[dickiegera]

Contract is 4 ♥
E/W bidding ♦
and N/S bidding ♥ & ♣

E/W can take 1st 4 tricks

A♣ all follow
K♣ W plays 7♦

Not sure the order of play next
however when E plays 6♣ W corrects revoke by picking up 7♦ replacing it with 9♣
and now trumping the 6♣
director called. ruled 1 trick penalty

I believe that 7♦ should have been major penalty and be required to be played on trick 3 if declarer
so choses

What is correct????

---

[axman]

dickiegera, on 2023-February-05, 09:52, said:

---

Contract is 4 ♥
E/W bidding ♦
and N/S bidding ♥ & ♣

E/W can take 1st 4 tricks

A♣ all follow
K♣ W plays 7♦

Not sure the order of play next
however when E plays 6♣ W corrects revoke by picking up 7♦ replacing it with 9♣
and now trumping the 6♣
director called. ruled 1 trick penalty

I believe that 7♦ should have been major penalty and be required to be played on trick 3 if declarer
so choses

What is correct????

I suggest you fix the facts. This situation would not be termed simple.

It sounds like there were two revokes.

[pescetom]

dickiegera, on 2023-February-05, 09:52, said:

Not sure the order of play next
however when E plays 6♣ W corrects revoke by picking up 7♦ replacing it with 9♣
and now trumping the 6♣
director called. ruled 1 trick penalty

The situation sounds almost as confusing as the description
When you say W "picks up" 7♦, do you mean that it was played to the current trick (in which case I do not understand the explanation) or that he located and removed it from his quitted tricks?
When exactly was Director called and by whom?
Did Director rule 1 trick penalty at the end of play after sorting out the situation (how?) or instead of sorting it out (why?)?

[PeterAlan]

Assuming that the TD was called immediately after W perpetrated his shenanigans at the third trick and before N played to that trick, then:

• W's revoke at trick 2 has been established - his partner has played to trick 3 (and we don't need to concern ourselves with W's 'play' to determine this)
  
• W's ♦7 remains played to trick 2 (Law 63B; the trick has been quitted and E has played to trick 3)
  
• W's ♣9 becomes played to trick 3, to which N now plays
  
• W's trump becomes a major penalty card (his attempted revoke at this trick - given that he must now play ♣9 - is not established).

There is a baseline one-trick penalty for the revoke (that trick 2 was won by the revoking side), subject as always to Law 64C, and a PP (possibly a warning) or DP for W depending on where on the spectrum of total confusion at one end to deliberate attempt to cheat at the other his behaviour is thought to lie. (At the very least he has violated Law 66C regarding quitted tricks.)

I don't think that this belongs in the 'Simple Rulings' forum!

[pescetom]

It's neat as a line of cheating against ingenuous or Director-allergic opponents in that it both ensures the clubs ruff and allows a signal about diamonds... pleasantly surprised I haven't encountered this one before

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2023-February-06, 05:08, said:

It's neat as a line of cheating against ingenuous or Director-allergic opponents in that it both ensures the clubs ruff and allows a signal about diamonds... pleasantly surprised I haven't encountered this one before

Ideally it shouldn't work, because of the law that says that the TD can restore equity if the automatic 1-trick penalty is not sufficient. Are there really that many players who are unwilling to call the TD when an opponent's revoke has been revealed.

And of course there's the law that says you can't break a law intentionally, even if you're willing to pay the penalty, although detecting this is obviously difficult.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2023-February-06, 16:27, said:

Are there really that many players who are unwilling to call the TD when an opponent's revoke has been revealed.

Yes, at least around here. It's near the top of the list of things that they know are significant but still think they can sort out themselves. I'm working on it

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2023-February-06, 16:51, said:

Yes, at least around here. It's near the top of the list of things that they know are significant but still think they can sort out themselves. I'm working on it

I'd guess everywhere.

[sanst]

Assuming the cards are as given now, we should take the problem apart.
First: W revokes, plays the ♦7 and the revoke becomes established by E playing ♣6 in the third trick. So at least one trick to NS, more if the TD decides afterwards that this doesn’t restore equity.
Second: W has shown ♣9 which becomes a major penalty card.
Third: E has led ♣6 before the TD was called and had given the declarer the opportunity to require E to play clubs or prohibit to do so. The ♣6 becomes a MPC and has to be played at the first legal opportunity, which is now, so that’s the lead in this trick, W has to play the nine and the J or Q of N or S wins the trick.
I don’t think that NS are damaged, actually the advantage is theirs. W doesn’t trump the third club trick, that’s probably one trick extra for NS, to which is added the one trick they get as correction of the revoke.

