'Your lead'

[axman]

Indeed Yes!

 

 

 

It doesn't. Law 54A applies specifically to faced opening leads and is therefore more specific than Law 47E.

 

(Also don't overlook that Law 47E says "may" while Law 54A is unconditional once declarer has exposed at least one card.)

 

I would not bother about any PP to East in this case (and definitely not anything more that a mild warning). North's irregularity is so much more grave that I instead might consider a PP on him in addition to the adjusted score.

 

I stand by my ruling 3NT-3.

 

Reading L54, L54A is pre conditioned by L54 which applies to the case where the card was faced by the originally incorrect leader AND the originally correct leader has his card unfaced on the table. In the case at hand it is my understanding that the latter condition was not met.

[blackshoe]

The wording of law 12 is rather untidy here. In North America (and in Europe many years ago) they adjust under law 12C1(e), under which the non-offenders, at least, got the most favourable likely result had the infraction not occurred. The offenders got the worst result that was at all probable, but it doesn't say whether this includes scenarios in which the infraction occurred.

It does in North America:

For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.

Someone from the ACBLLC, might have been Adam Wildavsky, commented that the committee could not see how it could be any other way. Or something like that. B-)

[blackshoe]

Reading L54, L54A is pre conditioned by L54 which applies to the case where the card was faced by the originally incorrect leader AND the originally correct leader has his card unfaced on the table. In the case at hand it is my understanding that the latter condition was not met.

Is it possible you are reading the law too literally? IAC, we've had this discussion before, and iirc the consensus was that the particular pre-condition (correct leader has led face down) should be ignored.

 

Possibilities:

 

1. Face down OLOOT, no action by correct leader, or correct leader also leads face down (or face up). Resolution: no problem, OLOOT is picked up and put back in the hand, no further rectification.

2. Face up OLOOT, correct leader leads face down. The literal conditions have been met, apply Law 54.

3. Face up OLOOT, no action by correct leader. If we don't apply Law 54, what do we do?

4. Face up OLOOT, correct leader leads face up. Now we really have a problem. Or do we? If they're simultaneous, we apply 58A, in which case the "LOOT" is probably a revoke. What if they're not simultaneous? I suppose if the correct lead was made first, Law 53 applies (this might get us to 47E). Otherwise, I guess it's Law 57. IAC, does correct leader's infraction (leading face up) make any difference?

 

Comments?

[pran]

Reading L54, L54A is pre conditioned by L54 which applies to the case where the card was faced by the originally incorrect leader AND the originally correct leader has his card unfaced on the table. In the case at hand it is my understanding that the latter condition was not met.

We have been told that the originally correct leader (West) did not lead any card at all, faced or unfaced.

[RSliwinski]

Pran claims that "Law 47E concerns the general case of a lead out of turn while Law 54A only applies when the lead out of turn is also an opening lead. Already that alone makes Law 54A more specific than Law 47E". This can´t be true. Imagine situation similar to OP but where South does not expose his hand but calls TD directly. Should TD rule according to 47E1 or should he offer South the choices mentioned in 54? Of course the former. Futhermore Pran wants to use 47E2 to support his solution but this law applies only when there is misstaken explanation of an opponent's call and play. In OP there is a case of misstaken information about whose lead it is. So we use 47.E1.

I recall this case as one of the exercises at a EBL TD course led by Ton Kooijman. The solution was the one proposed by blackshoe and campboy.

[pran]

Pran claims that "Law 47E concerns the general case of a lead out of turn while Law 54A only applies when the lead out of turn is also an opening lead. Already that alone makes Law 54A more specific than Law 47E". This can´t be true. Imagine situation similar to OP but where South does not expose his hand but calls TD directly. Should TD rule according to 47E1 or should he offer South the choices mentioned in 54? Of course the former. Futhermore Pran wants to use 47E2 to support his solution but this law applies only when there is misstaken explanation of an opponent's call and play. In OP there is a case of misstaken information about whose lead it is. So we use 47.E1.

I recall this case as one of the exercises at a EBL TD course led by Ton Kooijman. The solution was the one proposed by blackshoe and campboy.

If both defenders simultaneously face an opening lead then Law 58 applies.

 

Law 54 applies in all other cases of faced opening lead out of turn, and as such overrides any provision in for instance Law 47 (other than Law 47E1) that might otherwise seem applicable in the situation.

