[pran]

A couple of years ago (2007 laws) I had a case in a teams of four match where a player took her cards from the board just played and exposed them on the table in order to show her partner something. The only problem was that the next board to be played had already been placed on the table!

This was (in my opinion) a simple case for Law 24 although it caused some commotion among the directors. Some of them wanted to have the board cancelled because "no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board" (Law 12A2)

I maintained that Law 24 is clear and leaves nothing for the discretion of the Director as it has no limit on how many exposed cards a player may have before the board becomes unplayable. Substituting the board was no option in this particular case.

Comments anybody?

(The board ended in a push with 90 at this table against 90 or 100 at he other.)

(Edit: Changed "penalty cards" to "exposed cards" which is the correct term here)

This post has been edited by pran: 2011-January-17, 09:37

[Cyberyeti]

The board can't be played as you can't really have a normal auction if one of the hands is known.

Leading to a "contract" as declarer and getting a half asleep defender to table their hand is the best chance of 13 penalty cards.

[bluejak]

The trouble with that logic, Cyberyeti, is that would mean that you could not have a normal auction if

• there was one penalty card, or
  
• there was a call out of turn, or
  
• there was an insufficient bid

and so on.

However the Laws do prescribe that you continue after these. Just because it is 13 penalty cards not the normal one is no reason to cancel the board of itself.

Has the auction period started? Yes, Law 17A says it does when either one of the partnership looks at his cards, and this player certainly has.

The only diufficulty I see with this ruling is that the auction has not started and that suggests that Law 16B applies not the penalty card Law.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-January-17, 06:33, said:

The trouble with that logic, Cyberyeti, is that would mean that you could not have a normal auction if

• there was one penalty card, or
  
• there was a call out of turn, or
  
• there was an insufficient bid

and so on.

However the Laws do prescribe that you continue after these. Just because it is 13 penalty cards not the normal one is no reason to cancel the board of itself.

Has the auction period started? Yes, Law 17A says it does when either one of the partnership looks at his cards, and this player certainly has.

The only diufficulty I see with this ruling is that the auction has not started and that suggests that Law 16B applies not the penalty card Law.

No disagreement, just quoting Law 17A more precisely:

The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board.

(And from Law 24: "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")

[blackshoe]

I don't see how 16B applies. I agree with Sven — the auction period has started, Law 24 applies, the cards remain face up until the auction period ends. They are not penalty cards yet, only becoming so if the player becomes a defender. This player's partner must pass at his first turn to call, but there is no other effect on the auction, except that knowledge of this player's hand is UI to his partner.

[bluejak]

Sorry: I was reading too quickly. pran wrote "A couple of years ago ..." and put something in brackets about which Laws. I assumed that this meant the previous Law book so my comments and Law numbers are based on that book.

I do not doubt whether one or more includes thirteen. I was just wondering whether the situation was a penalty card situation. Now I shall have a look at the current Laws.

Incidentally, pran, why did you put "(2007 Laws)" apart from to confuse me? Surely all rulings here are based on the 2007 Laws unless we say otherwise?

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-January-18, 10:11, said:

Sorry: I was reading too quickly. pran wrote "A couple of years ago ..." and put something in brackets about which Laws. I assumed that this meant the previous Law book so my comments and Law numbers are based on that book.

I do not doubt whether one or more includes thirteen. I was just wondering whether the situation was a penalty card situation. Now I shall have a look at the current Laws.

Incidentally, pran, why did you put "(2007 Laws)" apart from to confuse me? Surely all rulings here are based on the 2007 Laws unless we say otherwise?

I certainly had no intention of confusing anybody! On the contrary I just wanted to make it clear that although this happened a couple of years ago it was still under the 2007 laws in case somebody should begin wondering.

It became a penalty card situation because the offender became defender (as Blackshoe correctly remarked).

[bluejak]

Not necessarily. Now we are in the correct Law book, consider Law 16C1. Note that I completely agree that whether it is one card or many does not affect it, but according to that Law it applies if "by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins" applies. Note it says auction and not auction period.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-January-19, 07:50, said:

Not necessarily. Now we are in the correct Law book, consider Law 16C1. Note that I completely agree that whether it is one card or many does not affect it, but according to that Law it applies if "by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins" applies. Note it says auction and not auction period.

Are you really suggesting that the general Law 16C1 shall take precedence over the specific Law 24? I don't believe my eyes

[mjj29]

pran, on 2011-January-19, 08:08, said:

Are you really suggesting that the general Law 16C1 shall take precedence over the specific Law 24? I don't believe my eyes

I seem to remember we had precisely this situation at Easter, David. I took the call and ruled under L16C1, the other directors were split as to whether L16C1 or L24 applied, since there is an ambiguity between "before the auction starts" and "after the auction period starts".

In my case when it was a single card I felt happy that it was the most equitable ruling. I can't argue with anyone applying L24 though.

The WBFLC should probably fix that bug at some point...

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-January-19, 08:08, said:

Are you really suggesting that the general Law 16C1 shall take precedence over the specific Law 24? I don't believe my eyes

Very good, pran. And why do you not believe your eyes? Because you have invented a principle that does not appear in the Laws about general Laws and specific Laws.

You might just as well argue [and it is perfectly logical]:

• Are you seriously suggesting that Law 16C1 does not apply to a card made visible in the auction period before the auction starts even though that Law says it does? I cannot believe my eyes!

Your logic is based on an undocumented principle: mine is based on the Law meaning what it says and not something else. I think my logic is stronger.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-January-19, 09:43, said:

Very good, pran. And why do you not believe your eyes? Because you have invented a principle that does not appear in the Laws about general Laws and specific Laws.

You might just as well argue [and it is perfectly logical]:

• Are you seriously suggesting that Law 16C1 does not apply to a card made visible in the auction period before the auction starts even though that Law says it does? I cannot believe my eyes!

Your logic is based on an undocumented principle: mine is based on the Law meaning what it says and not something else. I think my logic is stronger.

You certainly surprise me. Although it is not explicitly stated in the Laws on Duplicate Bridge I have always "known" as a general legal principle that a specific law takes precedence over a more general law when they both appear appliccable (with different results) to the same situation. I know I have seen this principle confirmed as valid also for the Laws on Duplicate Bridge; I believe that was in some WBFLC minute, or it may have been in some other paper from a WBFLC authority.

Now to Law 16: Law 16C1 cannot possibly apply to information received from another player deliberately exposing cards; an absolute prerequisite in Law 16C1 is that the irregularity must have been accidental. In this case the player violated both Law 7B and Law 7C (last clause). I do not accept such violations to be accidental. (Or do you as a director rule that when a player on his own initiative has taken the cards from a board he is not scheduled to play has done so accidentally and is not at fault if the result is that the board cannot be played normally?)

There is in my opinion no inconsistency between Law 16C1 and Law 24: Law 24 applies in any case when a player because of his own error (prematurely) exposes one or more of his cards. Law 16C1 may apply if such exposure was accidental in the way that it was not the result of the player's own error.

Note that Law 24 gives the offender's opponents better conditions than does Law 16C1. I see no logical reason to deprieve opponents of such better conditions unless Law 24 undisputably does not apply.