BBO Discussion Forums: Hand taken from wrong board - BBO Discussion Forums

At the club teams last night a player somehow took her cards from board 16 and proceeded to play board 15 with them. Neither she nor her partner bid on the board, but when her partner led to the contract she noticed that she had the same card in her hand, told the table and called the Director.
The playing (untrained) Director cancelled the board and awarded A+ to the the non-offending pair and A- to the offending pair. I (also untrained) had a quick look though a law book and could not find anything to address this, although I'm sure it must be there.

Or is the player supposed to take the correct hand from the board and continue playing at this point, with appropriate comments about UI to her partner?

When they play board 16, should the card that the player is known to hold be exposed on the table and then the auction may commence?

Thanks!

I don't think it matters but this was a Scottish club.

The relevant Law part is probably not well positioned - but has a convincing heading "LAW 17: THE AUCTION PERIOD" -
"D. Cards from Wrong Board". The law is unclear about what happens if the error is discovered during the play - but if the offender would have passed throughout with the correct cards, it might be possible to play the hand.

RMB1, on 2014-March-19, 09:10, said:

Sorry - wrong answer:

Law 17D2 said:

Notice the emphasizing - once the offender's partner has called subsequent to the offender's first call the Director has no option but to cancel the Board and award artificial adjusted scores.

(BTW.: The Director's ruling was correct!)

As for the question on what happens when Board 16 is to be played:

Law 17A said:

Law 24 said:

So the auction period on Board 16 has begun for the offending side and Law 24 applies because verbally exposing a card held is considered equivalent to actually facing it for the purpose of ruling exposed cards.

The Director should consult Law 24 to learn the correct procedure when eventually Board 16 is to be played at that table.

RMB1, on 2014-March-19, 09:10, said:

I think this is one that is being looked at for improvement in the next set of Laws, but the way it's currently worded it seems to me that you have to cancel the board once the opening lead has been faced ("the play period begins irrevocably"), or if offender's partner has called after him, or if his LHO has called over him and he wishes to substitute a different call when faced with the correct hand.

pran, on 2014-March-19, 10:17, said:

Very strange to show quotes with emphasis and then restate them, omitting crucial words. There was no cancelled call.

Vampyr, on 2014-March-19, 11:24, said:

There was at least one cancelled call; pran didn't quote 17D1 but it says

Quote

Vampyr, on 2014-March-19, 11:24, said:

As you obviously already were aware of Law 17D I assumed that you had only failed to notice the 17D2 part. I try not to quote unneccesarily much stuff.

gordontd, on 2014-March-19, 10:24, said:

I have been wondering if there is a trap here: Say that South has dealt and makes an opening bid. West, North and East all pass and West makes his opening lead. East discovers that he has the cards from a different deal. Now what?

Law 17 tells us that East's (only and last) pass is cancelled, he must take up his correct cards and Call again. Because nobody made any call after him in the original auction the auction then continues "normally" regardless of which call East now makes. (Law 17D2 or 17D3).

But what about the opening lead?
Well, as East's pass was cancelled the auction has not ended and the opening lead is in fact a card exposed during the auction period. Law 24 applies to this irregularity!

If you sort this situation out to your satisfaction you can repeat the tale with North (rather than East) being the player who has the incorrect cards, eveything else being identical except that if North changes his PASS then East may change his final PASS as well.

Have fun!

As I commented above, once the opening lead has been faced, the play period begins irrevocably. So we can't go back to the auction period.

gordontd, on 2014-March-19, 17:08, said:

So you can't go back and cancel a call. As I stated earlier, there has not been a cancelled call.

I find that a lot of my posts are a bit terse, but I have no patience for typing on my iPad mini, and just have to hope that people can follow.

gordontd, on 2014-March-19, 17:08, said:

Yes we can. Take for instance a look at Law 17E2.

A "faced opening lead" will in certain circumstances be considered a card exposed during the auction period and Law 24 applies.

One thing is evident though:

If in the very rare situation when an offender with cards from a wrong board has made only one single call during the auction and his partner has made no further call it is too late to cancel that call under Law 17D once an apparent opening lead has been made, then there should be only one option left for the Director and that is to cancel the board and award artificial adjusted scores.

However, Law 17 doesn't say that nor does any other Law say that. But we have Law 24 which implies that an apparent faced opening lead in certain cases is a card exposed during the auction period and not an opening lead.

So it might seem as we have a possible stalemate between Law 17 and 24 on one side and Law 41 on the other side in some very special situations.

Vampyr, on 2014-March-19, 19:36, said:

You don't need to "go back"; the call was cancelled the moment it was made. No-one realised, of course.

pran, on 2014-March-20, 02:14, said:

One special case does not lead to a general interpretation that ignores the word "irrevocably" in Law 41C.

pran, on 2014-March-20, 02:14, said:

Maybe, but that's irrelevant here.

blackshoe, on 2014-March-20, 08:52, said:

Indeed it is: Which Law takes precedence:

Law 17 which dictates that offender's call is cancelled, offender looks at his correct hand and the auction continues normally from there on.
or Law 41 which says that the play period has irrevocably begun.

If Law 17 takes precedence the implication is that because of the cancelled call the auction has not ended (and of course neither has the auction period). Consequently any card faced at this time, whether or not intended as an opening lead, is a card exposed during the auction period.

If Law 41 takes precedence the implication is that the play must be carried out with the offender playing the incorrect hand, which is absurd. However, nowhere can we find anything that allows the offender to replace his incorrect hand with the correct hand once the play period has begun.

The only easy way out of this dilemma is to rule that rectification according to Law 17D may not be attempted once offender's partner has made any call after offender's (first) call with incorrect hand (the present condition) or if any card has been exposed, whether or not intended as an opening lead (a new condition).

It shall be interesting to see if that becomes the intention of WBFLC.

gordontd, on 2014-March-19, 17:08, said:

pran, on 2014-March-20, 02:14, said:

Which bit of L17E2 refers to "once the opening lead has been faced"?

gordontd, on 2014-March-20, 09:52, said:

Law 17E2 said:

None, it doesn't have to.

Because a player cannot be deprieved of his right to call in the situation described in Law 17E2 even if the closing passes are followed by an (attempted) opening lead.

The player performing a faced opening lead bears the risk of having his lead deemed a card exposed during the auction period if the auction itself is found incorrect and part of it becomes cancelled in some way.

The play period begins irrevocably once the auction and Clarification Period are over and the opening lead has been faced. That is the case in the situation originally presented in this thread. It is not the case in the L17E2 example you give.