[PeterAlan]

sanst, on 2023-February-07, 04:15, said:

Assuming the cards are as given now, we should take the problem apart.
First: W revokes, plays the ♦7 and the revoke becomes established by E playing ♣6 in the third trick. So at least one trick to NS, more if the TD decides afterwards that this doesn’t restore equity.
Second: W has shown ♣9 which becomes a major penalty card.
Third: E has led ♣6 before the TD was called and had given the declarer the opportunity to require E to play clubs or prohibit to do so. The ♣6 becomes a MPC and has to be played at the first legal opportunity, which is now, so that’s the lead in this trick, W has to play the nine and the J or Q of N or S wins the trick.
I don’t think that NS are damaged, actually the advantage is theirs. W doesn’t trump the third club trick, that’s probably one trick extra for NS, to which is aded the one trick they get as correction of the revoke.

My understanding of the OP was that E had led ♣6 to the third trick in the normal course of play before the revoke was realised or the ♣9 displayed. Why, then, does it become a major penalty card? (♥s, not ♦s, are trumps, so W has discarded on trick 2 and is not on lead to trick 3.)

And if ♣6 were a major penalty card (which I don't think it is) then declarer would have the usual options and it would not have to become the lead to trick 3.

[sanst]

PeterAlan, on 2023-February-07, 09:48, said:

And if ♣6 were a major penalty card (which I don't think it is) then declarer would have the usual options and it would not have to become the lead to trick 3.

Law 50D1a: “a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading…”. I accept that it isn’t a MPC yet, but it becomes one once the TD give the declarer the option to prohibit or to require to play clubs. It doesn’t make any difference whether it’s a MPC or not, if it is one it should be played, if it isn’t one, it’s the lead in this trick.

[blackshoe]

A minor PC need not be led -- he can lead an honor in that suit, or he can lead a different suit. Declarer cannot impose lead restrictions on the partner of a player with a mPC. Law 50C. See also Law 50E.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2023-February-07, 13:58, said:

A minor PC need not be led -- he can lead an honor in that suit, or he can lead a different suit. Declarer cannot impose lead restrictions on the partner of a player with a mPC. Law 50C. See also Law 50E.

What mPC is there? The ♣9 nor ♣6 were accidentally dropped, but played or at least intentionally shown.

[PeterAlan]

sanst, on 2023-February-07, 11:23, said:

Law 50D1a: “a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading…”. I accept that it isn’t a MPC yet, but it becomes one once the TD give the declarer the option to prohibit or to require to play clubs. It doesn’t make any difference whether it’s a MPC or not, if it is one it should be played, if it isn’t one, it’s the lead in this trick.

I was being stupid in a hasty reply - of course, E, whilst on lead, is not the partner of a player with a major penalty card.

But I'm still not understanding your reason for thinking that ♣6 has become a major penalty card - what am I missing? You say "Third: E has led ♣6 before the TD was called and had given the declarer the opportunity to require E to play clubs or prohibit to do so." Yes, ♣6 was led to trick 3, but in the normal course of play before there was any reason to suppose that there had been a revoke - W didn't expose either the ♣9 or the ♦7 until after ♣6 was led - and it was only later that this reason for calling the TD arose. It seems to me that ♣6 remains led to trick 3 and never becomes a major penalty card. What do you think I am missing? Why would the TD ever be trying to give the declarer the option you mention?

[blackshoe]

It seems the scarcity of accurate information about what happened at the table led me down the wrong path.

[sanst]

PeterAlan, on 2023-February-07, 17:58, said:

I was being stupid in a hasty reply - of course, E, whilst on lead, is not the partner of a player with a major penalty card.

But I'm still not understanding your reason for thinking that ♣6 has become a major penalty card - what am I missing? You say "Third: E has led ♣6 before the TD was called and had given the declarer the opportunity to require E to play clubs or prohibit to do so." Yes, ♣6 was led to trick 3, but in the normal course of play before there was any reason to suppose that there had been a revoke - W didn't expose either the ♣9 or the ♦7 until after ♣6 was led - and it was only later that this reason for calling the TD arose. It seems to me that ♣6 remains led to trick 3 and never becomes a major penalty card. What do you think I am missing? Why would the TD ever be trying to give the declarer the option you mention?

Certainly in this case it is splitting hairs, the ♣6 is the lead in trick three, either as the legally played card or as MPC. But any card of a defender that’s exposed becomes a PC, unless it was played in the normal course of play (Law 49). But there has been an irregularity, the revoke. Exactly when attention was drawn to the revoke isn’t clear, before E led or at the same moment or later. In the first case it certainly is a MPC, the play stopped until the TD had given his decision. About the the second situation the Laws are silent.
In case there’s A MPC the declarer should get the option to require or forbid the lead of the suit of the MPC. Here’s a MPC, caused by the establshed revoke which in its turn was caused by the play of ♣6. If this is ‘normal play’ or exposing a card not in normal play, which makes it a MPC, doesn’t matter, the card is or should be played. That effectively means that the Laws rob the declarer of the right to require or forbid the play of clubs .
I looks like the WBFLC didn’t think about this common situation. It’s quite normal for a player who revokes to draw attention to the revoke by saying so and showing the card that should have been played while the partner already played in the next trick, as is the case here. Its consequence is, that the TD should decide after the play that the NOS was damaged or not.
To be honest, I never looked at the situation in the way I describe now. I just let the play continue, tell the players the number of tricks that should go to the NOS and to call me if they thought it was not enough to restore equity.
Well, my question is, what am I missing, too?

