[VixTD]

I was called to a table in a teams match where NS had just conducted an uncontested auction to 6♠, East had made the opening lead and faced it (♦A). Only now did South volunteer a correction of a misexplanation in the auction.

NS agreed that South's version was a more accurate description of their methods, so there had been a misexplanation.

How should I rule?

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2015-January-19, 07:59, said:

I was called to a table in a teams match where NS had just conducted an uncontested auction to 6♠, East had made the opening lead and faced it (♦A). Only now did South volunteer a correction of a misexplanation in the auction.

NS agreed that South's version was a more accurate description of their methods, so there had been a misexplanation.

How should I rule?

On the basis of what you think might have happened had the misinformation been corrected at the proper time, possibly giving a ruling weighted sympathetically to the defending side.

[blackshoe]

There is also the question whether anything would have been different had the explanation given been correct in the first place. Unlikely, I think, in an uncontested slam auction, but possible.

[RMB1]

This may be relevant:

EBU White Book, 8.21.3 Note said:

If the required correction is not given at the end of the auction, it is appropriate to apply Law 23 and adjust on the basis that the non-offending side would have heard the original misexplanation and the correction.

If the opening lead (or final call in the auction) would have been different if the defender had heard both explanations then the Note allows you to adjust as if the defender had heard the correction in time to be allowed to change.

In the OP it is in time for the defender to change his opening lead, even though it is faced, as long as dummy has not faced any card.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2015-January-19, 07:59, said:

I was called to a table in a teams match where NS had just conducted an uncontested auction to 6♠, East had made the opening lead and faced it (♦A). Only now did South volunteer a correction of a misexplanation in the auction.

NS agreed that South's version was a more accurate description of their methods, so there had been a misexplanation.

How should I rule?

Let the play continue, and then after play is completed judge whether EW has a case. Law 21B3

Most commonly you tell the players to complete the board and ask EW to call you after play has ended if they feel damaged by the misinformation.

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2015-January-19, 09:28, said:

This may be relevant:


If the opening lead (or final call in the auction) would have been different if the defender had heard both explanations then the Note allows you to adjust as if the defender had heard the correction in time to be allowed to change.

In the OP it is in time for the defender to change his opening lead, even though it is faced, as long as dummy has not faced any card.

Is the note legal? 41A seems to suggest that only a face-down lead can be changed.

[VixTD]

It's too late to reopen the auction, as the opening lead has been faced so the auction period is over (laws 21B1(a) and 22B1). No one tried to do that, I'm pleased to see.

I had to check in the law book to see if the opening lead could be changed. Robin's the only one to mention this. Law 47E2(a) states:

Quote

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.

So I allowed the player on lead to retract the ♦A without penalty if they would have led a different card with a correct explanation. I then checked to see if the White Book had anything to say on the matter and I found:

Quote

[WB8.47.1] Exceptionally a card can be retracted under this Law when declarer or dummy corrects misinformation after the opening lead is faced but before dummy is exposed.

Why "exceptionally"? I would have thought it would be routine to allow the change, so long as the card was chosen on the basis of the misinformation.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2015-January-19, 12:02, said:

Why "exceptionally"? I would have thought it would be routine to allow the change, so long as the card was chosen on the basis of the misinformation.

I think "exceptionally" is unnecessary overstatement by a previous editor - I have baulked at the word before. Now someone else has objected, I will see if rewording is possible.

[jallerton]

I've often seen "exceptionally" used in documents to highlight that the circumstances in question are unlikely to arise. I think that the term is warranted here: 99% of the time when an explanation is corrected, the correction takes place either before the opening lead has been faced or some time after dummy has started to expose his or her cards.

[jallerton]

Suppose that East makes and faces the opening lead really quickly, such that South does not have any practical chance to correct the explanation in time. East is allowed to change his card, presumably, but is knowledge of the original opening lead authorised or unauthorised to West? Should it be a penalty card even?

[weejonnie]

jallerton, on 2015-January-19, 13:58, said:

Suppose that East makes and faces the opening lead really quickly, such that South does not have any practical chance to correct the explanation in time. East is allowed to change his card, presumably, but is knowledge of the original opening lead authorised or unauthorised to West? Should it be a penalty card even?

The knowledge is AI for West and UI for South - the card is not a penalty card.

