Another fine mess

[bluejak]

2 (b) If South led face-up, I think it should place NS in a worse position than if he'd led face-down, but I can't find a law that says so.

We adjust based on who is at fault: if South led he is at fault, so both sides have become offending. So we adjust for two offending sides.

 

Also (not applicable in this case, but would be with some other declarers in that room) how do you deal with the "I know I'd make 3♣ on this hand but I don't think you would" type scenario nicely without offending anybody.

There are two answers. First, messy hands like this are dealt with by weighted score adjustments so you do not rule 3♣ making nor 3♣ minus one. I know a lot of TDs still do, but since we have had weighted scores in this country for 25 years perhaps it is time they learnt not to.

 

Second, you rule by asaing "I am adjusting to ...", never by saying that you believe anyone in the number of tricks they make or whether they bid 3♣.

 

It depends on whether any card in dummy has been exposed. Once that happens, the opening lead may not be retracted. If no card in dummy has been exposed, Law 21 may still apply, and the opening leader may change his lead, but his original face up opening lead will normally be a major penalty card. The law does not suggest that a face up opening lead draw a Procedural Penalty. So South is in a worse position when he leads face up because if any card in dummy has been exposed, he's stuck with his lead, and if no card in dummy has been exposed, his original lead will become a MPC if he changes it.

While the opening lead may be retracted because of MI, a call made may not be retracted because of MI once the opening lead is faced. Law 21B1A says until the end of the auction period and Law 22 says that is when the opening lead is faced. An opening lead is retracted under Law 47E2A which is different.

[blackshoe]

I plead illness. I've had some miserable cold or something the last couple weeks. :lol: