[dickiegera]

This happens all to often.

Declarer is playing a contract and RHO gets a penalty card. A lot of time it is a card played and immediately corrected. No one making any comments on unplayed card.

Should the director be called immediately? If yes by whom? I don't believe dummy can and I don't like calling director on myself and partner gets mad at me if I call director on him.

So if declarer does not call what happens often is that I get on lead with my partner having a penalty card.
I know the rules state that I shall not lead until declarer uses his options. Now if no one calls director am I to call director or am I to tell declarer to call director or can dummy now call director?

If director would be called immediately all problem might have been solved however this does not always happen. Too often people wait,

I know that if director is called immediately he is to give options and remain at table till penalty card is played. Too often with playing director he states options and leaves while penalty card remains unplayed.

Could someone give insight to all this
Thank you

[mgoetze]

dickiegera, on 2012-March-20, 21:03, said:

Should the director be called immediately?

Yes, of course.

Quote

If yes by whom?

In an ideal world all 4 players world be chanting "Director, please!" in unison.

Quote

I don't like calling director on myself

Get over it.

Quote

and partner gets mad at me if I call director on him.

Tell him to get over it.

[iviehoff]

dickiegera, on 2012-March-20, 21:03, said:

Declarer is playing a contract and RHO gets a penalty card. A lot of time it is a card played and immediately corrected.

That only makes sense if first card played was a revoke. Apart from that, defenders are not permitted to "correct" a played card.

A card is not a penalty card unless a director rules it to be. If a card is exposed, people play on a bit, and then later the director is called over something, he is liable to rule it is not a penalty card precisely because he was not called at the correct time. Notice that in Law 50 the Director has the discretion to rule that an exposed card is not a penalty card.

"A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 23 may apply)."

Law 11A is particularly relevant here, and would be the reason for the director to determine taht a card is not a penalty card if he is called later:

"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."

[iviehoff]

dickiegera, on 2012-March-20, 21:03, said:

So if declarer does not call what happens often is that I get on lead with my partner having a penalty card.
I know the rules state that I shall not lead until declarer uses his options. Now if no one calls director am I to call director or am I to tell declarer to call director or can dummy now call director?

You are under no duty to draw attention to your own side's irregularity, nor to advise the opposition to call the director. So you can proceed without calling the director yourself.

In my view, if you have got this far and no one has called the director, no one has a penalty card. So I'd feel unconstrained by the part of Law 50 that tells me I can't lead until declarer has exercised his choice. It is for declarer to call the director himself, on his own initiative, if he wants that. So, ensuring I did not act with any undue haste to cut him off from that option, I'd lead as I chose. Now since the opposition haven't sought to apply the lead penalties up to this point, they probably aren't going to complain. But if they wake up late, and call the director, they might seek to argue that in leaving the card face up on the table, that was tacit consent to a penalty card, and they expected compliance with lead penalties in Law 50, without administrative intervention. If I was a director and arrived at a table with such an opinion expressed, I might tell them that since they started off dealing with this without me, a home-made ruling, they could finish it themselves. And if the table couldn't agree enough to play on, I'd tell them that there was no penalty card because I was not called in time, citing the first para of Law 50 and 11A. That would hopefully teach people to call the director in time if they want penalty cards and lead penalties.

Of course you may call the director if you wish. That might be a hyper-ethical thing to do, although the director might not appreciate being called into such a mess. It would have been better to call him as soon as there was the exposed card. Being late, you might have to tell the director you consider your side to have a penalty card, and are happy for the opposition to take their advantages in the rest of Law 50, and do not consider law 11A applicable, as you are thoroughly familiar with the law and were not disadvantaged by not getting the recitations at the appropriate time.

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on 2012-March-21, 02:50, said:

A card is not a penalty card unless a director rules it to be.

On the contrary, such a card is a penalty card unless a director deems it not to be so.

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on 2012-March-21, 03:17, said:

You are under no duty to draw attention to your own side's irregularity, nor to advise the opposition to call the director. So you can proceed without calling the director yourself.

