[Phil]

A defender (West) discovers he has a card in a suit (spades) played by declarer after playing another card (♦3) correcting a revoke. The ♦3 is on the table as a major penalty card.

Obviously the director should be called at this juncture, but lets say the director isn't called. Whatever; it happened this way.

On the next trick East wins a trick and plays the ♥10 to the next trick. Now the director is called after the ♥10 is played, and declarer wants to enforce lead penalties under 50. Would you as director:

1. Force East to play a diamond (letting West pick up the ♦3) and leave the ♥10 on the board as a penalty card.

2. Tell declarer that she waived her rights under Law 11 requiring the diamond play and the ♦3 stays on the table as a penalty card.

3. Let East pick up the ♥10 but require the lead of a diamond.


Thanks.

[kfay]

I'm not a director but 2 seems clear.

[LH2650]

What appears to be the standard ruling (which I have heard of more than once at Regionals), when a Director is first called some tricks after an exposed card is first put on the table is:

"A penalty card is one so designated by the Director. I have made no such designation. Pick up that card and continue play."

[helene_t]

LH2650, on Feb 18 2009, 05:02 AM, said:

"A penalty card is one so designated by the Director. I have made no such designation. Pick up that card and continue play."

This goes too far IMHO if there is a local tradition for handling routine cases without calling the TD, for example if the TD is playing.

Agree with Kevin.

[jdonn]

Agree with 2. I think legally there are other things the director could do, but it fits most with what I consider ideal.

[shintaro]

Phil, on Feb 17 2009, 10:07 PM, said:

A defender (West) discovers he has a card in a suit (spades) played by declarer after playing another card (♦3) correcting a revoke. The ♦3 is on the table as a major penalty card.

Obviously the director should be called at this juncture, but lets say the director isn't called. Whatever; it happened this way.

On the next trick East wins a trick and plays the ♥10 to the next trick. Now the director is called after the ♥10 is played, and declarer wants to enforce lead penalties under 50. Would you as director:

quote

LAW 50 D 2

When a defender has the lead while his partner has a major penalty card, he may not lead until declarer has stated which of the options below is selected (if the defender leads prematturely, he is subject to rectification under LAW 49). Declarer may chose .......

unqoute

the law continues.

how do you get round this part of the LAW ?????

[david_c]

Phil, on Feb 18 2009, 04:07 AM, said:

1. Force East to play a diamond (letting West pick up the ♦3) and leave the ♥10 on the board as a penalty card.

2. Tell declarer that she waived her rights under Law 11 requiring the diamond play and the ♦3 stays on the table as a penalty card.

3. Let East pick up the ♥10 but require the lead of a diamond.

It seems to me that all three of these suggestions are legal rulings. How you rule depends on how culpable you think the players are. The TD is not obliged to apply Law 11, if he thinks the defenders ought to have known better.

[shintaro]

david_c, on Feb 18 2009, 05:13 AM, said:

Phil, on Feb 18 2009, 04:07 AM, said:

1. Force East to play a diamond (letting West pick up the ♦3) and leave the ♥10 on the board as a penalty card.

2. Tell declarer that she waived her rights under Law 11 requiring the diamond play and the ♦3 stays on the table as a penalty card.

3. Let East pick up the ♥10 but require the lead of a diamond.

It seems to me that all three of these suggestions are legal rulings. How you rule depends on how culpable you think the players are. The TD is not obliged to apply Law 11, if he thinks the defenders ought to have known better.

read law 49

option 3 in the list given by phil is not permitted under LAW 49

[david_c]

shintaro, on Feb 18 2009, 01:14 PM, said:

read law 49

option 3 in the list given by phil is not permitted under LAW 49

Read Law 50.

[blackshoe]

Tradition does not trump the laws. Playing or not, if I'm called because players' attempts to make their own rulings at the table have caused problems, I'm not going to look favorably on that.

In the case at hand, per Law 10B I would cancel the players' "ruling", decline to designate the ♦3 as a penalty card (Law 50), and require West to pick up that card and put it back in her hand. The ♥10 lead stands. Law 50D2, pointed out by Shintaro, is irrelevant, because the ♦3 is not a penalty card if the director says it isn't.

Under the 1997 laws, I would have issued a PP to both sides for failure to call the TD when attention was drawn to an irregularity, because those laws said that the TD must be called, and all four players are on the hook for that. Where the laws say a player "must" do something, and does not, a PP should be issued "more often than not". Under the current laws, I would not issue that PP, because the current laws say the TD should be called, and where the laws say "should", an infraction is "seldom penalized".

[TimG]

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

Tradition does not trump the laws. Playing or not, if I'm called because players' attempts to make their own rulings at the table have caused problems, I'm not going to look favorably on that.

In the case at hand, per Law 10B I would cancel the players' "ruling", decline to designate the ♦3 as a penalty card (Law 50), and require West to pick up that card and put it back in her hand. The ♥10 lead stands. Law 50D2, pointed out by Shintaro, is irrelevant, because the ♦3 is not a penalty card if the director says it isn't.

Under the 1997 laws, I would have issued a PP to both sides for failure to call the TD when attention was drawn to an irregularity, because those laws said that the TD must be called, and all four players are on the hook for that. Where the laws say a player "must" do something, and does not, a PP should be issued "more often than not". Under the current laws, I would not issue that PP, because the current laws say the TD should be called, and where the laws say "should", an infraction is "seldom penalized".

