Here is a comment from John Weatherwax:
"his actually happened in a club game (not Florence!). N bid one spade - E overcalled 3 hearts - S promptly placed the Kxx of hearts on the table! Law 24 applies, but there is a problem. At the start 24 says that if "one or more" cards are exposed then the auction continues to its conclusion with the caveat that N may not use the unauthorized information of S's exposed cards (e.g. N may not bid a close game because they know the placement of the heart K), If NS becomes the declarxer, then S picks up the cards. If EW is declarer, then they stay on the table as major penalty cards.
Para C of Law 24, however, says that if two or more cards are exposed, then the offenders partner (N) is barred from bidding for one round.
I think that equity is better served by the first instance, but EW would have a valid complaint. What to do?"
My response:
Law 24C doesn't give the director any option. Because two or more cards are exposed, North must pass at the next opportunity. If North gets another chance to bid later in the auction, the unauthorized information rule applies as specified in the first paragraph of Law 24. In other words, North cannot take advantage of the information about the heart placement when choosing a later bid, but must pass at the first opportunity.
If the enforced pass damages East-West, for example, by keeping North-South from bidding a contract that is destined to fail, then Law 23 may apply. In accordance with Law 23, the director is required to award an adjusted score when two conditions are met, 1. the offender could have been aware that the irregularity could damage the non-offending side, and 2. the director considers that the offending side in fact gained an advantage. The second part could easily be met if the forced pass kept the offending side out of a contract that was destined to fail. The first part is a can of worms. I suppose that if the cards were put down by an inexperienced player in a "senior moment" then the director would let the table result stand. Otherwise, I suppose the "could have been aware" test would almost automatically be met because it doesn't require actual awareness.
Comments anyone?
"his actually happened in a club game (not Florence!). N bid one spade - E overcalled 3 hearts - S promptly placed the Kxx of hearts on the table! Law 24 applies, but there is a problem. At the start 24 says that if "one or more" cards are exposed then the auction continues to its conclusion with the caveat that N may not use the unauthorized information of S's exposed cards (e.g. N may not bid a close game because they know the placement of the heart K), If NS becomes the declarxer, then S picks up the cards. If EW is declarer, then they stay on the table as major penalty cards.
Para C of Law 24, however, says that if two or more cards are exposed, then the offenders partner (N) is barred from bidding for one round.
I think that equity is better served by the first instance, but EW would have a valid complaint. What to do?"
My response:
Law 24C doesn't give the director any option. Because two or more cards are exposed, North must pass at the next opportunity. If North gets another chance to bid later in the auction, the unauthorized information rule applies as specified in the first paragraph of Law 24. In other words, North cannot take advantage of the information about the heart placement when choosing a later bid, but must pass at the first opportunity.
If the enforced pass damages East-West, for example, by keeping North-South from bidding a contract that is destined to fail, then Law 23 may apply. In accordance with Law 23, the director is required to award an adjusted score when two conditions are met, 1. the offender could have been aware that the irregularity could damage the non-offending side, and 2. the director considers that the offending side in fact gained an advantage. The second part could easily be met if the forced pass kept the offending side out of a contract that was destined to fail. The first part is a can of worms. I suppose that if the cards were put down by an inexperienced player in a "senior moment" then the director would let the table result stand. Otherwise, I suppose the "could have been aware" test would almost automatically be met because it doesn't require actual awareness.
Comments anyone?
RSS Feed