Slightly Sleazy?

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqhkq2dkj62caj74&w=skt983h984dt74c86&n=s654hj53daq3ckt93&e=sj72hat76d985cq52&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp2np3n(Baron)p6nppp]399|300[/hv]IMP pairs; 2NT was 20-22; 3NT was Baron.

 

West was too quick off the mark here as the players were a bit short of time. He passed and led the 10♠ before South's second bid, expecting the auction to end. However, South was taking out the card to alert 3NT, which was Baron, forcing to 4NT in theory (North would have bid 3S with a minimum raise to game). The TD was called, and he ruled that South could bid what he chose. He gambled on 6NT and, of course, guessed the queen of clubs.

 

West argued that South was always going to pass, but South said that West should have been more careful, and he would wait for the auction to end before leading next time. What is your opinion of South's actions? The TD ruled no adjustment, of course.

[Antrax]

I don't get it. Did W still lead a spade against 6NT?

[lamford]

I don't get it. Did W still lead a spade against 6NT?

Yes, on the instructions of South, as the 10♠ became a major penalty card.

[Fluffy]

he got a penalty card, and south took advantage of it in a rare fashion, it doesn´t matter what south was going to normally do over 3NT

[gordontd]

I don't get it. Did W still lead a spade against 6NT?

He would have no choice.

[Antrax]

Thanks, sorry for interrupting.

[TimG]

Yes, on the instructions of South, as the 10♠ became a major penalty card.

 

There are not "instructions of South" are there? The penalty card gets played at the first legal opportunity whether of not South likes it.

[lamford]

There are not "instructions of South" are there? The penalty card gets played at the first legal opportunity whether of not South likes it.

I agree. As long as he does not try to lead again during the auction, when South gets to choose!

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqhkq2dkj62caj74&w=skt983h984dt74c86&n=s654hj53daq3ckt93&e=sj72hat76d985cq52&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp2np3n(Baron)p6nppp]399|300[/hv]IMP pairs; 2NT was 20-22; 3NT was Baron.

 

West was too quick off the mark here as the players were a bit short of time. He passed and led the 10♠ before South's second bid, expecting the auction to end. However, South was taking out the card to alert 3NT, which was Baron, forcing to 4NT in theory (North would have bid 3S with a minimum raise to game). The TD was called, and he ruled that South could bid what he chose. He gambled on 6NT and, of course, guessed the queen of clubs.

 

West argued that South was always going to pass, but South said that West should have been more careful, and he would wait for the auction to end before leading next time. What is your opinion of South's actions? The TD ruled no adjustment, of course.

What is the problem?

[blackshoe]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqhkq2dkj62caj74&w=skt983h984dt74c86&n=s654hj53daq3ckt93&e=sj72hat76d985cq52&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp2np3n(Baron)p6nppp]399|300[/hv]IMP pairs; 2NT was 20-22; 3NT was Baron.

 

West was too quick off the mark here as the players were a bit short of time. He passed and led the 10♠ before South's second bid, expecting the auction to end. However, South was taking out the card to alert 3NT, which was Baron, forcing to 4NT in theory (North would have bid 3S with a minimum raise to game). The TD was called, and he ruled that South could bid what he chose. He gambled on 6NT and, of course, guessed the queen of clubs.

 

West argued that South was always going to pass, but South said that West should have been more careful, and he would wait for the auction to end before leading next time. What is your opinion of South's actions? The TD ruled no adjustment, of course.

 

 

There are not "instructions of South" are there? The penalty card gets played at the first legal opportunity whether of not South likes it.

The facts seem to be that after 3NT and a pass from East, West passed out of turn and then "led" the ♠10.

 

Per Law 22A2, the auction has not ended. Per Law 24, the ♠10 remains face up on the table until the auction period ends. Per Law 29A, North is now given the opportunity to accept West's POOT. If he does so, he calls, and then East must pass (Law 24B). If North passes, we have three consecutive passes, but this does not end the auction. Instead, per Law 17E2, the last three passes (W, N, E) are cancelled and the auction reverts to South. Per Law 16A1{c}, information from West's exposed card is authorized to South, as is information derived from the withdrawn passes (Law 16D1). South, having no UI, can make whatever call he likes. West's presumption that South "was always going to pass" is nonsense, and irrelevant. If North declines to accept the pass out of turn, that pass is canceled and the auction reverts to South, who again can make whatever call he likes. West must pass at his next turn to call (Law 30B1). If North bids, the auction proceeds normally from there, East must pass once, South and West can bid as they like.