Would it make any difference to you if the director was called before East led the ♥10?

Suppose that, when East wins a trick, declarer says "please don't lead, I think I have some options" and calls the director. Are you still going to rule that there is no penalty card?

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Feb 18 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

Under the 1997 laws, I would have issued a PP to both sides for failure to call the TD when attention was drawn to an irregularity, because those laws said that the TD must be called, and all four players are on the hook for that. Where the laws say a player "must" do something, and does not, a PP should be issued "more often than not". Under the current laws, I would not issue that PP, because the current laws say the TD should be called, and where the laws say "should", an infraction is "seldom penalized".

I hate hate hate hate hate doing this, whether you legally can or not. What do you gain?? The fact is many bridge players are either too dumb, too inexperienced, or too cocky to follow proper procedure 100% of the time. You may think you give them incentive to call the director next time, but I think it has three larger effects. It will make them not like directors, it will make them be less likely to come back to that club or tournament, and if they DO find themselves in this situation again they won't call the director at the later point either!

[Phil]

The director ruled #1. He's a very good friend of mine, but I think he was just being punitive for ME not calling the director, because I should know better.

Our game was beyond salvageable anyway on this day.

[mycroft]

I believe that the part of the MPC laws that trigger when partner is on lead is very ill-known, especially in the less-experienced set. Therefore, unless it's clear that the opponents do know this, I tend to do what is mentioned above (designate it not a penalty card and have play continue). It's mean, but arranging things so that an unsuspecting defender gets in (or that an unknowing defender with the MPC doesn't play to get his partner off the hook) and then insisting on the penalty that they didn't know about is also a little underhanded (if done deliberately; if done assuming they know the rules too, then perhaps only naive).

Sure, don't call the TD if the MPC is going to be dealt with (I'm pulling trump, it's going away next play); but if there's a possibility of this situation happening, do call. It just makes everybody happier.

Oh, and if the MPC is a result of a revoke, call. Sure, lots of people know the revoke laws, but lots of people only think they know the revoke laws...

[TimG]

jdonn, on Feb 18 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

I hate hate hate hate hate doing this, whether you legally can or not. What do you gain?? The fact is many bridge players are either too dumb, too inexperienced, or too cocky to follow proper procedure 100% of the time.

It might matter to me which was the case.

Suppose, for instance, that declarer is experienced and knows the rules. He waits for East to play and then calls the director thinking he might get the lead he wants AND a second penalty card.

If East is experienced and knows the rules, he might take advantage of an inexperienced declarer who does not know the rules and think he can get by without declarer exercising his rights.

The opening post makes it sound like declarer knew what was going on, after all he called the director stating that he wanted to require a diamond lead -- he knew something about the rules but waited too long. I can certainly understand a director seeing this situation and not letting declarer get away with any part of it.

If East was the experienced player hoping to get around lead restrictions by not calling the director, I would think it appropriate that the matter be referred to C&E or a recorder form filed.

[jdonn]

Oh I certainly don't mind penalizing one side if you think they were trying to take advantage of inexperienced oppoents. But it seems to me like he wanted to penalize both sides purely because they didn't follow proper procedure.

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Feb 18 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

Oh I certainly don't mind penalizing one side if you think they were trying to take advantage of inexperienced oppoents. But it seems to me like he wanted to penalize both sides purely because they didn't follow proper procedure.

Hence the name "procedural penalty." I think the laws should dictate how often they are given, and in this case they do. They were probably rewritten for the reasons you state. However, I can understand issuing a procedural penalty even without malicious intent if it really screws up the game. An example is misboarding the cards after you play the hand. Say that North at your table turns the empty board 90 degrees before all four people put their cards back in and this is only discovered after several more rounds of play occur. Then that messes up the game for everyone. I think this is an instance where a pp is warranted, even if it was an inadvertent error.

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Feb 18 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 18 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

Oh I certainly don't mind penalizing one side if you think they were trying to take advantage of inexperienced oppoents. But it seems to me like he wanted to penalize both sides purely because they didn't follow proper procedure.

Hence the name "procedural penalty."

A sea lion is not a lion...

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Feb 18 2009, 10:12 AM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 18 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 18 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

Oh I certainly don't mind penalizing one side if you think they were trying to take advantage of inexperienced oppoents. But it seems to me like he wanted to penalize both sides purely because they didn't follow proper procedure.

Hence the name "procedural penalty."

A sea lion is not a lion...

You mean it's not a "lion of the sea"?

I'm just saying there are procedural penalties and disciplinary penalties and they serve different purposes. Not following proper procedure seems to fall under the former category...

[skjaeran]

Both sides are equally responsible for calling the TD after an irregularity. To get the correct ruling and protect themselves from doing other mistakes.

I know it's been pretty normal for TDs to tell players to take up a "penalty card" lying on a table when (s)he hasn't been called. But that's just ridiculous. When you arrive at a table with a defenders card lying there, you obviously have to rule that it's a penalty card from this moment.

So the interesting point is whether the premature lead from penalty card holder's partner will be allowed to stand, become a penalty card or not. And that's just not obvious. Personally I tend to rule on a case_to_case basis here. Normally ruling in favour of the less experienced side. And have a real problem when both sides are equally experienced and when I don't know (I "always" know in Norway, and i very seldom direct abroad).