[pescetom]

I stayed out of this because I was hoping that OP would provide some more comprehensible account, as requested by everyone. Maybe a moderator could make it clear to him that making an unclear post and then abandoning the discussion is not how a forum works.

sanst, on 2023-February-08, 04:42, said:

In case there’s A MPC the declarer should get the option to require or forbid the lead of the suit of the MPC. Here’s a MPC, caused by the establshed revoke which in its turn was caused by the play of ♣6. If this is ‘normal play’ or exposing a card not in normal play, which makes it a MPC, doesn’t matter, the card is or should be played. That effectively means that the Laws rob the declarer of the right to require or forbid the play of clubs .
I looks like the WBFLC didn’t think about this common situation. It’s quite normal for a player who revokes to draw attention to the revoke by saying so and showing the card that should have been played while the partner already played in the next trick, as is the case here. Its consequence is, that the TD should decide after the play that the NOS was damaged or not.
...
Well, my question is, what am I missing, too?

It looks to me you are missing that 50D1(a) has an exception represented by 50D1(b), which says that an obligation to comply with a lead restriction has precedence over the obligation to play a PC at first opportunity.
So if the 6♣ does become an MPC and E is subsequently on lead subject to restriction (we are unable to determine from OP whether this can happen, although I imagine not and that it was a valid lead) then it is not inevitable that it must be led. Although there does seem to be a hole in the Laws at that point, because 50D2 only regulates what happens when a defender has the lead while his partner has an MPC, not when he has both the lead and the MPC. I think the spirit of the Law is that the logic of D2 should be applied and thus the MPC must be led only if Declarer neither prohibits nor imposes clubs or if Declarer imposes clubs and it is Defender's only remaining club (and if Declarer prohibits clubs then it is picked up, I would warn and rule).
Of course I am probably missing something too, this is definitely not a simple ruling

Law50 said:

D. Disposition of Major Penalty Card
When a defender has a major penalty card, both the offender and his partner may be subject to
restriction, the offender whenever he is to play, the partner whenever he is to lead.
1. (a) Except as provided in (b) below, a major penalty card must be played at the first legal
opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping. If a defender has
two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be
played.
(b) The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play restriction, takes
precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must
still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity.

[mycroft]

The issue is that in your original reply it seemed that you were saying that it was "the lead that established the revoke" *and* "a MPC because it was revealed after the irrgularity and before declarer got to exercise eir rights on [whichever card ends up the MPC]." And as you say - and as we all say, it can't be both, it's one or the other, depending on when West pointed out the revoke and [attempted to] correct[ed] it.

I'm sure it was just the way it was phrased - but I read it the same way PeterAlan did as well.

Ah, I do see the confusion. You wrote "First:" and "Second:" intending them to be the two cases that could exist depending on the timing. We both read it as "with the situation posted, first we deal with [the established revoke] and then we deal with [east leading after the unestablished revoke was corrected]." Which didn't make sense.

[CMOTDib]

First off, what a mess! Second I think the director might need to see all the hands for this. Anyway I am assumimg (as most people have said because of the lack of first hand evidence) that when East changed the 7 Diamonds with the 9 Clubs that North had played and had no idea that there had been an irregularity. Otherwise we have to consider what to do with East playing out of rotation.
Because West has played the 6 of Clubs the revoke by East (on the second trick) is established (Law 63A1). As such it cannot be changed (Law 63B). Therefore we have to wind it all back and leave 7 Diamonds as a quitted trick (2). Now the 9 Clubs has to be played on the third trick. Note that the trump played on the 6 Clubs is a revoke but not established (law 63 A1) the trump played is now a major penalty card (with all the usual restrictions). Now we get into Donald Rumfeld Country as we don't know what we don't know. I assume Declarer or dummy won the third trick and should have been allowed to play on after the rogue amendments had been resolved. At the end of play the director has a one trick transfer (law 63A2)but only if the defenders win a trick. However, because of the breech of Law 66 and Law 63B a long with UI (7 Diamonds),the Director could consider law 12A1. In this case, as there would appear to be an error, I think the director should have referred themselves to Law82B1 and adjusted accordingly(however, without seeing all the hands one can never be sure of the result). As someone has already mention a penalty would be appropriate for East/West. Probably one of those "noteworthy adjustments" that should be made known to other directors in that club so that they look out for the same problem by the same player/partner. One never knows but someone else might say "they did it the other day when I was directing/playing".
Directing can be a nightmare! It's the people, you know! The cards never give any trouble.

[weejonnie]

It seems that

a) the revoke is established when east plays the ♣6 63A1 and may not be corrected 63B
b) The ♦7 remains played to the trick 63B
c) The ♣9 is played to the third trick and the trump is now a major penalty card 62B1. Declarer has the option of changing their card played to the third trick. 62C
d) The TD calls the TO and asks where the L&EC can be contacted. (Or at least fills out a recorder form)

Law 64C and 72C apply. As does 16C.

This assumes TD id called after third trick