defender faces entire hand inadvertantly

[NICKYKK10]

In a local club game, North is declarer in 3NT. West faces the opening lead. South faces the dummy and almost immediately East also faces her hand( She admits that she was confused as to the results of the auction and was apparently oblivious to South's action). Normal play in the hand would result in declarer going down at least two tricks. However with the cards exposed he would reasonably be able to make his game if they were all deemed to be penalty cards. The director ruled that play should cease and allowed N/S to make 3NT. (top on the board)

 

Question: 1) Does Law 68 (B 1)govern an inadvertent exposure. i.e. Is this a case of abandoning ones hand?

2) If so, does Law 68 (B 2) allow West to object to any concession and at least win any sure winners for his side.(E/W had at least 5 winners)

 

This situation obviously does not occur often (if ever), but I would like to get some clarification as to the correct procedure. The director had never seen it before nor had any of the players

[blackshoe]

The first infraction, apparently, was West's facing of the opening lead. Law 54 applies. Declarer must accept the lead (Law 54C) so Law 54B applies — declarer must play the second card to the trick from his hand.

 

All 13 of East's cards become major penalty cards (MPCs) (Law 49, Law 50B). The director has the power to "designate otherwise" (Law 50), but I don't think he should do so in this case. Now East has multiple MPCs, so Law 51A applies on the first trick — declarer gets to pick which card East is to play. Law 51 will also apply on subsequent tricks, so long as East has mutliple MPCs. Assuming no further infractions, the table result will stand. West doesn't get a PP — this is per the introduction to the laws a minor offense that doesn't rate a PP.

 

IMO this is not a case of East abandoning her hand, and clearly so — she was confused, not giving up.

 

The director's ruling was in error, so Law 82C applies, and the director "shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose". So based on your description (really, we should see all four hands) NS should get the score for 3NT (or more if that would be possible) and EW should get the score for 3NT down however many if the board had been played out as required - which may be the same number of tricks for NS and EW as already determined. If, however, NS might make fewer tricks (given all those penalty cards) then EW should get the score for 3NT going down whatever.

 

Some will say that a hand with 13 cards is "not bridge" and should not be played, but if that's what the lawmakers wanted, the laws would not be as they are.

[VixTD]

The director's ruling was in error, so Law 82C applies, and the director "shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose". So based on your description (really, we should see all four hands) NS should get the score for 3NT (or more if that would be possible) and EW should get the score for 3NT down however many if the board had been played out as required - which may be the same number of tricks for NS and EW as already determined. If, however, NS might make fewer tricks (given all those penalty cards) then EW should get the score for 3NT going down whatever.

I don't think this is what law 82C means. You still have to apply your ruling about penalty cards to both sides - the director's error didn't cancel East's infraction.

 

You give a weighted assigned adjusted score based on likely outcomes if the hand had been played with all of East's cards as penalty cards. If there's doubt as to the outcome, you give both EW and NS a slightly favourable weighting, as if they were both non-offending, so if you think NS would make nine or ten tricks with equal probability, give NS 60% of ten tricks and EW 60% of nine tricks.

[blackshoe]

I was not thinking about weighting the ruling, but you're right, if weighting is appropriate, you should do that.