Uncontested Auction - Dropped an honor card after I make a forcing call

[MinorKid]

If partner is required to pass for one round under Law 24B, shall i change my last call to place a final contract myself?

 

For example my partner opened 1♥, Pass at RHO and while I pulled 2♦ from the box by my hand i accidentally dropped an ♦A on the table.

[gordontd]

If you have made a call you don't get to change it. I depends what you mean by "while I pulled 2D from the box".

[MinorKid]

Let's assume i properly placed 2♦ on the table and after that i accidentally dropped an Ace on the table. My LHO now summon the director before she make her call (LHO intend to pass).

 

In this case if i cannot change the call due to irregularity and partner is enforced to pass, will 2♦ become a final contract? Or the bidding continues normally with the ace left on the table, the director then adjust the score after play? Or partner can make one call after LHO pass , I make a final call and partner then is enforced to pass? OR partner is enforced to skip after my 2♦ and RHO cannot pass out the auction such that I could bid one more?

[gordontd]

Let's assume i properly placed 2♦ on the table and after that i accidentally dropped an Ace on the table. My LHO now summon the director before she make her call (LHO intend to pass).

 

In this case if i cannot change the call due to irregularity and partner is enforced to pass, will 2♦ become a final contract? Or the bidding continues normally with the ace left on the table, the director then adjust the score after play? Or partner can make one call after LHO pass , I make a final call and partner then is enforced to pass? OR partner is enforced to skip after my 2♦ and RHO cannot pass out the auction such that I could bid one more?

Your partner has to pass, so if the opponents also pass then 2D will be the final contract. It's meant to be a penalty!

[pran]

Your partner has to pass, so if the opponents also pass then 2D will be the final contract. It's meant to be a penalty!

Correct, except that it is not meant to be a penalty. It is meant to be a rectification preventing any use of the (unauthorized) information from the exposed card when choosing a call.

[gordontd]

Correct, except that it is not meant to be a penalty. It is meant to be a rectification preventing any use of the (unauthorized) information from the exposed card when choosing a call.

If it was just meant to prevent the use of UI, the usual UI laws would be sufficient.

[pran]

If it was just meant to prevent the use of UI, the usual UI laws would be sufficient.

No,

this is a specific irregularity causing UI with an explicit rectification prescribed for that particular situation.

[gordontd]

No,

this is a specific irregularity causing UI with an explicit rectification prescribed for that particular situation.

And the reason it is like that is because the UI laws are not in themselves tough enough to deal with this particular situation - because they do not provide a deterrent effect (a penalty).

[pran]

And the reason it is like that is because the UI laws are not in themselves tough enough to deal with this particular situation - because they do not provide a deterrent effect (a penalty).

And what is the penalty if partner's hand is such that he would pass anyway?

 

WBFLC distinguishes between "penalty" and "rectification" for a reason.

[gordontd]

WBFLC distinguishes between "penalty" and "rectification" for a reason.

It does a very poor job of it: it uses "rectification" in the context of mechanical revoke "penalties".

[barmar]

Some rectifications have the effect of penalizing the offending side, because the correction does more than just restore equity. The Laws don't always call the penalties -- this is just a possible side effect.

[Zelandakh]

One might also argue about the fairness of a penalty/rectification that varies wildly in its severity based on when it occurs in a way pretty much unrelated to the offence itself. While "rub of the green" is still very much a part of bridge, perhaps for competitive purposes a rule set that tries to avoid random variance unrelated to skill would be preferable if bridge ever wants itself to be taken seriously as a mind sport rather than merely as a card game.

[pran]

WBFLC distinguishes between "penalty" and "rectification" for a reason.

It does a very poor job of it: it uses "rectification" in the context of mechanical revoke "penalties".

Have you read, and do you understand the definitions of "Penalty", "Penalty card" and "Rectification"?

Frankly, I doubt it, sorry.

[Zelandakh]

There is a difference between the informal usage of a word and the technical meaning within the laws pran. Gordon clearly meant the former with his statement "It is meant to be a penalty" and I am fairly sure that is obvious to everyone here except you. And I also don't believe that you seriously doubt whether he understands about DPs and PPs. Stop being an arse!