[Zelandakh]

Where the other laws fail to provide rectification for an infraction, I think Law 12A1 should apply. I know that gordontd feels that if the other laws have failed to provide redress for one or more infractions, that is just bad luck, and the TD cannot adjust the score because the remedy provided by those laws was insufficient. Brian Senior, representing the players, thinks that equity should always be restored and you should NEVER be able to gain from an infraction. Gordontd can speak for himself and correct me if he is being misquoted, but he did offer the opinion (on another case) that there are examples in the Laws of somebody losing out as a result of an infraction, and if the offender could not reasonably have known that is just bad luck. I think this is the wrong interpretation of Law 12A1.

So if partner gets silenced and you take a blind punt at 3NT and that ends up being a lucky make with 20hcp or so, you think this should be rectified by an adjusted score?

[blackshoe]

Pran claims that "Law 47E concerns the general case of a lead out of turn while Law 54A only applies when the lead out of turn is also an opening lead. Already that alone makes Law 54A more specific than Law 47E". This can´t be true. Imagine situation similar to OP but where South does not expose his hand but calls TD directly. Should TD rule according to 47E1 or should he offer South the choices mentioned in 54? Of course the former. Futhermore Pran wants to use 47E2 to support his solution but this law applies only when there is misstaken explanation of an opponent's call and play. In OP there is a case of misstaken information about whose lead it is. So we use 47.E1.

I recall this case as one of the exercises at a EBL TD course led by Ton Kooijman. The solution was the one proposed by blackshoe and campboy.

Um. "This can't be true." Why not? "Of course the former." Why of course? And why should it make any difference whether or not South puts any cards down before he calls the director?

 

I didn't quite propose the same solution as Campboy. I said that if he's right, we would do the things I mentioned.

 

Are you sure the case in the TD course was exactly the same as the one here?

[sanst]

I recall this case as one of the exercises at a EBL TD course led by Ton Kooijman. The solution was the one proposed by blackshoe and campboy.

This case comes from a Dutch TD's mailing list and the use of 47E1 was given after consulting with Ton Kooijman and another EBL TD. I posted it, because most of the participants used 54.

I don't think that hearts are a logical start for W. It takes probably too long to develop a trick in that suit, whereas spades offer a far better chance. And I do think that, whatever law you apply, this is a clear Law 23 case. I would have a very serious conversation with N and quite probably give him a PP.

[Trinidad]

I would also say that Law 47E overrules Law 54. (Simply put: if your LOOT was induced by an opponent, you can correct it and the consequences are for your opponent, not for you.)

 

But I do have a problem. In this case, the presumed declarer discovered that something was wrong when he put card #8 down as dummy. What would happen if the mistake would have been discovered later? Suppose that in trick 5 West says: "Wait a second. (looking at South) Didn't you bid 1NT first? How come you are dummy? (looking at North) Why did you say John was supposed to lead?"

 

Are we now going to rule that all the cards played are AI to EW and UI to declarer South and that we start from the beginning with West on lead? As far as I can see there is no time limit on taking back the opening lead.

 

Or are we going to say that East's opening lead may be retracted but all other cards have been played?

 

Or are we going to rule according to law 54 now anyway? And if we do so, at what point during the play did we go from Law 47E territory into law 54 territory? And where in the law book do we find the justification for assigning the border?

 

Rik

[RSliwinski]

Um. "This can't be true." Why not? "Of course the former." Why of course? And why should it make any difference whether or not South puts any cards down before he calls the director?

 

I didn't quite propose the same solution as Campboy. I said that if he's right, we would do the things I mentioned.

 

Are you sure the case in the TD course was exactly the same as the one here?

Well, i wrote "of course" because I thought it was obvious. It does not make any difference whether Souths puts cards down before he calls the director, I introduced the easier case when no cards are put down by South since I thought that everybody would agree that in that case TD is to use 47E1. If you need references, look in ACBLs Duplicate Decisions, page 55. If you want an argument here is one:

Law 54 refers explicitly to Law 53. So Law 53 applies in case of OLOOT. Law 53 states explicitly that Law 47E1 overrules it. Thus 47E1 applies also to OLOOT.

[blackshoe]

Well, i wrote "of course" because I thought it was obvious. It does not make any difference whether Souths puts cards down before he calls the director, I introduced the easier case when no cards are put down by South since I thought that everybody would agree that in that case TD is to use 47E1. If you need references, look in ACBLs Duplicate Decisions, page 55. If you want an argument here is one:

Law 54 refers explicitly to Law 53. So Law 53 applies in case of OLOOT. Law 53 states explicitly that Law 47E1 overrules it. Thus 47E1 applies also to OLOOT.

