Keeping the TD Busy
It was a normal night at the bridge club.
1) North is the declarer in 2 Spades: East leads the King of Hearts. South starts to put down his hand as dummy - and so does West! Three spades are seen before he is stopped (I was declarer to was wondering whether to let him keep on going - we were in a Moysian fit so the confirmation of a 3-3 split was useful - of course if West actually had 4 spades and had kept one back then an additional ruling might be needed). The penalty is eschewed and dummy plays the Ace - and West then decides to put out his five hearts on the table! This is now a 1 1/2 dummy problem. (No we didn't call the director)
2) A new hand - the bidding goes 1 Spade - 2 Hearts - 3 Diamonds - 3 Clubs. This is interesting: 3 clubs is probably fourth suit forcing. Does that mean that any forcing bid is comparable? e.g. RKCB. The bid is not accepted and South (my partner) changes it with a 4 spade call (silencing me) - 13 tricks made.
3) Next round - On hand 19, NS score +190 and on hand 20 a competitive auction sees NS in 3 Spades.
East leads the Ace of clubs and dummy goes down
S AQ6
H K
D KJ84
C K8764
Declarer calls for the six of clubs - and West ALSO plays the six of clubs. It turns out that West hadn't put the hand back from the previous deal (it was still in the board - no one had spotted it). The Director is called and suggests we just play the board - to which everyone agreed. (West's hand was actually pretty similar - 5 points and 4 hearts on the first deal, 2 points and 5 hearts on the second.)
So: what should the director have done on the three (four) situations?
Comments
Interesting! I'd have thought I was on candid camera :)
1) I'd probably have just applied law 49 straight out the book "except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50);
You'd have multiple penalty cards but a TD improvising at one table isn't really fair to the rest of the room.
2) If 3C is asking partner to describe their hand further 'FSF' then a comparable call would have to have that same purpose. I don't think any asking bid would do if it was asking a very different question. We are allowed 4-card comparable to 5-card Stayman but Ace-asking versus Stop-asking or general enquiry isn't comparable in my view.
3) I'd award an adjusted score as per Law 15 2 a: "If the offender’s partner has subsequently called, the Director shall award an adjusted score." Since West was at fault I would award 60/40 in favour of North South.
In this case they have already played the board the wrong hand came from so that result is unaltered.
Peter Bushby Suffolk