Alleged lead during auction

[bluejak]

Hello all. Sorry I have not been around, for a number of reasons. I am not sure what I shall do in future. My interest in the Laws remains as strong as ever, but I am finding it harder and harder to survive in a world where people have a go, and I feel that here what I post does sometimes encourage people to do so. Of course I am still a moderator and you can write to me or to Ed, who will consult me if he sees fit. Anyway, two things have come up recently, and whatever I do, I shall look at and read the answers.

 

I have decided to delete a lot of threads unread, so if this or my other query has been discussed, please let me know.

 

:ph34r:

 

I was called the table at Brighton after the following sequence. Actually, I cannot remember the sequence for certain, but it does not matter, I can remember the bits that matter.

 

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sp1n(Wide%20range)2dpp]133|100[/hv]

 

When I was called, East had led the ♠A and dummy had appeared.

 

Basically, what was said was as follows:

 

North: West hit the table with the flat of his hand clearly indicating he was passing.

East: I thought partner had passed, and when he said something I turned my lead face up.

South: What's the problem?

West: What I said was "Why are you leading when I am declarer?".

 

It was clear that West had not seen the 2♦ bid. Furthermore he showed me that he had written 1NT by West on his score-card. He also stated that he never made the final pass of an auction in any other way but by putting out a pass card.

 

How do you rule?

 

In a few days I shall tell you how I ruled and what happened next.

[mink]

North did not do anything wrong. South thought that he was dummy when East made the opening lead and cannot be blamed that he spread the dummy. West did not really do something wrong, but failed to say "stop" or something else that could not be misunderstood in order to prevent something wrong from happening. But the real offender was East who lead a card though the auction was not yet finished. My ruling would be:

 

There were 14 cards exposed before the auction ended. East was the offender. Therefore, according to Law 24C, West must pass once. This forced pass ends the auction, so the play can continue as if nothing had happened.

 

Karl

[aguahombre]

Is the sequence you cannot remember exactly the bidding sequence or the sequence of utterances from the four players? If the former, I don't think we can rule at all. If the latter, I agree that the sequence really doesn't matter and we can get the gist of the problem.

 

All except West believed the contract was 2♦N. East is guilty of going through the motions oblivious to the purpose of the clarification period. He led face down, then when his partner said something didn't listen or wait before turning up his card; had he been paying attention, things could freeze while the TD decided whether West gets to bid.

 

I would, as a practical solution, rule that East has led vs. 2D. However, East committed an irregularity by turning over the lead during the clarification period; and if allowing West to do something other than pass would have resulted in a better theoretical result for N/S, I would apply that "could have known" clause to what East did. Someone will surely tell me why this ruling is contrary to the wording of the laws; but I would get away with it at the club.

[gnasher]

North did not do anything wrong. South thought that he was dummy when East made the opening lead and cannot be blamed that he spread the dummy. West did not really do something wrong, but failed to say "stop" or something else that could not be misunderstood in order to prevent something wrong from happening. But the real offender was East who lead a card though the auction was not yet finished.

I agree with that.

 

My ruling would be:

 

There were 14 cards exposed before the auction ended. East was the offender. Therefore, according to Law 24C, West must pass once. This forced pass ends the auction, so the play can continue as if nothing had happened.

I think it's 24B. 24C is about "two or more cards ... so exposed". "So exposed" refers to the opening sentence of law 24, which talks about cards from the offender's own hand.

 

However, 24B also bars West for one round, so that's OK.

[blackshoe]

I would get away with it at the club.

Personally, whenever it occurs to me that I might be "getting away" with something, it also occurs to me that I probably shouldn't do whatever it is that causes me to "get away" with something. So I look for an alternative.

 

South's exposed cards are also violation of Law 24, but South is going to be dummy, so it doesn't matter. I agree with Gnasher - it's 24B, and East is the offender.

[aguahombre]

Personally, whenever it occurs to me that I might be "getting away" with something, it also occurs to me that I probably shouldn't do whatever it is that causes me to "get away" with something. So I look for an alternative.

And did you find one, here? Or am I just being scolded for thinking like that?

[blackshoe]

Well, for starters, I don't see how your scenario could actually come about, at least not given the particulars of this case. Also, while I haven't examined it closely, I do not think Law 23 ("could have known") would apply here.

