[weejonnie]

Currently Law 24 (exposure of one or more cards) applies "Prior to the Play Period" i.e. the auction period. So if (for example) someone drops one or more cards when taking their hand out from the slot, then this law applies (see EBU appeal #6 in 2002 (although this needed 2 cards to be exposed)) and partner must pass (unless the equivalent of a minor penalty card) when his next turn to call.

The amended Rule 24 now only applies "During the Auction" NOT "During the Auction Period". (And the exposed cards are now penalty cards)

So what, if any, rectification should be applied should the same thing happen once the new laws are adopted? (i.e. a card is exposed due to the fault of a player when the hands are taken out - or at any point BEFORE the first call is made?) As far as I can see, it is now merely a UI case.

[axman]

weejonnie, on 2017-May-18, 03:17, said:

Currently Law 24 (exposure of one or more cards) applies "Prior to the Play Period" i.e. the auction period. So if (for example) someone drops one or more cards when taking their hand out from the slot, then this law applies (see EBU appeal #6 in 2002 (although this needed 2 cards to be exposed)) and partner must pass (unless the equivalent of a minor penalty card) when his next turn to call.

The amended Rule 24 now only applies "During the Auction" NOT "During the Auction Period". (And the exposed cards are now penalty cards)

So what, if any, rectification should be applied should the same thing happen once the new laws are adopted? (i.e. a card is exposed due to the fault of a player when the hands are taken out - or at any point BEFORE the first call is made?) As far as I can see, it is now merely a UI case.

It is apparent that 16D1 (and its ancillary passages) is relevant:

...or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table
before the auction begins (see also Law 13A), the Director should be notified forthwith,
preferably by the recipient of the information.

This should (probably will) achieve an adjusted score.

[weejonnie]

axman, on 2017-May-18, 11:34, said:

It is apparent that 16D1 (and its ancillary passages) is relevant:

...or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table
before the auction begins (see also Law 13A), the Director should be notified forthwith,
preferably by the recipient of the information.

This should (probably will) achieve an adjusted score.

Thanks - so it is a UI position - but one already addressed. It seems as if the current laws have an ambiguity since 16C1 and the current Law 24 both apply. So the major change is that the exposed cards will no longer be penalty cards.

[axman]

weejonnie, on 2017-May-18, 12:13, said:

Thanks - so it is a UI position - but one already addressed. It seems as if the current laws have an ambiguity since 16C1 and the current Law 24 both apply. So the major change is that the exposed cards will no longer be penalty cards.

I would think that the major change is that the law compels considerably more adjusted scores.

[pran]

axman, on 2017-May-18, 11:34, said:

It is apparent that 16D1 (and its ancillary passages) is relevant:

...or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table
before the auction begins (see also Law 13A), the Director should be notified forthwith,
preferably by the recipient of the information.

This should (probably will) achieve an adjusted score.

And what about a card being exposed during the clarification period?

(The auction has ended, but could well be resumed in case misinformation is revealed. This could even lead to the originally presumed declaring side eventually becoming the defending side with all it's complications)

[blackshoe]

The timeline:

A player takes his hand out of the board: the auction period begins for his side.
Any player makes a call: the auction begins.
There are three consecutive passes (or four if no one bids): the auction ends. The clarification period begins.
The opening lead is faced: the auction and clarification periods end. The play period begins.
A player takes his hand out of the next board, or the last board of a round is quitted: the play period ends.

This law change leaves us with no guidance on how to handle cards exposed during the auction period, but outside the auction. That is a Bad Thing™.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-May-19, 07:51, said:

The timeline:

A player takes his hand out of the board: the auction period begins for his side.
Any player makes a call: the auction begins.
There are three consecutive passes (or four if no one bids): the auction ends. The clarification period begins.
The opening lead is faced: the auction and clarification periods end. The play period begins.
A player takes his hand out of the next board, or the last board of a round is quitted: the play period ends.

This law change leaves us with no guidance on how to handle cards exposed during the auction period, but outside the auction. That is a Bad Thing™.

Precisely my point.

I have approached one of the Norwegian Law Committee members who recently attended a meeting on the 2017 Laws in Prague.
He told me that Law 24 was indeed discussed. Although he had no special notes from this particular discussion he remembered that they were told the change from "auction period" to "auction" was not expected to be "dramatic" in any way.

I wonder.

[barmar]

I've moved this to the Changing Laws forum -- it doesn't seem to be a simple issue, and it's specifically about the recent change in the Laws.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2017-May-19, 08:09, said:

Precisely my point.

I have approached one of the Norwegian Law Committee members who recently attended a meeting on the 2017 Laws in Prague.
He told me that Law 24 was indeed discussed. Although he had no special notes from this particular discussion he remembered that they were told the change from "auction period" to "auction" was not expected to be "dramatic" in any way.

I wonder.