 

If the auction ends as specified in the OP (all cases except where North bids over the pass out of turn), then West becomes a defender, and his ♠10 becomes a major penalty card (Law 24, Law 50B), and hence the opening lead (Law 50D). This opening lead ends the auction period (Law 22B1) and starts the play period (Law 41C). Play proceeds normally, there is no further rectification.

 

My opinion of South's actions? South has done absolutely nothing wrong. I wouldn't call West's attempt to get out of trouble by claiming South "was always going to pass" sleazy, either, but it's a lot closer than South's 6NT bid. Law 10C3 is pretty explicit: "When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action". The table result stands.

 

Except... there seems to have been director error, since he apparently did not give North the option to accept the POOT. I don't think this matters, though, as I would expect investigation to show that North would not have accepted it. So again I would let the result stand.

[aguahombre]

I don't believe anyone ---including Lamford (OP) ---really believes as the thread title might suggest....that taking advantage of authorized information from an opponent's irregularity is even slightly sleezy.

[iviehoff]

Yes, on the instructions of South, as the 10♠ became a major penalty card.

It would appear from the way the laws are drafted that a card exposed in the auction of sufficient rank to become a major penalty card only becomes a MPC once the play period starts. Two pieces of drafting seem to line up inconveniently nicely to confirm this. L24 explcitly refers to the card being left face up "until the end of the auction period", and then subsequently refers to it becoming a MPC. L50D only says what are the obligations of a "defender" in having a major penalty card, but no one is a defender until the play period begins. So it appears that it is not a penalty card during the clarification period, so at the time W may lead as he chooses (and if it was his partner who had exposed the card, there would be no lead restrictions.) I think this is probably a mistake in the law, but quite a few people stood up for that interpretation in a previous thread, that mad one where a member of the declaring side led and the players proceeded to play whist until some distance into trick 2.

 

Since the director did rule that it must be led, did he also rule that it had already been faced and therefore the clarification period was already over? I'm sure that there were no questions, but it is interesting to consider whether there could have been.

 

I have no problem with South's actions.

[campboy]

A defender is "an opponent of (presumed) declarer" according to the laws. Law 41A also talks about "the defender on presumed declarer's left" making a face-down opening lead. So West must become a defender before the opening lead is made, and hence in time to be required to lead the card in question.

 

Unfortunately correct procedure is now for him to lead it face down while keeping it face up on the table. He is not allowed to turn the face-up card face down until he has turned the face-down card face up and the auction period ends. But you can't have everything.

[bluejak]

Like others, I cannot see the problem with a player taking advantage of an opponent who cannot be bothered to follow the simpler rules of this game.

[lamford]

So it appears that it is not a penalty card during the clarification period, so at the time W may lead as he chooses (and if it was his partner who had exposed the card, there would be no lead restrictions.) I think this is probably a mistake in the law ...

I think you are right, without the "probably", and West can lead what he likes, and the ten of spades becomes a major penalty card just after that. At the table, he did lead a heart and East won and South allowed East to return anything he liked. Later declarer took the "marked" spade finesse and then guessed the queen of clubs.

[Cyberyeti]

It seems there's agreement on this situation, but what if as I've seen many times, South pulls a green card instead of a blue one while trying to alert, and instead of placing it in front of him, waves it at the opponent in the fashion you would with the alert card. Now if you pass and lead at the point he takes it out the box ...

[lamford]

It seems there's agreement on this situation, but what if as I've seen many times, South pulls a green card instead of a blue one while trying to alert, and instead of placing it in front of him, waves it at the opponent in the fashion you would with the alert card. Now if you pass and lead at the point he takes it out the box ...

Or, if there is no alert card in the box, South taps the table, which some people do for the final pass. In Croatia complete bidding boxes were as rare as hen's teeth, as you will know. West, expecting South to pass, follows suit and leads ...

