[VixTD]

In a county match yesterday the following sequence of events occurred on one board:

1. NS bid unopposed to 7NT
2. West asked about the auction and was told (incorrectly) about the number of aces and kings North had shown
3. West made a face-down opening lead
4. North faced dummy's cards
5. South said (before seeing dummy) "Sorry, I've given you the wrong information"

If West claims the incorrect explanation affected their choice of lead, should the TD allow them to change it?

[fbuijsen]

No. This is explicitly stated in article 47E2a.
Play should continue with the planned opening lead, and the TD can assign an adjusted score if he judges that west was harmed by the incorrect explanation, after the hand.

[RMB1]

I would consider a procedural penalty against North for failing to correct the explanation - putting down prematurely seemed to be an attempt to prevent any correction.

[VixTD]

fbuijsen, on 2014-June-30, 06:47, said:

No. This is explicitly stated in article 47E2a.
Play should continue with the planned opening lead, and the TD can assign an adjusted score if he judges that west was harmed by the incorrect explanation, after the hand.

I wasn't actually called to give a ruling until after the hand had been played, but this is how I would have ruled. It seems that West has lost an option because an opponent has faced dummy prematurely (law 41C), but the face-down opening lead is still an opening lead, and law 47E2(a) is quite clear. (We all agreed there was no damage, as the way South played it he would make the contract on any lead.)

RMB1, on 2014-June-30, 08:19, said:

I would consider a procedural penalty against North for failing to correct the explanation - putting down prematurely seemed to be an attempt to prevent any correction.

I'm sure North was just clueless, but you're right. I told South off for complaining that West should have called the director earlier, when there's an obligation on South to call the director when correcting the wrong explanation (law 75B), so North got away scot-free.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2014-June-30, 10:47, said:

I wasn't actually called to give a ruling until after the hand had been played, but this is how I would have ruled. It seems that West has lost an option because an opponent has faced dummy prematurely (law 41C), ...

In some circumstances, West has gained an option: he gets to play the hand on one lead (which may be right) and he gets the TD to play the hand on another lead.

[blackshoe]

OP said South made his comment "befpre seeing dummy". Was he in fact not looking, or did the comment come before the dummy came down?

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-30, 18:23, said:

OP said South made his comment "befpre seeing dummy". Was he in fact not looking, or did the comment come before the dummy came down?

I don't know, all I know is that it wasn't the sight of dummy that made him realise he'd misinformed the opponents.