I think law 49 covers this as it starts of with the catchall

"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 (Law 50);"

Note that defender is described as :

Defender — an opponent of (presumed) declarer.

And

Presumed Declarer — the player, who in the absence of an irregularity, would become declarer. (New definition)

At the end of the auction we have a presumed declarer and defenders - and can therefore apply law 49.

If there is an irregularity (Misinformation most likely) and the director allows the auction to restarted then presumably we are back to law 24.

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2017-May-19, 14:00, said:

I think law 49 covers this as it starts of with the catchall

"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 (Law 50);"

Note that defender is described as :

Defender — an opponent of (presumed) declarer.

And

Presumed Declarer — the player, who in the absence of an irregularity, would become declarer. (New definition)

At the end of the auction we have a presumed declarer and defenders - and can therefore apply law 49.

If there is an irregularity (Misinformation most likely) and the director allows the auction to restarted then presumably we are back to law 24.

No, I cannot agree with this logic:

Laws 48 and 49 can only apply after the play period has started. Before that we cannot know which of these Laws will be applicable for the situation we discuss.
(Presumed declarer can well eventually become a defender and vice versa as shown below.)

Say that the Director decides to apply Law 21B1a because of misinformation revealed during the clarification period.

In addition say that a card has already (that is before the Director rules Law 21B1a) become exposed during this same clarification period.

This card was certainly not exposed during the auction, it was exposed while the auction was temporarily halted and before it was resumed, so we shall have to wait for the final completion of the auction before we can tell which player is to be the presumed declarer and how the exposed card shall be handled.

So which 2017 Law shall apply on this exposed card?
(As the 2007 Laws use the term "Auction period" there was no problem before 2017.)

[blackshoe]

I think that the clarification needed, if it is needed, is that a card exposed before the play period starts becomes a penalty card, if it becomes one at all, when the play period starts.

Laws 48 and 49 don't say anything about when the card is exposed. Law 24, as I pointed out before, covers the auction period in its current incarnation, but only the auction itself in the upcoming laws. I see no guidance in the new laws on how to handle cards exposed during the auction period, but outside the auction. I suppose that means that each RA has to decide how to handle those situations, and to promulgate regulations covering them. Until the RA does that, it's left to the TO or the TD to come up with something. I'm inclined to favor handling things according to current law, in spite of the fact that it's reasonable to argue that if that's what the drafters wanted they could have left the law unchanged.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-May-19, 18:01, said:

I think that the clarification needed, if it is needed, is that a card exposed before the play period starts becomes a penalty card, if it becomes one at all, when the play period starts.

Laws 48 and 49 don't say anything about when the card is exposed. Law 24, as I pointed out before, covers the auction period in its current incarnation, but only the auction itself in the upcoming laws. I see no guidance in the new laws on how to handle cards exposed during the auction period, but outside the auction. I suppose that means that each RA has to decide how to handle those situations, and to promulgate regulations covering them. Until the RA does that, it's left to the TO or the TD to come up with something. I'm inclined to favor handling things according to current law, in spite of the fact that it's reasonable to argue that if that's what the drafters wanted they could have left the law unchanged.

I agree to this except that Laws 48 and 49 depend on the declaring and defending sides having been established at the time a card is exposed.

Knowing which player is (at the time) presumed declarer is not enough as this player could well eventually become a defender, and it is therefore quite logical that the word "presumed" does not appear in either of these two Laws.

[weejonnie]

To some extent it may depend on whether

"Exposed" = action of exposing a card OR
"Exposed" = status of a card (Gerund form - I KNEW my study of Latin 45 years ago would come in useful)

If I take off all my clothing inside my house and then run starkers down the street - are my assets 'indecently exposed'?

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2017-May-20, 02:14, said:

To some extent it may depend on whether

"Exposed" = action of exposing a card OR
"Exposed" = status of a card (Gerund form - I KNEW my study of Latin 45 years ago would come in useful)

If I take off all my clothing inside my house and then run starkers down the street - are my assets 'indecently exposed'?

Indeed yes.

According to my limited knowledge of languages and grammars (e.g. English) "expose" is a verb, "exposed" is the past tense of this verb and also designates the state of an object that has been subject to exposure.

So in my opinion your second alternative above is correct.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2017-May-20, 02:14, said:

To some extent it may depend on whether

"Exposed" = action of exposing a card OR
"Exposed" = status of a card (Gerund form - I KNEW my study of Latin 45 years ago would come in useful)

If I take off all my clothing inside my house and then run starkers down the street - are my assets 'indecently exposed'?

Except that Law 49 doesn't use the word "exposed", so we don't have to decide whether it's describing the action or state. It says "when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face".

So it describes the state, but also specifies a particular time when this must happen. If the card is exposed before the auction, then is restored to the hand, and later he becomes a defender, it won't be visible to his partner at that time.