If it was obvious there would have been nobody suggesting a different route to a ruling. B-)

 

Okay, we're getting somewhere here. For those who think Law 54 rather than Law 47 governs, what is your reasoning? Is it just "well, it's the opening lead"?

[blackshoe]

I would also say that Law 47E overrules Law 54. (Simply put: if your LOOT was induced by an opponent, you can correct it and the consequences are for your opponent, not for you.)

 

But I do have a problem. In this case, the presumed declarer discovered that something was wrong when he put card #8 down as dummy. What would happen if the mistake would have been discovered later? Suppose that in trick 5 West says: "Wait a second. (looking at South) Didn't you bid 1NT first? How come you are dummy? (looking at North) Why did you say John was supposed to lead?"

 

Are we now going to rule that all the cards played are AI to EW and UI to declarer South and that we start from the beginning with West on lead? As far as I can see there is no time limit on taking back the opening lead.

 

Or are we going to say that East's opening lead may be retracted but all other cards have been played?

 

Or are we going to rule according to law 54 now anyway? And if we do so, at what point during the play did we go from Law 47E territory into law 54 territory? And where in the law book do we find the justification for assigning the border?

 

Rik

I don't think you can back things up once tricks have been played. I do think that if Law 47 applies to the basic situation (when the problem is discovered before South puts any cards down) then it applies when the problem is discovered later, however much later that is. If South puts down no cards, one card, or his entire hand, if Law 47 governs, then it governs. Once the table starts further play, I see two possible choices: let the play proceed to the end and try to figure out an assigned adjusted score, or stop play (because there's no point to continuing) and award an artificial adjusted score. I don't think the latter is legal, because Law 12C2 starts "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained…" and a result, meaningless though it may be, can certainly be obtained here. So I would allow play to proceed, and then award an assigned adjusted score if the NOS (here the defending side) was damaged.

 

Question: Have NS committed a second infraction here? South did not explicitly accept East's LOOT, but he did accept it implicitly by putting his cards down as dummy. The last sentence of 47E1 is "A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in this circumstance." Of 'may not', the laws say 'Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”' So the prohibition in 47E1 is pretty strong. Do we give South a PP for, in essence, being oblivious?

[Zelandakh]

The problem seems to be quite simple. Does the sentence "An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card" refer only to mistaken explanations or to the more general case of any misinformation. That seems to be unclear within the rules so I am surprised it is not the subject of some committee report somewhere.

[sanst]

Do we give South a PP for, in essence, being oblivious?

Poor South. I've taught my students that the zeroeth law of bridge is "Trust your partner". This South trusted his partner and now you want to punish him. You're a cruel man ;)

[blackshoe]

I simply asked a question. I did not say I want to punish south. :(

[gordontd]

Where the other laws fail to provide rectification for an infraction, I think Law 12A1 should apply. I know that gordontd feels that if the other laws have failed to provide redress for one or more infractions, that is just bad luck, and the TD cannot adjust the score because the remedy provided by those laws was insufficient.

It's not just my feeling, it's the law:

 

L12B2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the

rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side

 

Brian Senior, representing the players, thinks that equity should always be restored and you should NEVER be able to gain from an infraction. Gordontd can speak for himself and correct me if he is being misquoted, but he did offer the opinion (on another case) that there are examples in the Laws of somebody losing out as a result of an infraction, and if the offender could not reasonably have known that is just bad luck. I think this is the wrong interpretation of Law 12A1.

Maybe you would tell us precisely what Brian said, and in what context, rather than than just asserting that he's on the other side, "representing the players".

[lamford]

Maybe you would tell us precisely what Brian said, and in what context, rather than than just asserting that he's on the other side, "representing the players".

Brian's view, discussing a hand where the king of clubs was dropped during the auction:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/72080-sb-travels-south/

 

was that, "if there was an infraction by an opponent, as a minimum equity should be restored", as best as I recall his words. I asked him whether he thought anyone should ever be able to gain from an infraction, and he replied, tersely as he often does, "No". I think he is right.

 

I am aware of Law 12B2, but I think you are misinterpreting it. Rectification is defined by the (general) law as: "Rectification is a remedy whereby a court orders a change in a written document to reflect what it ought to have said in the first place. It is an equitable remedy, which means the circumstances where it can be applied are limited."

