[paulg]

Reported by a local correspondent from a national tournament

West opens the bidding with 1♦, North overcalls 1♥, followed by two passes. West now bids 1♠ and then says, "do you mind if I tell my partner she's not holding 13 cards", and we all looked, and there was a card still in the board. Actually there were TWO cards still in the board.

Naturally the players failed to call the Director and continued playing, with East bidding more strongly now that she had a full hand.

If we had called the Director, as we should have done, what would have happened? Presumably the information that partner is short of a card is authorised information when you can see it in the board, does the fact that it was two cards make a difference?

Any thoughts?

Paul

[blackshoe]

I would have asked East why she did not count her cards before looking at her hand, as Law 7 requires. Then I would apply Law 13, hopefully 13A, which will allow the auction and play to continue, but if the situation calls for it, 13B, in which case I would cancel the board and award an adjusted score.

[PeterE]

OK, I agree with the first part (concerning Law 7); but then I'd follow another route.
Law 14 is applicable - as the intros of Laws 13 & 14 say.
So the applicable laws are L 14 A1 and esp.

Law 14 C said:

Knowledge of the replacement of a card is unauthorized for the partner of a player whose hand contained an incorrect number of cards.

For the question whether partner is allowed to point out that East bid with too few cards, I'd apply

Law 9 A1 said:

Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

So, yes, West may do what he did and, no, it makes no difference how many cards were missing in East's hand.

[paulg]

PeterE, on Mar 3 2010, 08:10 PM, said:

OK, I agree with the first part (concerning Law 7); but then I'd follow another route.
Law 14 is applicable - as the intros of Laws 13 & 14 say.
So the applicable laws are L 14 A1 and esp.

Law 14 C said:

Knowledge of the replacement of a card is unauthorized for the partner of a player whose hand contained an incorrect number of cards.

For the question whether partner is allowed to point out that East bid with too few cards, I'd apply

Law 9 A1 said:

Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

So, yes, West may do what he did and, no, it makes no difference how many cards were missing in East's hand.

Thanks. I knew Simple Rulings was the right place

[helene_t]

Partner has the UI that the first call may be unrelieable since it was based on only 11 cards. Otherwise no problem I think.

[blackshoe]

Right, 14, not 13. My bad.