How to rule this

[Miron]

Early in the match we had such an interresting situation:

1♦-1♥-3♦-3♥-p-p

The last opponent did not pass, just took his bidding cards off (he does it every time).

I and my RHO thought that the bidding stopped at 3♦ with three passes, LHO and CHO thought that the final contract is 3♥ and the remove of bidding cards was as final pass. I prepared the lead (face down), waited for about 10s and when nobody comlains I lead. LHO shows dummy and says, that the final contract is 3♥. The director was called and we all agreed to call this board as mismatch and scratch it (0 imp for all).

Who is guilty (well, more guilty). How would you rule? (Please no shooting of all players)

[barmar]

Could you clarify -- is that both side's bidding or an uncontested auction with your side silent? Whose lead was it supposed to be?

[inquiry]

Who is guilty (well, more guilty). How would you rule? (Please no shooting of all players)

You didn't provide enough information. Is is a knockout match? A multi-segmented match? A Swiss match, (U assume it is not BAM with large field playing same hands).

 

Perhaps the director should be shot. There were numerous violations here.

 

It is my understanding that the bidding cards should remain on the table for inspection and chance for explainations until the opening lead has been made face down, after which they are picked up. I have to admit few follow this rule.

 

As for the bid... I frequently see people point to pass on the table and then pick up the cards, or as in this case, simply pick up the cards. As the director, then, there is one points to rule on here.

 

Was the auction over when the opponent picked up the bidding cards during the auction?

 

If so, the contract was 3H and play continue from that point.

 

If not, then the player picking up the cards violated the rules and caused the problem (others contributed but what did the player who picked up his cards and the MADE THE OPENING LEAD think the auction was not over.. after all he is on LEAD!!). He removed the cards that were laid on the table, before the auction was over. The cards are suppose to be left spaced out to allow easy review of the auction. And if the auction is as given, he would then be making the opening lead... it is hard to imagine any problem, and if he called the director to now claim the auction wasn't over, I would issue severe procedural penalties.

 

If the director rules the auction was NOT over (and the auction isn't quite right as shown so the partner of the player picking up the cards was on lead), then the lead must not have been made face down or his partner would have SPOKEN up that the auction wasn't over. So that is yet another violation for the "defending side". After the opening lead and facing of the dummy makes it impossible to allow the hand to be played normally. So the director could have (and I think should have) assigned the "non-offending side" here average plus on this board, or if this was a multi-segmented match, along with a procedural penalty, or if he deemed the heart bidders also at fault for not clarifying the auction was over, thrown the board out, but still issued a procedural penalty.

 

As given (person picking up the cards, making the opening lead, and then complaining auction not over) this is OUTRAGEOUS.

[kenberg]

My two cents:

 

If after two passes, the next player makes a move that is universally understood to mean that the auction is over, and after that a member of that side takes an action (the face down lead, taken slowly enough so that objection was possible) that would be appropriate only if the auction is over, and then a member of the other side takes an action showing that he also believes the auction is over, and that makes the hand unplayable unless the auction is over, the correct ruling is that the auction is over.

 

It's hard to tell from what is said whether someone is getting cute or just not paying attention, but nevermind, the auction is over, play the hand.

 

As often, my opinion is based not on an exhaustive reading of the rules but rather on what seems to me to make complete sense. If the laws say to the contrary and someone can find where they clearly say to the contrary, then no doubt the law must be followed, reluctantly. Charles Dickens had something to say about the law, I believe.

 

Ken

[Blofeld]

Can I check that I understand the problem correctly:

 

- Your RHO dealt and opened 1♦.

- You overcalled 1♥

- Your LHO bid 3♦

- Your partner bid 3♥ and neither you nor your RHO noticed this bid

- Your RHO passed

- You passed. At this point, you and your RHO believed that there had been 3 passes and the auction was now over

- Your LHO picked up his bidding cards to show that he was passing. Your partner understood this, but you and RHO just thought that the auction was over so he was removing his cards

- You put your lead face-down on the table, but don't verbally ask partner if he has any questions

- After 10 seconds or so nobody has said anything so you table your lead.

- Your LHO puts down dummy? At this point I'm lost. How can he put down dummy if he believes that the final contract is 3♥ ? Presumably the 3♥ bid is still on the table?

 

Your fault for leading out of turn, but luckily for you you're declarer so there aren't any penalties. So either your LHO leads to 3♥ if he didn't put his hand down as dummy, or his entire hand is now penalty cards if he did.

 

But I suspect I've misunderstood the situation.

[kenberg]

Ah yes, Reading more closely I see that Blofeld's understanding of the situation is definitely better than my understanding. But it does still seem to leave a loose thread or three. I don't favor shooting anyone, and anyway that has been expressly forbidden as a solution, but if I could have some of whatever they're drinking I might be happy.