 

By analogy, "rectification" in bridge should reflect what would have happened had the infraction not occurred. I agree that the TD cannot adjust if restoring the situation to what would have happened without the infraction is unduly severe or advantageous, but I do not think you can have "negative" rectification provided by a law. If so, it is not "rectification". This is what happened in this case:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/72085-double-infraction/

 

I now wholeheartedly agree, and a US director agreed with your view, that Law 23 does not apply. I think Law 50E does apply, but I do not think it matters if one decides it does not. The law "failed to provide rectification" in the case of the infraction(s) therein, rather than it provided rectification which was unduly severe or advantageous. The declarer was worse off after the infraction in that he went off in a contract he was about to make. I cannot agree that rectification is provided if the offender is better off as a result of the infraction, whether or not they could have known. In my view, in the above and similar cases, when the laws fail to restore the non-offender to the situation he was in before the infraction, the TD should apply Law 12A2, especially if Law 23 is deemed inapplicable. Whether or not it is decided that Law 50E or other laws intended to provide remedy apply.

 

"The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." When you do so, you are awarding an adjusted score for the reason that the laws failed to provide rectification in that they did not restore the non-offender to the situation before the infraction. The interchange of "indemnity" and "rectification" does not seem to be relevant.

 

It's not just my feeling. It's the law.

[Trinidad]

The key thing is whether the non-offender had any influence on the result.

 

When the non-offender has no influence on his bad result, then it is obvious (at least to me) to rectify.

On the other extreme is the non-offender who caused his own bad result. Then you don't rectify (at least not for the NOS).

 

In between there may be the case where a non-offending declarer does everything right, but ends up with a trick less then he would have had without the infraction. But the doing everything right and going wrong was "rub of the green".

 

Suppose the layout of a suit is:

 

       ATxx

Qxx          J

       K9xxx

 

After having won trick 1 in dummy (in another suit), declarer plays a small card in this suit from dummy, notes the fall of the J, applies restricted choice, finesses West for the queen and takes all the tricks in the suit.

 

But now, we add an infraction. During trick one, East puts his hand down to write down the contract on his private score card and -oops- the jack flips face up on the table. The TD rules that it is a major penalty card. Declarer sees that it is an about even guess whether to play East or West for the queen (there are no restricted choice considerations). He also sees that he can pick up QJxx with East, if he sees that West shows out. He decides to play for "8 ever, 9 never", unless he sees West showing out. So, he starts with the ace from dummy... and loses a trick in the suit.

 

One can argue that declarer would have never lost a trick without the infraction, but that is not the way to go, IMO. The non-offending declaring was given extra options. If this situation would occur 100 times, in the long run the extra options would be advantageous to him. The fact that on this particular board the advantage happened to work against declarer is not relevant. No rectification, but a lot of sympathy for declarer.

 

Rik

[gordontd]

And your reply to Zelandakh's post #32 above, lamford?

[lamford]

Suppose the layout of a suit is:

 

       ATxx

Qxx          J

       K9xxx

 

After having won trick 1 in dummy (in another suit), declarer plays a small card in this suit from dummy, notes the fall of the J, applies restricted choice, finesses West for the queen and takes all the tricks in the suit.

 

But now, we add an infraction. During trick one, East puts his hand down to write down the contract on his private score card and -oops- the jack flips face up on the table. The TD rules that it is a major penalty card. Declarer sees that it is an about even guess whether to play East or West for the queen (there are no restricted choice considerations). He also sees that he can pick up QJxx with East, if he sees that West shows out. He decides to play for "8 ever, 9 never", unless he sees West showing out. So, he starts with the ace from dummy... and loses a trick in the suit.

[lamford]

Suppose the layout of a suit is:

 

       ATxx

Qxx          J

       K9xxx

 

After having won trick 1 in dummy (in another suit), declarer plays a small card in this suit from dummy, notes the fall of the J, applies restricted choice, finesses West for the queen and takes all the tricks in the suit.

 

But now, we add an infraction. During trick one, East puts his hand down to write down the contract on his private score card and -oops- the jack flips face up on the table. The TD rules that it is a major penalty card. Declarer sees that it is an about even guess whether to play East or West for the queen (there are no restricted choice considerations). He also sees that he can pick up QJxx with East, if he sees that West shows out. He decides to play for "8 ever, 9 never", unless he sees West showing out. So, he starts with the ace from dummy... and loses a trick in the suit.