[blackshoe]

The new laws do not say, afaics, that a card exposed before the auction is restored to the hand. It does not say at all what to do with such a card.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-May-21, 22:55, said:

The new laws do not say, afaics, that a card exposed before the auction is restored to the hand. It does not say at all what to do with such a card.

Which is part of the problem. Since it doesn't say that it should stay on the table, restoring it to the hand is consistent with the laws. Then we get into the situation I described.

[VixTD]

weejonnie, on 2017-May-20, 02:14, said:

To some extent it may depend on whether

"Exposed" = action of exposing a card OR
"Exposed" = status of a card (Gerund form - I KNEW my study of Latin 45 years ago would come in useful)

My Latin O-level is only 35 years old, and perhaps a little fresher in the mind than yours.

A gerund in English has the same form as the present participle, i.e. "exposing". It can be distinguished from the participle because it functions grammatically as a noun rather than a verb or adjective, so:

"He is exposing his cards" (present participle, denoting a continuing action, with the auxiliary verb is)
"Exposing your cards other than in normal play can have consequences" (gerund)

pran, on 2017-May-20, 07:15, said:

Indeed yes.

According to my limited knowledge of languages and grammars (e.g. English) "expose" is a verb, "exposed" is the past tense of this verb and also designates the state of an object that has been subject to exposure.

So in my opinion your second alternative above is correct.

The form of the verb which designates the state of something that has been subjected to the action of the verb is the past participle, although in this case it has the same form as the past tense of the verb. It can act on its own as an adjective, or in a compound verb form with an auxiliary verb to denote a completed action or state:

"He exposed his cards" (past tense of the verb)
"He has exposed his cards" (past participle with the auxiliary verb has)
"His exposed cards are subject to penalty" (past participle acting as an adjective)

[pran]

I believe that i have found the answers to the questions on Law 24?

When a card is exposed before the auction we have

Law 16D1 said:

When a player accidentally receives extraneous information about a board he is playing or  has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by  seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own  table before the auction begins (see also Law 13A), the Director should be notified  forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

(and frankly I am surprised that there is no cross reference to this Law from Law 24 for the situation.)

What remains now is only how to handle the situation when a card becomes exposed during the clarification period?

My suggestion is that there ought to be a Law 17D4 something like:

4. When a call has been followed by three passes the auction does not end if a player is allowed to change his last PASS as prescribed in Law 21B1. When this occurs the  auction reverts to the player who changes his PASS, all subsequent passes are cancelled and the auction proceeds normally.  

That makes the card being exposed during the auction

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2017-May-22, 23:25, said:

I believe that i have found the answers to the questions on Law 24?

When a card is exposed before the auction we have

(and frankly I am surprised that there is no cross reference to this Law from Law 24 for the situation.)

What remains now is only how to handle the situation when a card becomes exposed during the clarification period?

My suggestion is that there ought to be a Law 17D4 something like:

4. When a call has been followed by three passes the auction does not end if a player is allowed to change his last PASS as prescribed in Law 21B1. When this occurs the  auction reverts to the player who changes his PASS, all subsequent passes are cancelled and the auction proceeds normally.  

That makes the card being exposed during the auction

So as Director I am called then obviously I have the various options in 16D2.

Note that Law 16D3 applies during the clarification period, so the Director can either allow play to continue, ready to award an adjusted score - or award an adjusted score immediately.

We then go back to deciding whether law 49/50 applies then it would seem to do so during the clarification period (as we have a defined defender) but not during the auction period prior to the auction starting (as there are no defined defenders). Note that if the auction is re-opened (due to misinformation) then if the declaring side changes then the card would be picked up. (The card is presumably now a card exposed during the auction)

In Summary (asuming card is exposed as a fault by North:


0)North deals and exposes a card during shuffle/ deal.

(Law 6D) - hand is redealt (if the card could have been visible to someone other than the person who receives the card)

1) North picks up hand and drops card(s) before any call is made:

(Law 6D and Law 16D) Director decides whether to let play continue (prepared to award an artificial score) or rules that play cannot continue and awards and adjusted score (presumably AV+,AV- or +3/-3 imps but this is depending on whether North is at fault or not BUT in teams play he may take into account a good result at another table (Law 86B) - AFAICS even if the side who got the good score were the ones who dropped the card then this applies). If play can continue then card is replaced in hand and director warns South about possible UI. (Director can order a re-deal or reposition players, but the latter will not happen and the other presumably only on the first round of the evening)

2) North drops a card after first call is made in an auction.

(Law 24) Card remains on table - this is UI to South but AI to EW. If it is a single card below rank of honour then no other rectification (but card is a minor penalty card if NS are defending). If it is an honour or more than one card then South must pass next time and the card(s) are major penalty cards if NS are defending.

3) North drops a card (but doesn't lead) after the end of the auction.

(Law 49) If NS are defenders then the card becomes a penalty card (major or minor). If director allows a call to be changed then 2) applies (including a forced pass)