[dickiegera]

While playing to the 5th trick LHO wins club lead with a high club and RHO plays 2 of spades. RHO immediately says I have a club and corrects preventing a revoke.

I tell LHO that I have options and I will be asking for a spade lead. I start to call director and LHO leads the diamond Queen.

I continue my call to the director. I tell director that I wish for LHO to lead a Spade. Director agrees and says that RHO can pick up his small spade and play any spade he wishes.

Director now tells LHO that he can place diamond Queen back in his hand because I am not allowed to make a ruling at the table.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe that the rule states that LHO cannot lead if his partner has a penalty card on the table until I state which of 3 options I wish to chose.

I was just stating my option and was telling LHO what I wished and if LHO had a problem we would call the director.

Am I wrong. Does the director need to be called??

Thank you

[barmar]

The ♠2 doesn't become a penalty card until the TD arrives and declares it so. However, once attention is drawn to an infraction, the TD should be called immediately (Law 9B1a) and no player should take any action until he arrives and explains all relevant matters (9B2).

One wrinkle is Law 11A:

Quote

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

Does your stating what you plan to do once the TD explains your options count as "taking action" under this Law? I don't think LHO can claim that he made his lead due to ignorance of the law, since your action actually served to resolve that ignorance. But that's just an example of one reason you might lose your right to rectification.

You didn't "make a ruling", though. You happened to be aware of the law regarding penalty cards, and anticipated the ruling that the TD would make, and simply made a statement about how you planned to act once that ruling was made.

[mink]

Maybe best practice is to just say "director!" if you want to call the director and delay all other communication until the director arrives.

However, like barmar said, you did nothing wrong and deserve a correct ruling. LHO deserves a procedural penalty for doings something before the director arrives.

Karl

[Vampyr]

mink, on 2013-December-11, 16:58, said:

Maybe best practice is to just say "director!" if you want to call the director and delay all other communication until the director arrives.

However, like barmar said, you did nothing wrong and deserve a correct ruling. LHO deserves a procedural penalty for doings something before the director arrives.

I would be more concerned with the major penalty card than with the PP.

[mycroft]

The spade becomes a penalty card as soon as it's replaced (Law 49) - unless the TD designates otherwise (Law 50), not the other way around. That's a nitpick, I will admit.

I have played myself into a double penalty card situation myself before (many many years ago), so I'm sorry. If there's an objection, the TD is called. If you play after that, there's no reason to not deem that play a penalty card. Having said that, the TD does have the *right* to deem it such. I don't think this is the situation he should, however.

In fact, the Law is actually quite blunt: "A play by a member of the offending side before rectification has been assessed does not affect the rights of the opponents, and may itself be subject to rectification." Law 60C. Of course, with all the "may" and "unless" quotes, the TD is still in his right to do what he did (but the "make your own ruling" is specious if you called the TD as you were explaining what option you'd take. Usually that one's used when they try to impose the restrictions - frequently 3 or 4 tricks later - rather than calling the TD and allowing her to ensure that the opponents know what's going to happen, in time to mitigate it as best they can). As I said, I don't like it, but I don't think it's not legal.

[Bbradley62]

dickiegera, on 2013-December-11, 15:56, said:

... I tell LHO that I have options and I will be asking for a spade lead. I start to call director and LHO leads the diamond Queen...

Director now tells LHO that he can place diamond Queen back in his hand because I am not allowed to make a ruling at the table.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I was just stating my option and was telling LHO what I wished and if LHO had a problem we would call the director.

Am I wrong. Does the director need to be called??

Thank you

It appears that director chose to teach you a lesson, and you should learn that lesson. Upon hearing that RHO was substituting a card, you should have immediately called him, rather than showing off your knowledge of the rules to LHO.

[blackshoe]

Bottom line: when you need the director, call the director. When you think you need the director, call the director. When you think you might need the director, CALL THE DIRECTOR! Do not screw around. If you screw around, somebody, sooner or later, rightly or wrongly, is going to nail you for it.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-December-11, 19:13, said:

Bottom line: when you need the director, call the director. When you think you need the director, call the director. When you think you might need the director, CALL THE DIRECTOR! Do not screw around. If you screw around, somebody, sooner or later, rightly or wrongly, is going to nail you for it.

I have a suspicion that this director was at risk of nailing him even if he had been procedure perfect.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2013-December-12, 04:23, said:

I have a suspicion that this director was at risk of nailing him even if he had been procedure perfect.

Looks that way to me too.

[paulg]

This sounds scarily familiar. As part of a campaign to improve conduct at clubs and tournaments around here, we've just finished "No Home-made rulings in November". Unfortunately this descended into "why should I call the director when he has no idea what's he's doing" month and so December is going for the less contentious "No Misboards, just leave the board in the middle of the table".

[jeffford76]

mycroft, on 2013-December-11, 18:06, said:

As I said, I don't like it, but I don't think it's not legal.

If you think it's legal here, do you also think it's legal as a director to always designate presumed penalty cards as not penalty cards? I don't see anything about this situation that would allow a director to invoke the "designate otherwise" clause unless they always can, and that seems like a perverse reading of the law to me.

[mycroft]

Yes. I agree, and I agree.

I think it's a badly written Law (what's new?) and "we know what it means" (which is effectively "if the NOS disadvantaged the OS *more than* they would if they called the TD right away", or "if it's one of those situations where this really shouldn't penalize", or - and this is a critical one for at least one world-class player - "declarer wants to say 'just pick it up', but isn't actually allowed to").

*I* would never do that, the OS should know that after an irregularity, the TD should be there, and after partner's LOOT, something weird happens - and if they don't, well the MPC ♦Q is a really good way to learn about it. I think it's bad TD practise. I just can't say it's not *legal*.

