[pran]

weejonnie, on 2017-May-23, 06:37, said:

[...]
We then go back to deciding whether law 49/50 applies then it would seem to do so during the clarification period (as we have a defined defender) but not during the auction period prior to the auction starting (as there are no defined defenders). Note that if the auction is re-opened (due to misinformation) then if the declaring side changes then the card would be picked up. (The card is presumably now a card exposed during the auction).
[...]

We do not have any (defined) declarer nor any (defined) defenders until the clarification period (and definitely the auction itself) has ended.

What we do have (during the clarification period) is a presumed declarer who will eventually become the actual declarer unless some irregularity causes the auction to be continued.

Therefore neither Law 48 nor Law 49 may be used for any ruling while there is any possibility for another legal call in the current auction.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-May-22, 23:25, said:

I believe that i have found the answers to the questions on Law 24?

Axman already pointed out this clause from 16D1 back in post #2.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2017-May-23, 07:01, said:

We do not have any (defined) declarer nor any (defined) defenders until the clarification period (and definitely the auction itself) has ended.

What we do have (during the clarification period) is a presumed declarer who will eventually become the actual declarer unless some irregularity causes the auction to be continued.

Therefore neither Law 48 nor Law 49 may be used for any ruling while there is any possibility for another legal call in the current auction.

Look up the definition of 'defender' in the laws.

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2017-May-23, 09:17, said:

Look up the definition of 'defender' in the laws.

OK, now give your (complete) ruling in the following scenario:

The auction is completed with South presumed declarer. The last pass in the auction was made by West.

Now East asks for clarification on some of the calls made by North and/or South.

While this explanation is given West accidentally exposes one of his cards of Honour rank.

The clarification of the calls made by North and/or South reveals that there has indeed been misinformation during the auction, and the nature of this misinformation is such that West is allowed to change his last PASS to a different call.

West changes his last PASS to a bid, and the continued auction ends with West becoming the presumed declarer.

What Law(s) do you apply and how do you rule at the time of the exposure on the card exposed by East? (Note that South is still the presumed declarer)

What Law(s) do you apply and how do you rule at the beginning of the Play period on the card exposed by East? (Note that West is now the declarer)

[weejonnie]

The initial ruling is that as a card is exposed during the auction then (assuming it is an honour) East must pass first time around when this status occurred. (Usual UI)
When West becomes the presumed declarer then the card is picked up - no further rectification.

Note law 72C? (Old law 23) may apply e.g. if the exposed card was such that West could have known that it could help East/West.

I am assuming 'exposed' is an adjective rather than a verb.

[blackshoe]

Um. The auction ended. Then during the clarification period, somebody exposed a card. After that the auction was reopened. The card was not exposed during the auction. If the director tells whoever owns the card to pick it up (and why not, since the law doesn't tell him not to) then the new Law 24 does not apply.

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2017-May-23, 20:35, said:

Um. The auction ended. Then during the clarification period, somebody exposed a card. After that the auction was reopened. The card was not exposed during the auction. If the director tells whoever owns the card to pick it up (and why not, since the law doesn't tell him not to) then the new Law 24 does not apply.

The director makes a ruling that allows the game to proceed, of course. As I said - it depends whether 'exposed' is a state of the card, or the action of exposing it.

(I missed out the the actual first step - which is that the card is initially a penalty card (since we have a presumed declarer and therefore defenders:

Defender : an opponent of (presumed) declarer. (definitions)

It seems equitable that East is forbidden from calling the first time when the auction is re-opened, since he has the same UI as if the card had been physically exposed.

Normal auction

North : Call
East : Call
South : Call
West : Call
West drops card
North : Call
East : Must pass (if card is an honour or 2 cards dropped) i.e. equivalent conditions for a MPC

After misinformation

North: Bid/X/XX
East : Pass
South : Pass
West : Pass
West Drops card: There follows a short break while MI issue is sorted out & Director re-opens auction
West : Bid
North: Pass
East : Must pass

Please note that the auction is the process of determining the contract. I would argue that when the director re-opens the auction then we are still in the same auction (it has not ended) - THUS the clarification period for this hand has not started. (Law 17D1)

[pran]

Blackshoe got the point, weejonnie did not.

The auction ended and the clarification period started.
East requested some information about the auction.
West exposed his card.
Law 24 is not applicable because the card was not exposed during the auction.
Law 48 is not applicable because whichever way we look at it West is not (presumed) declarer.
Law 49 is not applicable even if we consider West to be a defender (highly questionable) because in that case we must go to Law 47E.

So the best we can do along the line of weejonnie is to read Law 47E2a:

A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent’s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, [...] 

Maybe this is the best line after all (even though the card was exposed, not played)?

However, I still believe that my suggested adddition (in #19) of a point 4 to Law 17D ("the auction does not end if") might be preferable.

[blackshoe]

There are a number of possible ways to fix the problem caused by the change from "auction period" to "auction" in Law 24. I'm more concerned with how the director should deal with the problem once the new laws go into effect and before the problem is fixed. Weejonnie suggests that "the director makes a ruling that allows the game to proceed", which is a provision of Law 85B dealing with situations where the facts are in dispute. That is not the case here. The facts are clear. Law 84A says "If no rectification is prescribed by law, and there is no occasion for him to exercise his discretionary powers, he directs the players to proceed with the auction or play." No rectification is provided in the laws for this irregularity, so what of the director's discretionary powers? "Director's Discretionary Powers" is the title of Law 12, which has to do with score adjustments. So apparently this refers to adjusting the score. That does not seem appropriate here. So the law says he should direct the players to proceed with auction or play. We still don't know what the lawmakers intend should happen to the exposed card.

Seems to me there are two choices: treat the card as the current law 24 would treat it - it stays exposed until the opening lead is faced and if at that time the player with the exposed card does not become a defender, the card is picked up and put back in his hand, with no further rectification. If the player does become a defender, the card becomes a penalty card. That's the first choice. The second choice is for the director to tell the player to pick up his card now. UI considerations will apply, of course. I tend to like the first option, but it seems clear that either the drafters had their collective head up their ass, or they did not intend that this choice be correct. So I would, I think, choose the second option. I would also refer the case to a committee, even in a club, as that is a prerequisite to submitting it to the National Authority. Then after the committee rules (whichever way they rule) I would submit the case to the NA (ACBL, in my case).

Time to go play some bridge.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-May-24, 09:03, said:

There are a number of possible ways to fix the problem caused by the change from "auction period" to "auction" in Law 24. I'm more concerned with how the director should deal with the problem once the new laws go into effect and before the problem is fixed.

I'm not as concerned. I can't recall the specific combination of events that fall into this crack ever occurring. Each of the individual events is by themselves very uncommon, put them together I think they're one-in-a-million.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-May-26, 08:25, said:

I'm not as concerned. I can't recall the specific combination of events that fall into this crack ever occurring. Each of the individual events is by themselves very uncommon, put them together I think they're one-in-a-million.

That may be so, but a good Law does not contain unnecessary "holes".