[pran]

There is a difference between the informal usage of a word and the technical meaning within the laws pran. Gordon clearly meant the former with his statement "It is meant to be a penalty" and I am fairly sure that is obvious to everyone here except you. And I also don't believe that you seriously doubt whether he understands about DPs and PPs. Stop being an arse!

I most certainly know the difference between the informal use of a word and the technical meaning within the laws.

 

And in a law forum discussion around a word (or a term) that is defined in these laws I expect every participant in that discussion to confine himself to the precise technical (legal) understanding and not contaminate the discussion with other understandings however common they might be in everyday language.

[blackshoe]

Have you read, and do you understand the definitions of "Penalty", "Penalty card" and "Rectification"?

Frankly, I doubt it, sorry.

Considering Gordon's position in the EBU, that's rather insulting. :(

[blackshoe]

Let's assume i properly placed 2♦ on the table and after that i accidentally dropped an Ace on the table. My LHO now summon the director before she make her call (LHO intend to pass).

 

In this case if i cannot change the call due to irregularity and partner is enforced to pass, will 2♦ become a final contract? Or the bidding continues normally with the ace left on the table, the director then adjust the score after play? Or partner can make one call after LHO pass , I make a final call and partner then is enforced to pass? OR partner is enforced to skip after my 2♦ and RHO cannot pass out the auction such that I could bid one more?

It is not the case that you cannot change your call "due to the irregularity". You intended to make that call. You made it. That is why you can't change it. It has nothing to do with your subsequent irregularity. See Law 25 below.

 

As others have said, Law 24 governs here. LHO can do what he wants. Partner must pass once. If either opponent bids, you have a chance to keep the auction open, and partner can bid something if he wishes. If both opponents pass, 2♦ is the contract. As you are declarer, the ♦A is picked up and put back in your hand. There is no further rectification, unless partner's enforced pass can be shown to have damaged the opponents (highly unlikely in this scenario) and the director determines that you could have known it would do so (Law 23).

 

Law 24B: When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side. If the offender becomes declarer or dummy, the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender, every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50), then:

…

B. Single Card of Honor Rank or Card Prematurely Led

If it is a single card of honor rank or is any card prematurely led, offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. See Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side.

 

Law 25

A. Unintended Call

1. Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate law.

2. No substitution of call may be made when his partner has made a subsequent call.

3. If the auction ends before it reaches the player’s partner, no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 22).

4. If a substitution is allowed, the LHO may withdraw any call he made over the first call. Infor- mation from the withdrawn call is authorized only to his side. There is no further rectification.

B. IntendedCall

1. A substituted call not permitted by A above may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues.

2. Except as in B1 above, a substitution not permitted by A above is canceled. The original call stands and the auction continues.

3. Law 16D applies to a call withdrawn or canceled.

[MinorKid]

Let me tell you the real case. I was a deputy in a really casual bridge MP pairs event in Hong Kong. (It was not me to be the offense as I used to put my hand below to table horizon.)

The bridge game was new to a pair of two elderly respectively held the 1♥ and 2♦ hands. Both elderly's habit was to put their hands above the table horizon. The responder arranged her hand Lo-Hi. Bidding begun exactly same 1♥ (P) 2♦ , after placing her 2♦ with her right hand, her left hand cannot hold the Ace well and accidentally dropped on the table. Her LHO called for a Director.

 

I saw the 2♦ bid and the dropped Ace was already on the table. Her partner may or may not have seen the Ace but surely seen the 2♦. She had a 20+ 1-4-6-2 slam zone hand and is pretty unlikely that the Opps will compete. I told the partnership according to rule 24B partner must pass the next round and Ace being picked up once the side gets the contract, but not specifically the 2♦ bid can or cannot been withdrawn or which turn the offender's partner must pass when next (to what?) it is his turn to call (may deem to allow rebid smth after 2♦ such that a forth final bid can be made).

 

(Later I find out that final contract could be 2♦ had the responder's LHO refused withdraw under Law 25B.)