 

I'm not scolding, I'm just suggesting a little more thought in such situations.

[aguahombre]

Well, since all posters above agree to the contract of 2D and letting the lead stand, that part could come about.

 

The other part would come about if you judged that a better result for n/s could be obtained if West were allowed to bid in the balancing position, and that East could have known that when he rushed to face the opening lead.

[bluejak]

Is the sequence you cannot remember exactly the bidding sequence or the sequence of utterances from the four players? If the former, I don't think we can rule at all.

The former, though it is difficult to see what difference it makes, and why you cannot rule. If the opening bid was 1♥ instead of 1♠, or if the next player doubled it, I cannot really see it makes a ha'porth of difference to the ruling.

[bluejak]

Perhaps someone could explain why putting the dummy down during the auction is not an infraction.

[GreenMan]

West did not really do something wrong, but failed to say "stop" or something else that could not be misunderstood in order to prevent something wrong from happening.

 

I disagree with this point "Why are you leading when I am the declarer?" is perfectly clear. It appears East would not have done anything different no matter what West said, because East was not paying any attention at all to what West was saying.

[gnasher]

Perhaps someone could explain why putting the dummy down during the auction is not an infraction.

It is, but East committed the first infraction by leading during the auction. Don't we deal with the infractions in the order in which they occurred?

 

When we deal with East's infraction, we discover that:

- West is forced to pass.

- North doesn't get another bid. Hence any penalty to NS under Law 24C is moot.

- East is forced to lead the card he already tried to lead.

- South becomes dummy, so no penalty applies because of his exposed cards.

 

Whilst South is not blameless for his infraction - he too should have listened to what West was saying - he is certainly less to blame than East, and South's infraction caused no damage and very little inconvenience.

[pran]

When I was called, East had led the ♠A and dummy had appeared.

 

Basically, what was said was as follows:

 

North: West hit the table with the flat of his hand clearly indicating he was passing.

East: I thought partner had passed, and when he said something I turned my lead face up.

South: What's the problem?

West: What I said was "Why are you leading when I am declarer?".

 

It was clear that West had not seen the 2♦ bid. Furthermore he showed me that he had written 1NT by West on his score-card. He also stated that he never made the final pass of an auction in any other way but by putting out a pass card.

I take the following for granted:

All players except West believed that the auction had ended with 2♦ N as the contract.

 

However, it is unclear to me whether (according to North) West hit the table with the flat of his hand before East made his opening lead face Down, after that but before East turned his opening lead face up, or after the opening lead was faced. This may have some impact on the relevant ruling.

 

I have little doubt that East faced his opening lead in good faith and that South subsequently faced his Cards as dummy in equally good faith.

 

Facing dummy should be automatic once the opening lead is faced so I see no irregularity committed by South here.

 

The whole situation appears to me caused by lack of attention, more or less by all four players, and the best ruling seems then to be that they play out the contract in 2♦ N

[lamford]

I was called the table at Brighton ...

Somebody called you a table? That is indeed a breach of 74B5, and I fully understand why you find it harder and harder to survive in a world where people have a go.

[barmar]

"OK, you're a taxi."

[GreenMan]

Just don't call him late to dinner.

[barmar]

I hope this kind of nonsense isn't what's driving him away.

[blackshoe]

I suspect that it is, so I would like it to stop.

[jallerton]

I was called the table at Brighton after the following sequence. Actually, I cannot remember the sequence for certain, but it does not matter, I can remember the bits that matter.

 

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1sp1n(Wide%20range)2dpp]133|100[/hv]

 

When I was called, East had led the ♠A and dummy had appeared.

 

Basically, what was said was as follows:

 

North: West hit the table with the flat of his hand clearly indicating he was passing.

East: I thought partner had passed, and when he said something I turned my lead face up.

South: What's the problem?

West: What I said was "Why are you leading when I am declarer?".

 

It was clear that West had not seen the 2♦ bid. Furthermore he showed me that he had written 1NT by West on his score-card. He also stated that he never made the final pass of an auction in any other way but by putting out a pass card.

 

How do you rule?

 

In a few days I shall tell you how I ruled and what happened next.

 

This is not quite what happened.

 

East led a card face down. West said "It's not your lead, you're dummy". North/South said: "No we're playing 2♦". Now South put her hand down as dummy. At some point East now turned his card face up. This is all agreed.

