[dburn]

The auction is over and West faces his opening lead. Before dummy is spread, East says "I have that card". West still has his hand from the previous board. What is the correct procedure?

[pran]

dburn, on 2014-January-03, 13:22, said:

The auction is over and West faces his opening lead. Before dummy is spread, East says "I have that card". West still has his hand from the previous board. What is the correct procedure?

We have:

Law 17D1 said:

A call is cancelled if it is made by a player on cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.

Law 17D2 said:

After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs* from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call.

So the answer is Ave+ to North/South and Ave- to East/West

[blackshoe]

The correct procedure, attention having been properly drawn to an irregularity (Law 9A2), is for one of the players at the table to call the director (Law 9B1) and to take no other action until the director makes his ruling (Law 9B2). The director applies, as Sven suggests, Law 17D, canceling East's call(s) (Law 17D1). I can see no auction in which South becomes declarer and West does not call after East at least once, so Law 17D2 requires that the director award an artificial adjusted score IAW Law 12C2. Law 12C2 requires the director to determine who is at fault for the irregularity, and to award average minus to a contestant directly at fault, average to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus to a contestant in no way at fault. Since we are given neither sufficient evidence to determine fault ourselves, nor the director's determination of such fault, nor indeed the form of contest (individual, pairs, or teams), we cannot say what the actual adjusted score should be in this case.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-03, 14:30, said:

The correct procedure, attention having been properly drawn to an irregularity (Law 9A2), is for one of the players at the table to call the director (Law 9B1) and to take no other action until the director makes his ruling (Law 9B2). The director applies, as Sven suggests, Law 17D, canceling East's call(s) (Law 17D1). I can see no auction in which South becomes declarer and West does not call after East at least once, so Law 17D2 requires that the director award an artificial adjusted score IAW Law 12C2. Law 12C2 requires the director to determine who is at fault for the irregularity, and to award average minus to a contestant directly at fault, average to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus to a contestant in no way at fault. Since we are given neither sufficient evidence to determine fault ourselves, nor the director's determination of such fault, nor indeed the form of contest (individual, pairs, or teams), we cannot say what the actual adjusted score should be in this case.

I did of course not imply that Law 9 should be bypassed, I simply went straight to the applicable Law and its consequences.

From OP I understood that West held his(?) cards from the previous board while the other three players had their correct hands.

Therefore the ruling is simple: West (alone) is at fault for having cards from a different board. How he came to have the incorrect cards is immaterial for the purpose of applying Law 17D2 - we have one OS and one NOS.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-03, 14:30, said:

I can see no auction in which South becomes declarer and East does not call after West at least once...

(FYP)


Who is declarer?
What if the auction was 1NT from North all pass and West then led out of turn?

Dburn didn't say who was declarer, only who has led.

[dburn]

Law 17 refers explicitly to the auction period. It makes no provision for the discovery of the wrong cards after the auction period is over.

[pran]

dburn, on 2014-January-03, 17:00, said:

Law 17 refers explicitly to the auction period. It makes no provision for the discovery of the wrong cards after the auction period is over.

Be aware that headings do not limit the application of any Law! (See the introduction to the laws.)

Law 17 fully applies even if the irregularity is not discovered until after the end of the auction period.

[blackshoe]

MMM. David has a point. Once an opening lead (even from the wrong hand) is faced, we are irrevocably in the play period. It is not possible to revisit the auction at this point. Now I'm thinking these folks have played a "board" they were not scheduled to play. I would cancel that "board" altogether, assigning no score to it. I suppose we can still give them the correct board and ask them to play it, with UI restrictions on East. But I don't think it's a law 17 situation, so I'm not so sure there would be any restrictions on West's bidding.

[hautbois]

dburn, on 2014-January-03, 17:00, said:

Law 17 refers explicitly to the auction period. It makes no provision for the discovery of the wrong cards after the auction period is over.

Law 47B should get us back into the auction period.

[blackshoe]

hautbois, on 2014-January-03, 17:29, said:

Law 47B should get us back into the auction period.

Nope. See Law 22B1.

[blackshoe]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-January-03, 16:30, said:

(FYP)

I changed that twice before I finally posted it. It seems old age has brought me a couple of things I didn't expect: dyslexia and (very mild, and I hope it stays that way) OCD.

[hautbois]

Is the facing and withdrawal of an illegal card the same as facing an opening lead? Since this card cannot be the opening lead, we could say the auction period has not ended by it being shown.

[axman]

dburn, on 2014-January-03, 13:22, said:

The auction is over and West faces his opening lead. Before dummy is spread, East says "I have that card". West still has his hand from the previous board. What is the correct procedure?