 

Is the tap of the table a gesture covered by 73D2?:

"A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture <snip>"

[barmar]

Or, if there is no alert card in the box, South taps the table, which some people do for the final pass. In Croatia complete bidding boxes were as rare as hens' teeth, as you will know. West, expecting South to pass, follows suit and leads ...

 

Is the tap of the table a gesture covered by 73D2?:

"A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture <snip>"

When my bidding box is missing the alert card, I wave my hand around, and say "Alert". I would never think of tapping on the table, that's never been a common way to alert around here (ACBL). Especially if tapping is a common way to make the final pass, they shouldn't think it's also a way to alert. I think I've heard that in some places knocking on the table is the alert tradition, but I think it should be easy to tell a knock from a tap.

[Cyberyeti]

When my bidding box is missing the alert card, I wave my hand around, and say "Alert". I would never think of tapping on the table, that's never been a common way to alert around here (ACBL). Especially if tapping is a common way to make the final pass, they shouldn't think it's also a way to alert. I think I've heard that in some places knocking on the table is the alert tradition, but I think it should be easy to tell a knock from a tap.

They are often done in very similar fashion.

 

I've seen pass/double/redouble/TD cards pulled many times instead of the alert and waved at me, pass is the only one likely to cause a problem.

[lamford]

I think it should be easy to tell a knock from a tap.

Indeed. One is a "sudden short blow" and the other is a "quick light blow". I am pleased that you can tell them apart so easily. Perhaps the pass and alert cards should be dispensed with and one should knock for a pass and tap for an alert, or is it knock for an alert and tap for a pass?

 

More relevantly, how would you rule if South had knocked or tapped instead of using an (absent) alert card, and West had passed and led during the auction?

[barmar]

Indeed. One is a "sudden short blow" and the other is a "quick light blow". I am pleased that you can tell them apart so easily. Perhaps the pass and alert cards should be dispensed with and one should knock for a pass and tap for an alert, or is it knock for an alert and tap for a pass?

Another difference is that the alert takes place when his partner bids, while pass is at the player's own turn.

 

More relevantly, how would you rule if South had knocked or tapped instead of using an (absent) alert card, and West had passed and led during the auction?

I would rule that he passed out of turn (since it was East's bid) and apply Law 24 regarding the card prematurely led.

[Cyberyeti]

Another difference is that the alert takes place when his partner bids, while pass is at the player's own turn.

 

Except that 2N-P-3N is one of those auctions where the next hand often passes fast, so it very well may be alerted on their own turn.

 

I would rule that he passed out of turn (since it was East's bid) and apply Law 24 regarding the card prematurely led.

See above, what if E has already passed before S alerts ?

[campboy]

Indeed. One is a "sudden short blow" and the other is a "quick light blow". I am pleased that you can tell them apart so easily.

I find it easy to tell a tap-to-indicate-pass from a knock-to-indicate-alert since people generally either tap a pass card with their fingertips producing little sound or knock the table with their knuckles producing a clear knocking sound.

[bluejak]

I think I've heard that in some places knocking on the table is the alert tradition, but I think it should be easy to tell a knock from a tap.

It is a matter of regulation in England/Wales. Alerts without bidding boxes are done by tapping the table. But games without bidding boxes are pretty rare.

 

I played about 5 years ago in the Donegal Congress with an American friend. After the two main events were over there was a Mixed Pairs, but because the bidding boxes had been borrowed, they were taken away before this. I found a female partner, but playing without bidding boxes was a sore trial - it must have been years since the previous time!

 

I find it easy to tell a tap-to-indicate-pass from a knock-to-indicate-alert since people generally either tap a pass card with their fingertips producing little sound or knock the table with their knuckles producing a clear knocking sound.

Yes, I think there is no similarity.

[barmar]

It is a matter of regulation in England/Wales. Alerts without bidding boxes are done by tapping the table. But games without bidding boxes are pretty rare.

I've never played in a place where alerts have been done by tapping the table. But my guess is that in such places it's not common to use taps to indicate final passes. So the ambiguity is not likely to occur.