It's hard to imagine that they could have reached this situation without anyone having drawn attention to the irregularity (if only by putting the card of an unestablished revoke face-up at the side of the table and replacing it with a card of the suit led). That being so, L9B applies:

Quote

After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity
1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is
drawn to an irregularity.
(b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after
attention has been drawn to an irregularity.
© Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any
rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.
(d) The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed
by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents.
2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all
matters in regard to rectification.

[campboy]

It depends whether attention has been drawn to the irregularity. If it has then the TD must be called, and dummy can call him. If not then there is no requirement (yet) for the TD to be called, and dummy may not call him. In practice I would expect the player correcting his revoke to have made some comment which draws attention to it.

[gordontd]

dickiegera, on 2012-March-20, 21:03, said:

Should the director be called immediately? If yes by whom? I don't believe dummy can and I don't like calling director on myself and partner gets mad at me if I call director on him.

Life would probably be easier for everyone if you stopped thinking of it as calling the director "on" someone.

[iviehoff]

gordontd, on 2012-March-21, 03:44, said:

On the contrary, such a card is a penalty card unless a director deems it not to be so.

My apologies, you are quite correct. But the TD should typically rule that the card is not deemed a penalty card, for the breach of Law 9 you note, and Law 11.

gordontd, on 2012-March-21, 03:49, said:

It's hard to imagine that they could have reached this situation without anyone having drawn attention to the irregularity (if only by putting the card of an unestablished revoke face-up at the side of the table and replacing it with a card of the suit led). That being so, L9B applies:

So everyone broke Law 9 in failing to call the director when the revoker drew attention to his revoke, if one accepts that he did: I'm happy to accept that. But the revoker, in replacing his played card with another one and leaving the first one on the table, without calling the director, committed a subsequent irregularity, that has not been explicitly drawn attention to.

It remains the case that the non-offending side took action subsequent to the offence, so they can go whistle for their rectifications if they don't call the director themselves. So I still don't think revoker's partner is under any duty to call the director for that, at this later point. He was under a duty, like everyone else, to call the director for the revoke drawn attention to, but these lead penatly rectifications relate to subsequent stuff that has not been explicitly drawn attention to.

Now if my partner revoked and attempted to correct it without calling the director, I would call the director, as obliged by Law 9. But placed in the situation of OP, having made my bed of not calling the director at that point when I was obliged to do so, I find myself under no renewed obligation to call the director at this particular point, nor to prompt the opposition as to the potential lead penalties that would exist if someone had called the director at the correct point in time.

[VixTD]

iviehoff, on 2012-March-21, 06:14, said:

It remains the case that the non-offending side took action subsequent to the offence, so they can go whistle for their rectifications if they don't call the director themselves.

I asked the question a few years ago whether a director called late to a table with a self-imposed penalty card should apply lead penalties or cancel the penalty card, and whether the number of tricks that had passed between the revoke and the director call made a difference. Law 11A states:

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.

The non-offending side may easily gain by allowing play to continue, in which case the law seems clear: "the director does so rule", unless the opponents are clearly "not [ignorant] of the relevant provisions of the law".

So I agree with Iviehoff, I think the law requires me to cancel any penalty card and lead restrictions unless I judge that all players are well aware of the relevant laws. I didn't get much support for this view, if I remember correctly.

[axman]

VixTD, on 2012-March-21, 08:25, said:

I asked the question a few years ago whether a director called late to a table with a self-imposed penalty card should apply lead penalties or cancel the penalty card, and whether the number of tricks that had passed between the revoke and the director call made a difference. Law 11A states:


The non-offending side may easily gain by allowing play to continue, in which case the law seems clear: "the director does so rule", unless the opponents are clearly "not [ignorant] of the relevant provisions of the law".

So I agree with Iviehoff, I think the law requires me to cancel any penalty card and lead restrictions unless I judge that all players are well aware of the relevant laws. I didn't get much support for this view, if I remember correctly.

