” The Committee believed that those words would not be said by someone who had just found the ♠K onside, but rather by someone who had just realized that the wrong suit had been played from dummy. The Committee therefore decided that the call of “low spade” was inadvertent."