In this area the law has provisions that do not make sense.

When E claimed that he has the card that W has led, he has named such card as one that he holds. L49 provides that such card must be faced as a PC- notably the offense occurred during the play period [the distinction being made for those that know what to do with cards exposed during the auction period; what is not so clear is the law’s effect upon such card- when an auction starts up subsequent to the ending of the auction period].

The effect of L17D1 unilaterally specifies that all of W’s calls [to date] on the board are cancelled. There are no qualifying provisions that restrict its application other than W’s having called after seeing the incorrect hand but not seeing the correct one.

Additionally, L17D2 provides that W must look at the correct hand and then call, thereafter the auction continues. Again, there are no qualifying provisions that restrict its application other than W’s having called after seeing the incorrect hand but not seeing the correct one. However, there is a qualifying provision whereby [ostensibly once the auction is ?over?,] an art score be awarded.

It thus seems that there is much to do which has little purpose.

So, what’s clear to me is that the correct thing to do is to cancel the original OL [put the wrong cards back into their board], get the correct cards in W’s hand, and rule that the auction stands [W’s bidding is the result of his own misunderstanding- L21A]. Rule E’s card a PC and give declarer OL penalties. Then require that W lead after declarer gives his option.

[blackshoe]

Lots of creative "solutions" here. Another: Shoot West. Remove the body. Find East a new partner. This will take a while, so give everybody "not played" on this board and go on from there.

[blackshoe]

hautbois, on 2014-January-03, 17:46, said:

Is the facing and withdrawal of an illegal card the same as facing an opening lead? Since this card cannot be the opening lead, we could say the auction period has not ended by it being shown.

We could, but that would be contradictory to Law 22B1: "The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2 above, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn, then see Law 54.)" Neither this law nor Law 54 (nor any other) makes any provision for going back to the auction period.

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-03, 19:50, said:

We could, but that would be contradictory to Law 22B1: "The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2 above, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn, then see Law 54.)" Neither this law nor Law 54 (nor any other) makes any provision for going back to the auction period.

It doesn't sound to me like either defender has yet faced an opening lead. One of them named a card and one of them showed us a card he held on a different board.

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2014-January-03, 21:28, said:

It doesn't sound to me like either defender has yet faced an opening lead. One of them named a card and one of them showed us a card he held on a different board.

Go back and read the OP.

[gnasher]

Almost all of this discussion is completely irrelevant. Law 17D applies regardless of whether we're in the auction period, in the play period, or in the bar after the event (as long as we're still within the correction period).

I agree that the sequence of the sentences in 17D2 is strange, and the word "otherwise" is missing from the parenthetic part, but I think the intended meaning is clear:
- All of the offender's calls are cancelled.
- In a normal auction, we need consider only the offender's first call and the two that followed it.
- If offender's partner had bid after the call, the board is cancelled.
- If offender's LHO had bid over the call, and offender now substitutes a different call, the board is cancelled.
- If offender's LHO had bid over the call, and offender makes the same call as before, offender's LHO must make the same call as before.

17D3 tells us what happens if the incorrect hand was from a board which hasn't yet been played, when we do come to play that board. Again, the wording could do with some work.

[pran]

If people here would concentrate on understanding the laws rather than dissecting them they would soon realise that the purpose of Law 17D is to save the Board if at all possible.

The Board can be saved (and played) if no player other than offender's LHO has made a call after offender's first call during the auction, and then only if offender's call and (in case) the subsequent call by his LHO were not changed with the rectification.

This leaves one special situation apparently unhandled in the laws:
- The auction has been completed,
- offender made only one call during the entire auction and this call was a pass, either closing the auction or followed by the closing pass from offender's LHO,
- the opening lead is made.

It is clear from Law 17 that the offender also in this case shall have his incorrect cards replaced with the correct hand, but is it now possible to save and play the board?

IMHO yes, but only if the offender confirms that he would have passed during the original auction also with the correct cards.

(I would as TD require his statement to this effect be corroborated by his cards, either immediately faced as dummy or eventually disclosed after the play.)

[dburn]

South opens 1NT and all pass. Both East and West (on this board) have 4-3-3-3 nine counts and neither of them would bid. West faces a lead and East claims (correctly) to have the card West has just led. Now:

If West still has his hand from the previous board, Law 17 mandates the award of an adjusted score; but
If East still has his hand from the previous board, Law 17 allows the board to be played.

This is: [a] what was intended by the lawmakers; [b] ridiculous; [c] both. Select whichever seems to you to apply.