 

One can argue that declarer would have never lost a trick without the infraction, but that is not the way to go, IMO. The non-offending declaring was given extra options. If this situation would occur 100 times, in the long run the extra options would be advantageous to him. The fact that on this particular board the advantage happened to work against declarer is not relevant. No rectification, but a lot of sympathy for declarer.

 

Rik

I disagree here on two grounds. One is that the Probst cheat could have known that exposing the jack of hearts could work to his advantage. He could have been aware, presumably, that declarer had nine trumps and that dropping the jack could gain (when partner has Qxx). There was a similar hand on here many moons ago, where declarer led the queen of trumps from South QJTxx opposite Axxxx and West played one and dropped the other of two small cards. The majority (as I recall) wanted to adjust when declarer misguessed and West had Kxx but not adjust when East had stiff K. The rectification was putting the declarer in the situation before the infraction occurred.

 

In your example, the declarer might well have started the suit from the other hand, so he was actually better off when the jack dropped. And you are mistaken in not thinking there is a restricted choice situation. If East had QJ doubleton of hearts, he would have been equally likely to drop the queen, if he only dropped one card. Declarer butchered the hand by not playing for a singleton jack now. The infraction did not cause him to go off; his own incompetence did. So I agree with no adjustment, as the non-offender was responsible for his own bad result.

[blackshoe]

In chapter one of TFLB, I find

Rectification: The remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director’s attention.

We all know, I think, that there are some irregularities for which the law does not provide "remedial provisions". Though frankly right at the moment I can't think of one. :blink: :ph34r:

 

Another word used in this area of the laws is "indemnity". The laws do not define this, but my dictionary does:

Indemnity: security or protection against a loss or other financial burden; security against or exemption from legal responsibility for one's actions; a sum of money paid as compensation

 

It seems that technically indemnity is about money — but not in bridge. From my thesaurus, one synonym is "reparations". This fits fairly well. Indemnity repairs damage in the NOS score. The way the TD does that is the rectification. If a law specifies a rectification other than score adjustment for a "particular type of offense" — as it does for, say, a LOOT — then the TD is not permitted to award an adjusted score on the grounds, essentially, that the outcome wasn't "fair". If the law provides no rectification at all, no "reparation", then the TD can use Law 12A1.

[lamford]

So if partner gets silenced and you take a blind punt at 3NT and that ends up being a lucky make with 20hcp or so, you think this should be rectified by an adjusted score?

The laws generally allow the TD to adjust when someone is silenced, and the offender gains, or after any IB:

 

27 D. Non-offending Side Damaged

If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

 

and in various places:

"See Law 23 if the pass damages the non-offending side."

 

So, is the TD to decide with every enforced pass whether the offender could have been aware, or is it assumed that he could have been? Note that it does not say "was". It says "could". On the principle that the TD adjusts if a pair gets lucky after an IB and also adjusts if a pair gets lucky after a forced pass, I would say, yes, you do award an adjusted score. There seems to be an inconsistency here, in that 27D provides for an adjustment after an IB but not after a pass out of turn for example.

 

The principle in all these cases is "rectification". The TD should recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid (or other infraction it matters not) not occurred. And if the Laws do not provide rectification for an infraction, then Law 12A1 kicks in. There is an argument that the rectification was to force someone to guess the contract, and that rectification was positive for the non-offender. The lucky guess to bid 3NT was a separate action and rectification had occurred before that. You could also argue that the decision to bid 3NT was not "with assistance gained from the infraction" and that 27D does not apply.

 

The Laws do seem, however, to allow SB to have his snake and eat it (thanks for that Rik!) and that the assumption is that crime cannot pay!

[lamford]

If a law specifies a rectification other than score adjustment for a "particular type of offense" — as it does for, say, a LOOT — then the TD is not permitted to award an adjusted score on the grounds, essentially, that the outcome wasn't "fair".

I disagree. If someone leads the ace of trumps out of turn against a slam, and the effect is that you, in a rare moment of perspicacity, did not duck a side suit with an ace when declarer led his singleton towards KJxx in dummy, I hope you would adjust. Even though the person leading the ace of trumps could not reasonably know he would gain in this way, especially if he was told they had all the key cards but one. Essentially you apply Law 23 if you think he could have known, Law 12A1 if you think he could not have known. It does not make any difference. Note here that all the LOOT penalties in the world are of no use to declarer.

 

In this example, the Laws have not provided rectification. If the rectification is negative for the non-offender, then it is not rectification.

 

Indemnity repairs damage [to] the NOS score.

I agree. Therefore "indemnity" should at least restore the non-offender to the same position as before the infraction.