[pran]

 dburn, on 2014-January-04, 06:28, said:

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.

As I wrote above, this is unhandled in the laws.

I do believe that it is possible to save the board in both cases but I don't think that is what is intened by WBFLC.

Honestly I believe the intention is that for the Board to be "saved" the irregularity must be discovered and rectified before offender's partner calls subsequent to the first call by the offender and before the opening lead is made (whichever occurs first).

This excludes from recovery a few very special situations with the benefit of fewer special Law exceptions.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2014-January-04, 02:42, said:

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).

Does it? Which law says so?

Back in the old days on Jerry Pournelle's forum on GEnie, we would have said "PPOR". It stands for "provide proof or retract".

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-04, 12:31, said:

Does it? Which law says so?

All the Laws apply throughout unless otherwise stated.

Suppose that we complete an auction, a card is led, and dummy puts down 13 cards, one of which is Mr Bun The Baker. Would you assume that Law 1 no longer applies because we happen to have got past the end of the auction period?

Presumably you wouldn't, so why would you assume that Law 17 is treated differently?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-04, 12:31, said:

Does it? Which law says so?

Introduction said:

[...] headings [...] do not limit the application of any Law [...]

[jeffford76]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-03, 21:54, said:

Go back and read the OP.

If you're trying to have a discussion, this is an absurd way to do so. You might instead say what you think was wrong with what I wrote.

OP may have called it an "opening lead", but given that no card from the actual set of cards on lead has been faced, there has been no opening lead.

[barmar]

 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.

22B1 doesn't say that it has to be a legal opening lead. A lead out of turn isn't legal, but it also ends the auction period -- we deal with rectifying it as part of the play period.

[blackshoe]

 jeffford76, on 2014-January-05, 11:18, said:

If you're trying to have a discussion, this is an absurd way to do so. You might instead say what you think was wrong with what I wrote.

OP may have called it an "opening lead", but given that no card from the actual set of cards on lead has been faced, there has been no opening lead.

That, as Jerry Pournelle used to say, turns out not to be the case.

Quote

Law 41C: Following this clarification period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy’s hand is spread (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn).

Law 54A: After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer.

The only thing that would not irrevocably begin the play period is a lead by the putative declaring side, which per Law 54F is handled by Law 24. The latter law deals with cards exposed during the auction period.

[jeffford76]

You're right, my statement was not completely correct, as a lead from the wrong hand can become the opening lead. This has no relevance to the case under discussion. The player on lead faced a card that was not a card from the current deal. He might as well have faced his shoe. There has been no opening lead.

[blackshoe]

 jeffford76, on 2014-January-05, 16:12, said:

There has been no opening lead.

I disagree.

[dburn]

Well, the Definitions say that a lead is the first card played to a trick, and that the opening lead is the card led to the first trick. Law 1 defines a card, and what West led met that definition. The fact that it was a card he was not supposed to hold on the current deal does not, in my view, legally prevent it from being regarded as an opening lead.

[pran]

 dburn, on 2014-January-06, 06:47, said:

Well, the Definitions say that a lead is the first card played to a trick, and that the opening lead is the card led to the first trick. Law 1 defines a card, and what West led met that definition. The fact that it was a card he was not supposed to hold on the current deal does not, in my view, legally prevent it from being regarded as an opening lead.

Just a small correction:

Law 22B1 said:

The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn then see Law 54). The interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the Clarification Period.

So the auction period does not end until an opening lead (by a defender) has been faced.

However, I agree that this opening lead does not have to be a card actually supposed to be held by the defender, it may very well be a card the defender held in error and led in good faith.

[gnasher]

 dburn, on 2014-January-06, 06:47, said:

Well, the Definitions say that a lead is the first card played to a trick, and that the opening lead is the card led to the first trick. Law 1 defines a card, and what West led met that definition. The fact that it was a card he was not supposed to hold on the current deal does not, in my view, legally prevent it from being regarded as an opening lead.

Law 1 defines a card as being one of "a pack of 52 cards". Something found in another board isn't part of that pack, any more than West's shoe would be.

[Trinidad]

 gnasher, on 2014-January-06, 08:31, said:

Law 1 defines a card as being one of "a pack of 52 cards". Something found in another board isn't part of that pack, any more than West's shoe would be.

I agree with that, but it may lead to some fun consequences.

With South the presumed declarer, East might "accidentally" make an "opening lead" with a card from another deck. South puts his hand down as dummy and now West will make a true opening lead. EW will defend double dummy.

It is unlikely that East leading his shoe would have the same effect.

Rik

[blackshoe]

"a" pack means any pack, not a specific pack.

I keep hoping to avoid "how many angels can dance on the nine of spades" discussion, as are common on blml, in here. Every so often, I'm disappointed.

[dburn]

It ain't so, Joe. Law 1 fails (crucially, although the significance of the omission has not been important until now) to stipulate that the 52 cards in a pack should all be different. What West led is a card as prescribed in Law 1, which his shoe would not be. Since it was a card, it was an opening lead.

Of course, the trouble stems from the fact that what constitutes a "card" is far from obvious. What, after all, is "the seven of diamonds"?

[jeffford76]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-06, 10:03, said:

I keep hoping to avoid "how many angels can dance on the nine of spades" discussion, as are common on blml, in here. Every so often, I'm disappointed.

So who gets to decide when a discussion is interesting and worthwhile and when it counts as angels dancing?

Just because you find something obvious and unworthy of discussion doesn't mean the rest of us do.

[blackshoe]

 jeffford76, on 2014-January-06, 12:32, said:

So who gets to decide when a discussion is interesting and worthwhile and when it counts as angels dancing?

Just because you find something obvious and unworthy of discussion doesn't mean the rest of us do.

David Stevenson and I get to decide, since we run this forum. However, we do try to avoid drastic action, which is why we almost always let such threads run their course. I would like to point out, however, that our purpose in starting IBLF was to provide a place to discuss practical table rulings, leaving the finer points for blml or rgb or other forums.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-06, 20:33, said:

David Stevenson and I get to decide, since we run this forum. However, we do try to avoid drastic action, which is why we almost always let such threads run their course. I would like to point out, however, that our purpose in starting IBLF was to provide a place to discuss practical table rulings, leaving the finer points for blml or rgb or other forums.

But you haven't just let this thread run its course: you've participated in it too. Surely you're not trying to claim that all your posts in this thread have been about practical table rulings?

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2014-January-07, 03:11, said:

But you haven't just let this thread run its course: you've participated in it too. Surely you're not trying to claim that all your posts in this thread have been about practical table rulings?

Would you please mind stop just there! This is getting boring.

[blackshoe]

Sven's right.