 

However, it is Hong Kong's culture to respect elderly and since it is their first offense and i told them to avoid it by having their hands put down the table horizon, it is just a matter on how to fairly rectify the damage (Not penalty, Not for deterrent effect).

 

Now the best case for them i thought of is opponents agree to deem the opener does not drop the Ace the auction would proceed normally. Dropped card immediately picked up (assuming an honest opener, I reserve the right to use Law 16 and Major, Lead penalty rule this case to redress damage if later found opener does know the UI). I do hope responder who dropped Ace to reply 4♦ to a control bid instead of blackwood such that to avoid the use of UI issue.

 

The inferior case (here) is LHO deem that the opener does see the Ace but agree to allow the 2♦ bid to be withdrawn under Law 25B upon my request, I may ask responder to replace it by any non-forcing calls only in their system that her partner must then pass. In this case, had opponent subsequently decided to sacrifice to the final bid, I shall forbidden the opener from making a bid, double or redouble again as his partner's ♦A may suggest all these, according to Law 16. Dropped Ace remains a penalty card and subject to lead penalty.

 

The worst case is LHO do not permit 25B(1) after 24B occured. I would really ask her what damage does it cause if his partner is forced to pass this round or next round anyway. If insufficient, I would notify that I allow one any bid from opener , one final responder's bid and opener must pass had there been no competition.

 

Actually, the four hand is a double fit. ♥♦ for one side and ♠♣ the other. 7♥♦ makes and Opponent's 1♠ also makes. LHO did not permit 2♦ being withdrawn. She passed. The opener obey the formal ruling and honestly passed too. RHO, holding 7 weak spades with an advantage of lead penalty, overcalled 3♠. Opener enforced pass no longer applied anymore but any action by opener is limited by Law 16.

 

1♥ (PASS) 2♦ (PASS)

[PASS] (3♠) 7♦ (WTF!)

 

♠A ♥K542 ♦AKQJxx ♣Kx

 

[PASS]: An Honest Penalty Pass

[barmar]

Around here, people who have physical problems that make it difficult for them to hold their cards use devices to help them. Some of them put the cards in a rack, some of them use a plastic card holder that clamps around the cards.

 

The problem with using "respect for the elderly" in bridge rulings is that the majority of bridge players are elderly. So you're essentially deciding to ignore these laws for most players.

 

But if you feel like ignoring these laws, there's nothing we can do to stop you. But don't ask for advice in a Laws forum -- we try to rule by the letter of the law.

[MinorKid]

Offender : "Please at least let me choose trumps or I'll vote for Trump."

[Zelandakh]

Imagine...

I don't quite understand what this has to do with the OP or with abusing the bridge laws to favour one group of players over another.

 

Put another way, if there was a bridge competition in Saudi Arabia or Iraq and female contestants and commoners were routinely ruled against because "it is is the culture to respect men of wealth", would you regard this as fair? or even bridge? How about a works event where the boss is allowed a top on every board because "it is the culture to respect our superiors"? You are really creating a rod for your own back if you choose to make rulings on that basis. I certainly would refuse to play in that club once I understood what was going on.

[MinorKid]

Zelandakh

 

Good point. IMO should respect the decision of non offending side also.

[blackshoe]

Which decision is that? There are rules governing what happened. If the rules give the NOS opportunity to make a decision, then fine. If they don't, then whatever decision they wish to make is irrelevant.

[nielsbio]

Pardon me. Why involve the non offenders in the ruling?

 

As I understand the OP the player has not tried to change her call. Therefore 25B is not relevant. As there is no second call to accept (or not), LHO is not part of the ruling. The 2D-call applies, and the partner must pass once. And it is also not relevant, whether the call came before or after the drop of the Ace.

 

Quite another question is, whether you want to play by the rules or not; but that has no influence on the correct ruling as such.

[nige1]

Redress for a Bridge infraction can (and should) include both "rectification" and deterrence. My experience differs from Barmar's: If the offender is handicapped, there's rarely a problem. Some opponents won't draw attention to the infraction. Others ask the director to waive redress (at his discretion).