 

According to E/W, East did not face his "opening lead" until after South had put her hand down.

 

According to East, the reason why he thought his partner had passed is that he saw him write something down on his scorecard.

 

According to West, he tapped the table after his partner had led face down because this was an irregularity and he did not want East to expose this card prematurely before the opening lead he was expecting from North.

[blackshoe]

So West said 'It's not your lead, you're dummy' and tapped the table when East led face down?

[pran]

This is not quite what happened.

 

East led a card face down. West said "It's not your lead, you're dummy". North/South said: "No we're playing 2♦". Now South put her hand down as dummy. At some point East now turned his card face up. This is all agreed.

 

According to E/W, East did not face his "opening lead" until after South had put her hand down.

 

According to East, the reason why he thought his partner had passed is that he saw him write something down on his scorecard.

 

According to West, he tapped the table after his partner had led face down because this was an irregularity and he did not want East to expose this card prematurely before the opening lead he was expecting from North.

So much for having been given a precise description by OP "on the bits that matter".

This description undeniably changes the story on important details, and it looks more credible.

 

Ruling: West called attention to an irregularity, North/South objected, but instead of waiting for the Director South put her hand down. Start with Laws 9B and 11A.

[aguahombre]

Before totally agreeing with Sven, I have just one little question: Was Jallerton North, South, East, or West --- or a kibitzer? Or do we still not know what really happened? Or was Bluejack not the one called to the table?

 

O.K. maybe not just one little question.

[Finch]

While Jallerton's account is not quite the same as Bluejak's, I don't see how it changes the ruling.

West failed to notice a 2D overcall, so he is not entirely innocent, however that's not particularly relevant.

 

West tried to prevent an irregularity. Not only S but also E clearly failed to understand/register what West said so both pairs are at fault.

 

I would still rule under 24C as the earlier replies have said. The contract is 2D. Under other scenarios where 24C could apply, South might also end up with 13 penalty cards, but not here.

 

Next question: does the fact that West hadn't seen the 2D bid, and thus perhaps did not want to pass it out, constitute UI or AI to East? To North?

[bluejak]

Somebody called you a table? That is indeed a breach of 74B5, and I fully understand why you find it harder and harder to survive in a world where people have a go.

 

 

I hope this kind of nonsense isn't what's driving him away.

 

Absolutely not. A little bit of fun is no problem. On the other hand, pran criticising me for getting the facts wrong is pretty much the sort of thing I dislike. Were you there, pran? How do you know I got the facts wrong? Why are you assuming what something someone says is right and what someone else says is wrong? Why is it so obvious?

 

 

So much for having been given a precise description by OP "on the bits that matter".

 

That is the sort of post that I dislike and seems unnecessary. We should be discussing Laws and rulings, not whether a post is correct or otherwise because people in another country know what happened and know the description is wrong.

 

In fact, it would not matter a bent farthing if my description was wrong. It would be an interesting case to discuss, right or wrong. However, in my view, some of the posts here that make it clear what obviously happened are both wrong and unhelpful.

 

To be fair to pran, his is not the only post that suggests I have the facts wrong by people who were not there.

 

Ok, one of the posters was present. Might I remind everyone that when you get two sides disagreeing, that you have to rule between them and you do not - ok, no competent TD does - automatically assume the side that shouts loudest is correct. The equivalent of "shouting loudest" is when one side can present its case by being here, and one side cannot since they are not posting.

 

I am not suggesting that anything said by the poster was incorrect, just that the approach of certain posters is pretty unfortunate - and that is what is driving me away.

 

I think the legalities of this situation and the logic behind it is fascinating, but I think that it has become impossible for me to discuss it further. I shall not participate again in this thread.

[pran]

Were you there, pran? How do you know I got the facts wrong?

 

No, I was not there and I never wrote that you got the facts wrong.

 

But if you reread what I have written you will find that I pointed out some confusing details in OP and asked for a clarification which IMO was essential to make a ruling.

 

Then Jallerton presented what he claims happened and to me his description seemed far more credible. Most important it clarified all the doubtful (to me) items in OP thus enabling me to present how I think the case ought to be handled.

 

 

I still do not know whether your description is correct (but inaccurate) or Jallerton's is, but the latter at least gave sufficient information to initiate a ruling.