Lead face down, dummy tabled, then MI established while lead not faced
Feb 23rd 2019 Ranked Masters session 1 Board 14 Dealer E:
P 1D P 1S
P 1N P 2C
All pass
No alerts
W on lead asks about the 1N rebid and it becomes clear neither N or S is sure what their system is. There is mention of 12-16, 15-16 and W is advised to look at the card but doesn't, instead making an opening lead face down. At this point E (me) finds the relevant section of the convention card which reveals that 1N is 12-16 and 2C is checkback (I think the checkback possibility was mentioned by oppo but I'm not sure).
Director is duly called. Can partner take his lead back? Indeed, can he take his final pass back?
At this point we discover that a clearly flustered dummy has already tabled his hand (lead is still face down).
Director's ruling is that the lead cannot be withdrawn as dummy has gone down.
I think this is wrong because we are still in the correction period. Though the fact that partner could have checked the convention card to protect himself might affect your ruling.
And of course if partner can take his final pass back, what's top stop him from declaring the final contact resulting in 13 penalty cards?
How would you rule?
Comments
Yes, you are still in the correction period, the opening lead can be taken back IF the misinformation affected it, and North could change the final pass IF that was affected by the misinformation. This sort of situation was the cause of the one time I had to rule on 13 penalty cards.
A tip when putting an auction in a post - always start with West as it's too confusing to have East to the left of West!
Thanks Gordon.
In this case I think partner has a better case for taking back his final pass than withdrawing his opening lead.
Partner argued that he might double 2C but this is clearly wrong when N has NOT exposed his hand as now I think N is entitled to pull to 2S after partner has passed his 2C checkback. But in the situation as described if pass is changed to double there's a UI problem for S as he is 1-4-4-4
The auction could now go:
- - P 1D
P 1S P 1N
P 2C P P
X 2S P ?
Time for a poll?
I don't think we were damaged in any case, I was just curious. Also disappointed at possibly losing the chance to see 13 penalty cards ;)
The hands:
I think "correction period" (in the above) should be "clarification period".
N also has a UI problem due to S failure to alert 2c.
I suspect 2C by NS scored quite well for EW down one or two.
With a 6 card a suit opposite a probably balanced hand N will surely take an opportunity to bid spades again making probably 9, and unlikely to reach game.
Does this change anything?
The director's rulings weren't exemplary but... take your points and move on.
On the topic of 13 penalty cards, I once ruled that way and the hand didn't seem much fun for anyone at the table. Declarer felt guilty and defenders looked miserable. It was hardly Bridge but, in a competition, you do what you must. On another incident where it could have resulted in 13 penalty cards, I reopened the auction and the player who could have bid decided not to. With the 13 penalty cards, she could have made 6C.
[In case anyone is wondering my browser (Firefox) won't allow me to use the quote feature in this forum]
Typing '>' at the beginning of the line and then cut and paste will do instead of the Quote button.
Yes indeed. If you look at the time of posting, that may provide me with an excuse!
But does it add anything to the AI that S passed 2 !c ? I rather think not. The pass tells N that S thought 2 !c was natural and non-forcing (except in the unlikely event that S has deliberately passed Checkback).