Declarer Opening LOOT

[Chris3875]

Auction was over and Declarer promptly led a small diamond .......

 

I couldn't actually find anything to cover this infraction, so said "pick it up and play on".

[blackshoe]

Auction was over and Declarer promptly led a small diamond .......

 

I couldn't actually find anything to cover this infraction, so said "pick it up and play on".

Law 54E: If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 24 applies.

Law 24: When the Director determines that during the auction, 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 placed face up on the table until the auction ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side (see Law 16C).

A. Low Card Not Prematurely Led

If it is a single card below the rank of an honor and not prematurely led, there is no further rectification (but see E following).

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 72C when a pass damages the non-offending side).

C. Two or More Cards Are Exposed

If two or more cards are so exposed offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 72C when a pass damages the non-offending side).

D. Declaring side

If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand.

E. Defenders

If at the conclusion of the auction the offender is to become a defender, every such card becomes a penalty card (see Laws 50 and 51).

Technically, the card should remain on the table until a proper lead by the correct defender is made (face down). But then declarer picks up his LOOT, so in effect that's what you ruled.

[Chris3875]

Whew ... someone told me that Declarer should have become Dummy. That seemed weird !

[pran]

Whew ... someone told me that Declarer should have become Dummy. That seemed weird !

"Someone" believe they know the laws and act accordingly - they are wrong.

[Vampyr]

Whew ... someone told me that Declarer should have become Dummy. That seemed weird !

 

This applies only to Mixed Pairs.

[sanst]

Whew ... someone told me that Declarer should have become Dummy. That seemed weird !

You can always ask that someone which Law says so. Usually you don't get an answer.

[weejonnie]

Technically, the card should remain on the table until a proper lead by the correct defender is made (face down). But then declarer picks up his LOOT, so in effect that's what you ruled.

The law says "Until the auction ends" (3 successive passes in rotation) - which means before the opening lead is made (face down). Only a few seconds (usually).

[blackshoe]

Fair enough.

[pran]

The law says "Until the auction ends" (3 successive passes in rotation) - which means before the opening lead is made (face down). Only a few seconds (usually).

I have only one comment here:

From what I know about the preparation of the 2017 laws I must conclude that there is a severe misprint here.

 

The laws distinguish between "Auction Period" (Law 17) and "Auction" (Law 22).

While the Auction period ends irrevocably when the opening lead is faced (by either defender) the auction may be resumed for various reasons during the auction period.

 

And Law 24 was intended to apply for any card exposed during the auction period. The current text simply doesn't make sense.

 

Consider the following sequence of events:

1: The auction ends with three consecutive passes (Law 22) and the opening lead is made face down by the presumed LHO.

2: Presumed RHO now asks questions about the auction (Law 20F)

3: The answers to these questions are such that misinformation from presumed declaring side is revealed, and the last presumed defender to call (pass) requests a change to this last pass (Law 21B).

4: His request is granted and the auction is resumed. The final outcome of this continued auction is that the originally presumed defending side now becomes the declaring side.

 

Now how should a card exposed during the first part of the auction be treated?

 

Do I need to elaborate any further?

[blackshoe]

The question is what happens to the card exposed by the putative declarer (or putative dummy for that matter) before the first final pass of the auction. As weejonnie points out, immediately after the final pass, the card is picked up and put back in the owner's hand. Then the opening lead is chosen and made face down. Now, Sven, the rest of your scenario plays out. That the card that was exposed belongs to someone who is now a defender is irrelevant; rectification for that irregularity has already been made. I would say though that knowledge of that card, and inferences that might be made from that knowledge, are unauthorized to the owner's partner.

[pran]

The question is what happens to the card exposed by the putative declarer (or putative dummy for that matter) before the first final pass of the auction. As weejonnie points out, immediately after the final pass, the card is picked up and put back in the owner's hand. Then the opening lead is chosen and made face down. Now, Sven, the rest of your scenario plays out. That the card that was exposed belongs to someone who is now a defender is irrelevant; rectification for that irregularity has already been made. I would say though that knowledge of that card, and inferences that might be made from that knowledge, are unauthorized to the owner's partner.

Please include Laws 24 D and E in your consideration; when will the exposed card eventually be a penalty card? There are two equally important possibilities: The offender was originally to become a defender but eventually became declarer or dummy, and the other way round.

 

IMHO it is important to realize that whenever one of the three consecutive passes closing the auction is changed as permitted in Law 21B1{a} this pass is withdrawn so that the auction has no longer ended (by three consecutive passes).

 

I see no other way to make sense of this part of the 2017 laws.

[blackshoe]

Sven, you gave me one scenario. I answered that. Now you want to add a different scenario. Fine. The same principle, that at the time the first "final" pass is made, the player with the exposed card is putatively either a defender or a member of the declaring side, applies. Which of Laws 24D and 24E is pertinent depends on to which side the offender apparently belongs at the time the "final" pass is made. The appropriate rectification is applied. If, after that, the auction is reopened, that does not change anything.

[pran]

Sven, you gave me one scenario. I answered that. Now you want to add a different scenario. Fine. The same principle, that at the time the first "final" pass is made, the player with the exposed card is putatively either a defender or a member of the declaring side, applies. Which of Laws 24D and 24E is pertinent depends on to which side the offender apparently belongs at the time the "final" pass is made. The appropriate rectification is applied. If, after that, the auction is reopened, that does not change anything.

My "first" scenario did not specify which side had a card exposed during the auction so the analysis of that scenario required two different considerations.

 

I didn't change my scenario with my second post, I simply pointed out the fact that your analysis was incomplete.

 

And to your last statement: Please show where in the Laws you find anything to the effect that an auction is reopened? As far as I can understand the auction is temporarily curtailed when a call is changed and then continued with the replacing call. It is still (legally) within the same auction (and auction period).

