Some exposed cards during the auction!
A correspondent heard about the following from some club other than his (or mine!) but somewhere in England, and he asked about how a ruling might go.
West deals and opens, let's say 1H.
North passes.
East responds, let's say 1S
South passes.
While West considers his next call North leads a card face up on the table.
On seeing an "opening lead", East began to spread her hand "as dummy".
My friend proceeds through Law 24 correctly, but, finally, I'm told: "The hand unquestionably belongs to E/W (game and possible slam) so North won't be tempted to continue the auction."
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Comments
Well, if we apply law 24 and treat these all as exposed cards then West and South will have to pass, North will (probably) pass and S will be on lead against 1S with the lead by North a penalty card. This doesn't seem terribly satisfactory to me, both sides have sinned and North's was the initial infraction but we're stuck with a 'strange' result in 1S that's punitive to EW.
Law 24 does say "because of a player's own error", which maybe gives us leeway. Since North has led during the auction we can allow East to pick up their cards. Law 11, since E has taken an action before rectification has been assessed, allows us to waive the EW right to rectification. So I think I can justify telling the players to pick up their cards and finish the hand, which if nothing else will probably be a more 'sensible' bridge score.
I think we could apply good old law 72C (Awareness of Potential Damage) to North's "lead".
I don't. Leads during the auction usually damage that player's side. It's pretty far-fetched to think that the player might have anticipated it causing his opponent to face his hand.
I also don't think we can use Law 11 here as James has suggested, if you read its words.
We could of course designate East's cards not to be penalty cards if we consider that the reason they were exposed was in reaction to North's infraction of leading during the play. As I have commented before, there is no limit on you doing that and it is reasonable whenever you think the opponents bear some responsibility for the situation.
Many infractions damage the offending side, especially after rectification. The point of law 72C is to deal with the situations where they do the opposite. I don't the relevance of who an action might "usually damage".
"Far fetched" is not in the laws. 72C says "could have been aware" - that's quite a "catch-all" criteria.
I'm currently on the fence on this one, although leaning towards "tough on EW".
East bears some responsibility (possibly all of it) for having bared his cards. Law 21A: "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding" - but then law 21A refers to calls and plays - and this is neither.
This is an unusual situation where the consequences of the actions are severe to the second side to offend, but we musn't be led by what's fair (even if we agree on that), but by what the law requires us to do.
Lord Denning (former Master of the Rolls) used to do that - interpreting the law to side on those unfairly treated. It led to fairness at the expense of setting bad judicial precedents.