[VixTD]

I agree with Pran on his application of laws 47 and 54, and I'm sure you could make law 23 stick (North could know it would be advantageous for the lead to come to the strong hand, or perhaps he's a better declarer than South), but I wonder if you couldn't rule under law 12A1 if there was no way North could have been aware. If North happens to get a good result from telling the wrong opponent to make a lead, it seems a bit rough to let the score stand, even if East shouldn't have fallen for it. Perhaps East is not a non-offender, as law 12A1 requires. (I know that law 12A1 should only be applied where there's no other law that empowers the TD to award an adjusted score for damage, and we have found two laws that apply here, 47 and 54, but these laws don't address the question of damage.)

Anyway, where I do disagree with Pran is in his actual adjustment. Three undertricks seems far too generous to EW, unless this is a North American ruling. Doesn't a heart lead look more natural from West, after which South can make nine tricks. I'd give some percentage of -3, but certainly less than 50.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-September-14, 07:17, said:

I know that law 12A1 should only be applied where there's no other law that empowers the TD to award an adjusted score for damage, and we have found two laws that apply here, 47 and 54, but these laws don't address the question of damage.)

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.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2015-September-14, 07:17, said:

I agree with Pran on his application of laws 47 and 54, and I'm sure you could make law 23 stick (North could know it would be advantageous for the lead to come to the strong hand, or perhaps he's a better declarer than South), but I wonder if you couldn't rule under law 12A1 if there was no way North could have been aware. If North happens to get a good result from telling the wrong opponent to make a lead, it seems a bit rough to let the score stand, even if East shouldn't have fallen for it. Perhaps East is not a non-offender, as law 12A1 requires. (I know that law 12A1 should only be applied where there's no other law that empowers the TD to award an adjusted score for damage, and we have found two laws that apply here, 47 and 54, but these laws don't address the question of damage.)

Anyway, where I do disagree with Pran is in his actual adjustment. Three undertricks seems far too generous to EW, unless this is a North American ruling. Doesn't a heart lead look more natural from West, after which South can make nine tricks. I'd give some percentage of -3, but certainly less than 50.

I would use Law 23 on the ground that North quite likely wanted to secure a lead up to instead of through ♠Kx

So my adjustment is based on West finding this lead, resulting in 5 tricks in spades and 2 in clubs for three down.

(In Law 23 rulings I do not look for mitigating circumstances and BTW I use European ruling)

[VixTD]

pran, on 2015-September-14, 09:27, said:

I would use Law 23 on the ground that North quite likely wanted to secure a lead up to instead of through ♠Kx

So my adjustment is based on West finding this lead, resulting in 5 tricks in spades and 2 in clubs for three down.

(In Law 23 rulings I do not look for mitigating circumstances and BTW I use European ruling)

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.

Now that we (in Europe) give weighted scores under 12C1(c), don't we adjust to a mixture of likely outcomes had the irregularity not occurred? Surely we do. Had there been no irregularity, West would be very unlikely to lead a spade (or a club), and South would bag nine tricks. Are you really suggesting we adjust to what would happen if West knew North wanted East to lead, and that East would have led ♠2? Or do you really think a spade is a standout lead on that auction from that hand, with no extraneous information?

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-September-14, 11:18, said:

Had there been no irregularity, West would be very unlikely to lead a spade (or a club), and South would bag nine tricks.

I disagree with that. I think that a club is out of the question, and it is close between a spade and a heart. I think we should poll ten peers of West and ask them what they would lead and assign a weighted score accordingly. And no, we do not tell them about North's ill-chosen remark. If it is pairs, I would lead a heart, but at teams I would lead the ten of spades. You need far less in spades than in hearts to beat the contract.

[axman]

pran, on 2015-September-12, 14:49, said:

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]

VixTD, on 2015-September-14, 11:18, said:

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:

Quote

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.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2015-September-14, 13:52, said:

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]

axman, on 2015-September-14, 13:52, said:

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]

RSliwinski, on 2015-September-15, 03:09, said:

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]

lamford, on 2015-September-14, 07:52, said:

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]

RSliwinski, on 2015-September-15, 03:09, said:

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]

RSliwinski, on 2015-September-15, 03:09, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-15, 12:48, said:

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]

RSliwinski, on 2015-September-16, 03:27, said:

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.

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]

Trinidad, on 2015-September-16, 01:27, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-16, 08:36, said:

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