A Redoubled Rabbit

[pran]

Here is my own suggestion for a Law 24 modified to remove any ambiguity with the term "lead" (or past: "led") in Law 57:

 

LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED DURING THE AUCTION

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 Deliberately exposed

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

B. Single Card of Honour Rank or Card Deliberately exposed

If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card Deliberately 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).

 

The rest of Law 24 should remain unchanged.

 

PS.: The word Intentionally might possibly be better than the word Deliberately in this context?

[sanst]

Post-covid?? There are still some thousand new cases daily in the UK and rising. Over here, in The Netherlands, the bellowing of SB would be a criminal offense, even with a facial mask. We are still considering whether it’s safe or not to begin the physical play. Some clubs have started, but most members are quite reluctant and there might be a government announcement tonight banning groups of more than thirty people, which would make it more or less impossible.

[lamford]

Here is my own suggestion for a Law 24 modified to remove any ambiguity with the term "lead" (or past: "led") in Law 57:

 

LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED DURING THE AUCTION

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 Deliberately exposed

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

B. Single Card of Honour Rank or Card Deliberately exposed

If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card Deliberately 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).

 

The rest of Law 24 should remain unchanged.

 

PS.: The word Intentionally might possibly be better than the word Deliberately in this context?

That does not help at all. It is the disposition of the penalty card that is at issue. The only change that is needed is to Law 50, to change "(but not led, see Law 57)" to "(but not led to trick two or later, see Law 57)". If that is what is wanted.

[pran]

That does not help at all. It is the disposition of the penalty card that is at issue. The only change that is needed is to Law 50, to change "(but not led, see Law 57)" to "(but not led to trick two or later, see Law 57)". If that is what is wanted.

No problem with my suggested change:

The point is that Law 24 will no longer cause any confusion with the ambiguous term "premature lead", they will all be named "exposures".

And a single exposed card below the rank of an honour will eventually be defined as a major or a minor card just as today depending on whether the exposure was deliberate or not.

 

The situations we discuss will be handled precisely as I am convinced the intention of WBFLC is today. Try it out if you bother?

[blackshoe]

Please clarify exactly and in detail what (in your opinion) makes a single card below the rank of an honour that is exposed during the auction a card led rather than just a card exposed

 

The way I understand the laws this distinction is left for the Director to judge, of course after taking into consideration any apparent intention revealed by the offender.

 

 

PS. I cannot find any justification for your allegation that Law 57 applies and would appreciate a foundation for your allegation when you claim a lawmakers' failure to clarify in this law that it does

1. My judgement of the intent of the action, based on my investigation of the facts pertinent to the case.

2. See above.

3. Law 24, titled "card exposed or led during the auction, leading via Law 24E to Law 50, which for a card led leads to Law 57, which does not refer directly to cards led during the auction. Since it does not, this invokes Law 81C2, under which I apply my interpretation of the relevant law, in this case Law 57.

[blackshoe]

West did not "expose" the six of clubs. He led it because he mistakenly thought the auction was over. And he could have been aware that this would tell East that he had correctly interpreted his "unusual" double of 3NT which must, by a passed hand, ask for a club lead. So, the foresight is not great.

It is possible for a card to be both exposed and led. If West didn't expose the ♣6 when he led it, then he led it face down. In that case, I trust, we would not be having this discussion.

[lamford]

It is possible for a card to be both exposed and led. If West didn't expose the ♣6 when he led it, then he led it face down. In that case, I trust, we would not be having this discussion.

The heading of Law 24 "CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION" suggests that "exposed" means "exposed but not by being led". Otherwise it would just say "card exposed during the auction". As you say if it were face down, then there would be no infraction.

[pran]

The heading of Law 24 "CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION" suggests that "exposed" means "exposed but not by being led". Otherwise it would just say "card exposed during the auction". As you say if it were face down, then there would be no infraction.

WBFLC official commentaries to the laws make it quite clear that "exposed" includes "led". That is one reason why I suggested that the term led should be completely removed from Law 24.

 

Instead the terms "intentionally" and "accidentally" can be used to distinguish the two types of exposure where needed.

[lamford]

WBFLC official commentaries to the laws make it quite clear that "exposed" includes "led". That is one reason why I suggested that the term led should be completely removed from Law 24.

 

Instead the terms "intentionally" and "accidentally" can be used to distinguish the two types of exposure where needed.

One of the problems with "intentionally" is that ChCh is well capable of "accidentally" dropping the six of clubs and uttering "Dearie me, I should have wiped my hands after using that slippery sanitiser".

[pran]

One of the problems with "intentionally" is that ChCh is well capable of "accidentally" dropping the six of clubs and uttering "Dearie me, I should have wiped my hands after using that slippery sanitiser".

And so what?

Would you ever rule that a single card below the rank of an honour exposed (by ChCh) during the auction was exposed accidentally (i.e. not led)? Under what circumstances?

[lamford]

And so what?

Would you ever rule that a single card below the rank of an honour exposed (by ChCh) during the auction was exposed accidentally (i.e. not led)? Under what circumstances?

I think this thread has run its course.