[lalldonn]

I am relaying a situation that happened at a local club recently.

There is an auction to some contract. The player who is supposed to be declarer puts an opening lead face down on the table and asks if there are any questions. There are none so he faces his lead, and his LHO who is supposed to be on lead puts his hand face up on the table as dummy. The players then realize what has happened and call the director. What should be done?

[CSGibson]

13 penalty cards, declarer calls them as he sees fit.

[pran]

CSGibson, on 2012-April-05, 12:11, said:

13 penalty cards, declarer calls them as he sees fit.

Initially that is the correct ruling, but I have second thoughts:

Proposed declarer clearly committed an irregularity with his initial action, thereby triggering the confusion, and I am tempted to apply Law 23 here:

Law 23 said:

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

Declarer could very well "have been aware that his action could well damage opponents", so I would probably use my authority to rule that none of the exposed cards are penalty cards but shall be picked up, and that normal play of the board shall be attempted.

If eventually it becomes apparent that normal play cannot be carried out I would then award an artificial score considering both sides to be (at least partly) at fault.

[blackshoe]

I think you need the "unless declarer designates otherwise" bit in Law 50, too, for that ruling.

[kenrexford]

This could be the greatest coup I have ever seen, depending on the ruling.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-05, 13:12, said:

I think you need the "unless declarer designates otherwise" bit in Law 50, too, for that ruling.

Sure.
That is precisely what I implied when writing: so I would probably use my authority to rule that none of the exposed cards are penalty cards but shall be picked up

[wank]

lol old buffers

[jallerton]

pran, on 2012-April-05, 13:57, said:

Sure.
That is precisely what I implied when writing: so I would probably use my authority to rule that none of the exposed cards are penalty cards but shall be picked up

If you used this authority, would knowledge of this defender's cards be authorised or unauthorised to (i) the other defender; (ii) declarer? If authorised information to both, declarer and one of the defenders will be playing the hand double dummy. Will your judgement of "normal play" depend on whether declarer takes a normal (single dummy) line rather than a double dummy line (and the other defender, similarly)?

[pran]

jallerton, on 2012-April-06, 03:14, said:

If you used this authority, would knowledge of this defender's cards be authorised or unauthorised to (i) the other defender; (ii) declarer? If authorised information to both, declarer and one of the defenders will be playing the hand double dummy. Will your judgement of "normal play" depend on whether declarer takes a normal (single dummy) line rather than a double dummy line (and the other defender, similarly)?

I would eventually rule that normal play was impossible if I find that any player had taken a (successful) line of play apparently selected because of premature knowledge of the 14 exposed cards.

In other words: I consider all information from the premature exposures UI until the cards are faced in a regular way.