[blackshoe]

It doesn't matter whether you call it "reopened" or something else.

[pran]

It doesn't matter whether you call it "reopened" or something else.

My point is that an auction is not (legally) ended when a presumed closing pass is withdrawn.

[blackshoe]

My point is that an auction is not (legally) ended when a presumed closing pass is withdrawn.

Law 24: "until the auction ends".

Law 22: "The auction ends when: one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid."

The auction ends. The card is picked up (if it belongs to a member of the putative declaring side).

Law 20B1{a}: "Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17D) and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent."

Law 17D1: "The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in Law 22A, either defender faces an opening lead."

If under this law the final pass is withdrawn and a bid or double substituted, the auction continues from that point. So what? Rectification for the exposed card under Law 24 has already been completed. Do you suggest that rectification should be cancelled? Per what law?

[pran]

Law 24: "until the auction ends".

Law 22: "The auction ends when: one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid."

The auction ends. The card is picked up (if it belongs to a member of the putative declaring side).

Law 20B1{a}: "Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17D) and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent."

Law 17D1: "The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in Law 22A, either defender faces an opening lead."

If under this law the final pass is withdrawn and a bid or double substituted, the auction continues from that point. So what? Rectification for the exposed card under Law 24 has already been completed. Do you suggest that rectification should be cancelled? Per what law?

I do not believe that the effect of the change in Law 24 from the 2007 laws to the 2017 laws is intended.

 

Under the 2007 laws the exposed card(s) remains face up on the table until the auction period ends. At this time we do indeed have a declarer, a dummy and two defenders.

 

Under the 2017 laws the exposed card(s) remains face up on the table only until the auction ends. At this time we only have a presumed declarer, a presumed dummy and two presumed defenders.

 

To repeat the problem:

 

Say that the initial auction ends with South as presumed declarer but after the continued auction East becomes the actual declarer.

 

Consider

case 1: West has exposed the Queen of spades during the initial auction

case 2: North has exposed the Queen of hearts during the initial auction

 

For each case rule what shall happen to the offending side and their respective exposed card at the moment the initial auction "ends" and again at the end of the auction period.

 

There is absolutely no problem under the 2007 laws, but I am really interested in your (detailed and complete) rulings under the 2017 laws?

 

(Please remember that there is no such thing as a penalty card during the auction period!)

[aguahombre]

Yawn.

[axman]

Auction was over and Declarer promptly led a small diamond .......

 

I couldn't actually find anything to cover this infraction, so said "pick it up and play on".

 

(Specifying declarer to be south), given the supplied facts:

 

South's exposed card, being the first card played (definition of OL) to the first trick, is an OLOOT.

The OL having been made, dummy is spread (L41C). L54 is irrelevant as N did not lead face down.

W may accept the OLOOT by playing to the trick, and it is treated as in turn (L53A). or,

W may decline to accept, and the lead reverts to W** (L53A) and South's card may be withdrawn (47B).

 

** if south declines to withdraw his card it remains a lead, defining the suit of the trick.

[Vampyr]

(Specifying declarer to be south), given the supplied facts:

 

South's exposed card, being the first card played (definition of OL) to the first trick, is an OLOOT.

The OL having been made, dummy is spread (L41C). L54 is irrelevant as N did not lead face down.

W may accept the OLOOT by playing to the trick, and it is treated as in turn (L53A). or,

W may decline to accept, and the lead reverts to W** (L53A) and South's card may be withdrawn (47B).

 

** if south declines to withdraw his card it remains a lead, defining the suit of the trick.

 

Really? You think that South can insist on leading? Hilarious.

[pran]

(Specifying declarer to be south), given the supplied facts:

 

South's exposed card, being the first card played (definition of OL) to the first trick, is an OLOOT.

The OL having been made, dummy is spread (L41C). L54 is irrelevant as N did not lead face down.

W may accept the OLOOT by playing to the trick, and it is treated as in turn (L53A). or,

W may decline to accept, and the lead reverts to W** (L53A) and South's card may be withdrawn (47B).

 

** if south declines to withdraw his card it remains a lead, defining the suit of the trick.

An "opening lead out of turn" by presumed declarer or dummy is explicitly defined as a card exposed during the auction. See Law 54E.

(It does not end the auction period.)

[axman]

An "opening lead out of turn" by presumed declarer or dummy is explicitly defined as a card exposed during the auction. See Law 54E.

(It does not end the auction period.)

 

In order for L54 to be relevant, N needed to have (also) led face down. North did not do so, therefore L54 is not reached.

 

As to the end of the auction period, that would be irrelevant since the lead starts the play period irrevocably- whether or not the auction period had ended.

[blackshoe]

In order for L54 to be relevant, N needed to have (also) led face down. North did not do so, therefore L54 is not reached.

Law 54E: If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 24 applies.

Nothing in there about it needing to be face down.

 

As to the end of the auction period, that would be irrelevant since the lead starts the play period irrevocably- whether or not the auction period had ended.

Nope.

[barmar]

The relationship between 54E and 24 is confusing. Law 24 is about exposed cards, so it seems like 54E's redirection to 24 should only apply if a player from the declaring side actually faces their attempted opening lead, not if they just attempt to make it.

[blackshoe]

If declarer placed a card face down on the table during the clarification period, and an opponent called me to the table, pointed at the card and said "lead out of turn", I ask who's supposed to be declarer. On being told it's the leader, I'd tell him to pick up the card, not exposing it, and put it back in his hand. Then I would say to declarer's LHO "it's your lead." As for the relationship between 54E and 24, it seems clear to me that, since law 24 deals with exposed cards, law 54E does too. It's not confusing at all, if you think about it.