[gnasher]

gnasher, on 2012-February-20, 01:52, said:

If South led face-up, I think it should place NS in a worse position than if he'd led face-down, but I can't find a law that says so.

I know it's not relevant to Cyberyeti's ruling, but can anybody improve on this answer?

[blackshoe]

It depends on whether any card in dummy has been exposed. Once that happens, the opening lead may not be retracted. If no card in dummy has been exposed, Law 21 may still apply, and the opening leader may change his lead, but his original face up opening lead will normally be a major penalty card. The law does not suggest that a face up opening lead draw a Procedural Penalty. So South is in a worse position when he leads face up because if any card in dummy has been exposed, he's stuck with his lead, and if no card in dummy has been exposed, his original lead will become a MPC if he changes it.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-20, 18:45, said:

It depends on whether any card in dummy has been exposed. Once that happens, the opening lead may not be retracted. If no card in dummy has been exposed, Law 21 may still apply, and the opening leader may change his lead, but his original face up opening lead will normally be a major penalty card. The law does not suggest that a face up opening lead draw a Procedural Penalty. So South is in a worse position when he leads face up because if any card in dummy has been exposed, he's stuck with his lead, and if no card in dummy has been exposed, his original lead will become a MPC if he changes it.

Law 22B1 said:

The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. [...]

So it doesn't matter whether any of the cards in dummy has been exposed, it is too late for any application of law 21 (change of call) or Law 41 (withdrawal of opening lead) once a defender has faced an opening lead.

[VixTD]

pran, on 2012-February-21, 03:25, said:

So it doesn't matter whether any of the cards in dummy has been exposed, it is too late for any application of law 21 (change of call) or Law 41 (withdrawal of opening lead) once a defender has faced an opening lead.

blackshoe said:

If no card in dummy has been exposed, Law 21 may still apply, and the opening leader may change his lead, but his original face up opening lead will normally be a major penalty card.

I don't think either of these is correct.

Law47E2(a) said:

A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent’s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card.

Law49 said:

Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card

So if an opening lead has been faced it may be withdrawn without penalty after correction of an opponent's misexplanation so long as dummy has not been faced or a subsequent card played. Law 49 implies that it is normal for the director not to declare the withdrawn card a penalty card.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 17:31, said:

2♦ was not alerted nor was 2♥, but EW's system was that this was a (weak) transfer. W actually intended it as a pretty random move hoping partner would bid a major (he'd forgotten the system). I can fully believe that even with a 17 count with 5 card support this particular east would not even consider breaking the transfer.

At the end of the auction N asked some questions, discovered the lack of an alert and called the TD, with the lead face down.

2♥ made on the nose and NS claimed MI/UI.

NS's methods, the X of 1N is 9+, X of 2♥ by S is pens, X of 2♥ by N is T/o, but virtually guaranteeing 4 spades.

So it is completely impossible for N/S to double 2♥ for penalties if North has the long trumps.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 17:31, said:

My questions are the following:

1. If the lead was face down should N have been given his pass back ?

North should be given the chance to change his last pass if it is because of the UI.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 17:31, said:

2. If the lead was face up does N get his pass back and if different to 1 has he lost some of his right to redress.

Tricky. If the lead was face up then N/S are at fault. I would probably deny that portion of redress that involved changing the pass since he could have had it back but for South - but only for N/S. In other words, we now have two offending sides, which complicates matters. But as you say, it did not happen.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 17:31, said:

3. If he was given his pass back, he claims he would have bid 3♣ [said after seeing all 4 hands], do we believe him ?

Do we believe him? I do not know nor care. We do not go round calling people liars: if we adjust we do so on the likelihood of various possibilities. For example we might give a percentage adjustment based on him bidding 3♣ and a percentage adjustment based on him not bidding 3♣.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 17:31, said:

4. Should N have asked over the 2♦ even though it wasn't alerted ? as it's not very often that a bid of LHO's suit is natural.

Should he have asked? This is only relevant if you really believe he was at fault.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 17:31, said:

5. Is pulling a "natural" 2♦ to 2♥ with a 1N overcall unusual enough that NS should have asked before passing it out ?

Now I do find it incredible that anyone woudl assume 2♦ is natural without asking.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-19, 17:31, said:

The TD ruled score stood, and so did we as appeals committee, looks like it might get appealed again. We weren't aware on the appeals committee that the director was called at the end of the auction not the end of the hand, so if a directorial error is ruled, what happens next ?

Appealed again? How? Unless you mean to the National Authority, there is no appeal again.

But it certainly does look like a TD who rather seriously went wrong here. If there was MI then he was required to allow the last pass back. Furthermore, it is the TD's job to make sure the AC gets to know all the facts. Of course they can ask pertinent questions, but it is normal to assume that players have not told them things they need to know, but the TD has told them everything relevant he knows.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2012-February-20, 01:52, said:

2 (b) If South led face-up, I think it should place NS in a worse position than if he'd led face-down, but I can't find a law that says so.

We adjust based on who is at fault: if South led he is at fault, so both sides have become offending. So we adjust for two offending sides.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-20, 05:16, said:

Also (not applicable in this case, but would be with some other declarers in that room) how do you deal with the "I know I'd make 3♣ on this hand but I don't think you would" type scenario nicely without offending anybody.

There are two answers. First, messy hands like this are dealt with by weighted score adjustments so you do not rule 3♣ making nor 3♣ minus one. I know a lot of TDs still do, but since we have had weighted scores in this country for 25 years perhaps it is time they learnt not to.

Second, you rule by asaing "I am adjusting to ...", never by saying that you believe anyone in the number of tricks they make or whether they bid 3♣.

blackshoe, on 2012-February-20, 18:45, said:

It depends on whether any card in dummy has been exposed. Once that happens, the opening lead may not be retracted. If no card in dummy has been exposed, Law 21 may still apply, and the opening leader may change his lead, but his original face up opening lead will normally be a major penalty card. The law does not suggest that a face up opening lead draw a Procedural Penalty. So South is in a worse position when he leads face up because if any card in dummy has been exposed, he's stuck with his lead, and if no card in dummy has been exposed, his original lead will become a MPC if he changes it.

While the opening lead may be retracted because of MI, a call made may not be retracted because of MI once the opening lead is faced. Law 21B1A says until the end of the auction period and Law 22 says that is when the opening lead is faced. An opening lead is retracted under Law 47E2A which is different.

[blackshoe]

I plead illness. I've had some miserable cold or something the last couple weeks.