Law 47E states that the card may be changed (without further rectification)
Law 49 states that except by law (and refers to 47E explicitly) a displayed card is a penalty card. So in this case it isn't.

Law 16D

When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide:
1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’.

2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized.

The fact that South did not have time to change the misinformation is irrelevant - the misinformation had already occurred and the leader should not IMHO expect to allow for the possibility that there was information.

[barmar]

I think "exceptionally" refers to the fact that in most cases it's the play of the next card to the trick that terminates the right to retract the card. But the opening lead is different, it's merely the exposure of dummy's cards, not the play of one of them, that's the deadline.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2015-January-19, 13:53, said:

I've often seen "exceptionally" used in documents to highlight that the circumstances in question are unlikely to arise. I think that the term is warranted here: 99% of the time when an explanation is corrected, the correction takes place either before the opening lead has been faced or some time after dummy has started to expose his or her cards.

I see lots of players waiting until the opening lead is faced before correcting the misinformation. Perhaps they're not very secure in their understanding of the laws, or they want to make sure the auction is over. I agree that quite a lot of the time some of dummy's cards will have been exposed by the time the correction is made, but your 1% is an exaggeration. This situation is so common I was surprised I had to search the law book to make sure I got it right.

I don't believe that's why the word "exceptional" is included here.

[VixTD]

weejonnie, on 2015-January-19, 18:01, said:

The fact that South did not have time to change the misinformation is irrelevant - the misinformation had already occurred and the leader should not IMHO expect to allow for the possibility that there was information.

No, I think Jeffrey has a point here. The lead should be made face-down and not faced until partner and declarer have had a chance to ask about the auction. The lead should not be faced with undue haste.

I used to have a problem with a small number of players calling quickly over a bid they knew should have been alerted (e.g. fourth suit, strong club opener) and then imperiously declaring that they would retract their call without penalty when an in tempo alert was subsequently made. I don't think directors should allow such sharp practice.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2015-January-21, 07:33, said:

I see lots of players waiting until the opening lead is faced before correcting the misinformation.
[...]

This is a direct violation of Law 20F5b:
If the player is on the declaring side he must correct the misinformation after the closing pass but before the opening lead is faced.
If the player is on the defending side he must wait until the play is over.

(It is true that the law says "after the final pass of the auction" for the declaring side and only implies "before the opening lead is faced", but waiting until the opening lead is faced seriously increases the possibility for an adjusted score to their disadvantage.)

[VixTD]

pran, on 2015-January-21, 07:48, said:

This is a direct violation of Law 20F5b:
If the player is on the declaring side he must correct the misinformation after the closing pass but before the opening lead is faced

Of course it is, but players don't know the laws, even the ones they really ought to know.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2015-January-21, 07:52, said:

Of course it is, but players don't know the laws, even the ones they really ought to know.

Quite true.

And then the best school is when they learn from being denied the redress they would have received had they called the Director when appropriate!

Players really do not need to know more than one Law: Call the Director whenever you suspect that there might be an irregularity.

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2015-January-21, 07:42, said:

No, I think Jeffrey has a point here. The lead should be made face-down and not faced until partner and declarer have had a chance to ask about the auction. The lead should not be faced with undue haste.

I used to have a problem with a small number of players calling quickly over a bid they knew should have been alerted (e.g. fourth suit, strong club opener) and then imperiously declaring that they would retract their call without penalty when an in tempo alert was subsequently made. I don't think directors should allow such sharp practice.

Agree with both paragraphs. On the second, they would get one warning from me, and then the PPs would start.

[barmar]

pran, on 2015-January-21, 09:30, said:

Players really do not need to know more than one Law: Call the Director whenever you suspect that there might be an irregularity.

Well, they need to know enough about the rest of the laws to know when to suspect an irregularity.

For instance, if you don't know the law that says when an explanation should be corrected, how would you suspect that correcting at a different time is an irregularity?

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2015-January-21, 07:33, said:

I don't believe that's why the word "exceptional" is included here.

This is not very interesting for non-EBU-White-Book-readers.

I think "exceptionally" is there because that paragraph is an exception to "and this Law has little application" at the end of the previous paragraph.

In other words, the law is not often applicable to plays after the opening lead but is applicable more often to the opening leads.