I think that the proper approach is that such penalties are not imposed retroactively, but going forward [when in accordance with law]. The primary issue being such case where a card that could have been a PC in fact has been picked up without a ruling, and the picking up was not challenged by the other side before playing a card subsequent; in that situation I should think the right approach is that the NOS has forfeited such a remedy.

[campboy]

VixTD, on 2012-March-21, 08:25, said:

I asked the question a few years ago whether a director called late to a table with a self-imposed penalty card should apply lead penalties or cancel the penalty card, and whether the number of tricks that had passed between the revoke and the director call made a difference.

[...]

The non-offending side may easily gain by allowing play to continue, in which case the law seems clear: "the director does so rule", unless the opponents are clearly "not [ignorant] of the relevant provisions of the law".

So I agree with Iviehoff, I think the law requires me to cancel any penalty card and lead restrictions unless I judge that all players are well aware of the relevant laws. I didn't get much support for this view, if I remember correctly.

I think it does depend on how far play has progressed: if there has clearly been no opportunity for the knowledge of penalty-card restrictions to affect NOS's play, you aren't bound to cancel the restrictions. (But of course you'd need to be able to judge that this is the case without looking in anyone's hand.)

[Vampyr]

dickiegera, on 2012-March-20, 21:03, said:

I know that if director is called immediately he is to give options and remain at table till penalty card is played. Too often with playing director he states options and leaves while penalty card remains unplayed.

Well, he shouldn't do that. It's hard, I know, when you are trying to play yourself, to have to spend time at other tables. Your own game is bound to suffer. But it's called doing your bit for the club.

[VixTD]

campboy, on 2012-March-21, 10:36, said:

I think it does depend on how far play has progressed: if there has clearly been no opportunity for the knowledge of penalty-card restrictions to affect NOS's play, you aren't bound to cancel the restrictions. (But of course you'd need to be able to judge that this is the case without looking in anyone's hand.)

But such opportunity could arise during play of that trick. If the TD's not going to look at the hands and follow the play (and of course he shouldn't), aren't we just left to make an arbitrary decision about how much longer the play could proceed before it's likely to make a difference? How many cards or tricks is that?

[mycroft]

Until it happens is the answer. If it's trick 12, it's trick 12.

As Vampyr says, that sometimes means that you have to rush your own game, or even skip boards and give out A+ to the opponents because of it. You get perks for being a TD; the downsides of being a playing TD are part of the reasons for those perks.

Now, life in a club where the TDs are paid is different - I tell my partners when I'm a playing TD that "we're primarily here to fill in the movement, so the opponents don't have an X-board sitout. If we do well, great - but my first and second priority is the game, not our game."

[mgoetze]

I hope the OP has realised by now that failing to call the director just makes everything very messy and complicated.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2012-March-22, 12:47, said:

You get perks for being a TD; the downsides of being a playing TD are part of the reasons for those perks.

Love that free entry!

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on 2012-March-21, 08:25, said:

So I agree with Iviehoff, I think the law requires me to cancel any penalty card and lead restrictions unless I judge that all players are well aware of the relevant laws. I didn't get much support for this view, if I remember correctly.

I should think not. Players who are aware of the relevant laws should also be aware that they have to call the director to sort this out.

[RMB1]

mycroft, on 2012-March-22, 12:47, said:

You get perks for being a TD; ...

Err, not necessarily.

In many clubs in England, the TD gets no perks from being a playing TD. They do it because some one has to do it (just like the officers of the club). Some enjoy the power, some enjoy the extra technical challenges, and some enjoy deploying a skill they have to enable others to have a proper game. Alot of the time this is all taken for granted.

[VixTD]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-23, 03:13, said:

I should think not. Players who are aware of the relevant laws should also be aware that they have to call the director to sort this out.

The "not much support" was for cancelling penalty cards applied by players who are (or may be) unaware of the relevant laws.