I think the "force a spade lead" part of the comment to opponents is over the top; I would tend to say "Wait, please, I think I have options. Director!" - mostly to avoid showing off (which I'm sure declarer didn't think he was doing, but he was), but also by being both polite and quick, we might not be in this situation when the TD arrives. As the TD, I would suggest to declarer that the proper person to tell he'd like to force a spade lead to is me, not the opponents. That would be the extent of my warning - one would hope it would get the point across.

[Zelandakh]

Bbradley62, on 2013-December-11, 19:09, said:

It appears that director chose to teach you a lesson, and you should learn that lesson. Upon hearing that RHO was substituting a card, you should have immediately called him, rather than showing off your knowledge of the rules to LHO.

The TD could also have taught LHO the same lesson of not only not calling for assistance in sorting out the situation but also ignoring the opponent pointing out that this is a situation with options. This is just a bad ruling, nothing more, nothing less.

[gordontd]

jeffford76, on 2013-December-12, 11:17, said:

If you think it's legal here, do you also think it's legal as a director to always designate presumed penalty cards as not penalty cards? I don't see anything about this situation that would allow a director to invoke the "designate otherwise" clause unless they always can, and that seems like a perverse reading of the law to me.

Max Bavin, Chief TD of the WBF, once told me there is no limit in the laws to the TD's ability to designate an exposed card as not being a penalty card. This of course is far from saying that "it's legal as a director to always designate presumed penalty cards as not penalty cards".

[Trinidad]

I don't really see the problem. The revoke is an irregularity. The TD needs to be called to decide how the revoke will be handled. Attention was drawn to the revoke. And now the revoker's partner plays the ♦Q.

I see a revoke. The TD has not decided how to handle that and hence RHO has not played to the trick yet. But LHO leads to the next one.

We should apply law 50, 57 and 60. And both the ♠2 as well as the ♦Q will be penalty cards.

Rik

[pran]

The facts as I see them are:
1: there was an unestablished revoke to which declarer both announced which rectification he intended to select and called TD to administer the situation.
2: LHO who anyway won that trick led his ♦Q ignoring both the announced intention for rectification and also the fact that a call for TD has been initiated by declarer.

My ruling here would be that RHO must correct his unestablished revoke so that the ♠2 becomes a major penalty card.

If now declarer maintains his decision to have a spade led from LHO then a spade must be led, the ♦Q becomes a major penalty card and the ♠2 is picked up by RHO (who may play any spade to the trick).

Declarer may however at this time change his mind and no longer request a spade to be led by LHO. If so then the ♦Q is led by LHO and the ♠2 remains a major penalty card.


Be aware that any ruling effectively allowing LHO to lead his ♦Q on the ground that declarer did not properly call TD will result in this lead causing the revoke by RHO playing the ♠2 to become established!

[axman]

pran, on 2013-December-14, 14:07, said:

The facts as I see them are:
1: there was an unestablished revoke to which declarer both announced which rectification he intended to select and called TD to administer the situation.
2: LHO who anyway won that trick led his ♦Q ignoring both the announced intention for rectification and also the fact that a call for TD has been initiated by declarer.

My ruling here would be that RHO must correct his unestablished revoke so that the ♠2 becomes a major penalty card.

If now declarer maintains his decision to have a spade led from LHO then a spade must be led, the ♦Q becomes a major penalty card and the ♠2 is picked up by RHO (who may play any spade to the trick).

Declarer may however at this time change his mind and no longer request a spade to be led by LHO. If so then the ♦Q is led by LHO and the ♠2 remains a major penalty card.


Be aware that any ruling effectively allowing LHO to lead his ♦Q on the ground that declarer did not properly call TD will result in this lead causing the revoke by RHO playing the ♠2 to become established!

The unestablished revoke having been corrected, the S2 becomes a PC. Declarer exercised his lead option where “a spade must be led if he has one; otherwise the penalty is discharged” so the S2 is restored to hand. Info from the S2 is UI to defenders. The DQ has been led.


Notably, if the LHO has a spade the DQ is a revoke.

[pran]

pran, on 2013-December-14, 14:07, said:

The facts as I see them are:
1: there was an unestablished revoke to which declarer both announced which rectification he intended to select and called TD to administer the situation.
2: LHO who anyway won that trick led his ♦Q ignoring both the announced intention for rectification and also the fact that a call for TD has been initiated by declarer.

My ruling here would be that RHO must correct his unestablished revoke so that the ♠2 becomes a major penalty card.

If now declarer maintains his decision to have a spade led from LHO then a spade must be led, the ♦Q becomes a major penalty card and the ♠2 is picked up by RHO (who may play any spade to the trick).

Declarer may however at this time change his mind and no longer request a spade to be led by LHO. If so then the ♦Q is led by LHO and the ♠2 remains a major penalty card.


Be aware that any ruling effectively allowing LHO to lead his ♦Q on the ground that declarer did not properly call TD will result in this lead causing the revoke by RHO playing the ♠2 to become established!

axman, on 2013-December-14, 15:30, said:

The unestablished revoke having been corrected, the S2 becomes a PC. Declarer exercised his lead option where “a spade must be led if he has one; otherwise the penalty is discharged” so the S2 is restored to hand. Info from the S2 is UI to defenders. The DQ has been led.


Notably, if the LHO has a spade the DQ is a revoke.

As declarer called TD immediately together with his announcement on what rectification he wanted he is not bound by this announcement once TD has explained his alternatives.

[axman]

pran, on 2013-December-15, 03:40, said:

As declarer called TD immediately together with his announcement on what rectification he wanted he is not bound by this announcement once TD has explained his alternatives.

Painful experience has demonstrated that most have difficulty coping in a single universe. Foisting multiple universes upon people will for the most part discombobulate them. I think it ill advised to impose multiple universes upon bridge.