[pran]

weejonnie, on 2018-July-11, 16:31, said:

Last Tuesday I had a case where a player passed after his partner had called. I explained that the call could be accepted, in which case the auction would continue without further rectification (but if his LHO and partner passed then the calls would be cancelled to allow his RHO to call) or, if rejected he would have to repeat his pass. The call was accepted and as I left the table I noticed that his RHO (not LHO) had made the next call! By the time I turned, however, the player had passed again (legitimising the COOT). Having explained the reason for my return, I allowed the auction to continue without further rectification.

The best procedure for you (in this case) would of course have been to hear offender's LHO accepting the COOT, then instruct him to make his call and finally remain at the table to handle Law 17D3 (three consecutive passes of which at least one is out of turn) if this law should kick in.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-July-11, 23:57, said:

The best procedure for you (in this case) would of course have been to hear offender's LHO accepting the COOT, then instruct him to make his call and finally remain at the table to handle Law 17D3 (three consecutive passes of which at least one is out of turn) if this law should kick in.

Yeah, the takeaway from this is that if there's anything more to deal with, don't leave the table until it's all been resolved.

The only common exception is when the remaining issues are not likely to be until the end of the hand. E.g. I don't think anyone sticks around after explaining how many tricks to transfer after a revoke, or after "Call me back at the end of the hand if you feel you've been damaged." (Strictly speaking, the "if you feel you've been damaged" qualifier probably shouldn't be there, as the players might not realize that they were damaged, but I think few directors worry about this.)

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-July-12, 08:35, said:

Yeah, the takeaway from this is that if there's anything more to deal with, don't leave the table until it's all been resolved.

The only common exception is when the remaining issues are not likely to be until the end of the hand. E.g. I don't think anyone sticks around after explaining how many tricks to transfer after a revoke, or after "Call me back at the end of the hand if you feel you've been damaged." (Strictly speaking, the "if you feel you've been damaged" qualifier probably shouldn't be there, as the players might not realize that they were damaged, but I think few directors worry about this.)

You grasped it!

[chrism]

pran, on 2018-July-11, 09:07, said:

No, he doesn't say.
But the facts given in the story speaks for itself.
Even a mediocre director would (if still present) have prevented the continued irregularities by South.

I was still standing right there, telling North not to lead a diamond. The club hit the table very fast; perhaps it's old age, but my reaction time just wasn't good enough.

[blackshoe]

I think Sven owes you an apology, Chris.

[barmar]

chrism, on 2018-July-14, 05:26, said:

I was still standing right there, telling North not to lead a diamond. The club hit the table very fast; perhaps it's old age, but my reaction time just wasn't good enough.

Next time you'll know to bring handcuffs to the table.

[pran]

chrism, on 2018-July-14, 05:26, said:

I was still standing right there, telling North not to lead a diamond. The club hit the table very fast; perhaps it's old age, but my reaction time just wasn't good enough.

blackshoe, on 2018-July-14, 12:29, said:

I think Sven owes you an apology, Chris.

Taking for granted that chrism gave sufficient instructions at the table (and I do not dispute this) then:

pran, on 2018-July-11, 12:30, said:

the second LOOT by South is a severe violation of Law 90B8 and as such subject to a substantial procedure penalty (more than just a warning).

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2018-July-14, 14:00, said:

Next time you'll know to bring handcuffs to the table.

There was a time when I threatened to bring a nerf bat to the game. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I couldn't find one.

[chrism]

pran, on 2018-July-14, 16:24, said:

the second LOOT by South is a severe violation of Law 90B8 and as such subject to a substantial procedure penalty (more than just a warning).

In principle I agree; however, this South is a fading shadow of a once fine player, who now has difficulty concentrating and is subject to frequent lapses. A PP would be pointless, serving only to punish the partners who make it possible for him to continue to enjoy the game. I shall know next time that I need to watch more closely.

Incidentally, the ruling is not 100% clear to me. The diamond had already ceased to be a penalty card, and a D lead was prohibited, at the point that the club was led OOT. I ruled that the prohibition remained in place, that the club was now a penalty card, and that the declarer could additionally require or forbid a club lead. An alternative would have been to let him forbid a club OR require a club OR forbid a diamond, with the club remaining a PC in the third case only. This seems to be one of those cases of double infraction that the Laws don't quite address, though of course I may be missing something.

[pran]

chrism, on 2018-July-14, 20:59, said:

In principle I agree; however, this South is a fading shadow of a once fine player, who now has difficulty concentrating and is subject to frequent lapses. A PP would be pointless, serving only to punish the partners who make it possible for him to continue to enjoy the game. I shall know next time that I need to watch more closely.

That, of course, calls for leniency.

chrism, on 2018-July-14, 20:59, said:

Incidentally, the ruling is not 100% clear to me. The diamond had already ceased to be a penalty card, and a D lead was prohibited, at the point that the club was led OOT. I ruled that the prohibition remained in place, that the club was now a penalty card, and that the declarer could additionally require or forbid a club lead. An alternative would have been to let him forbid a club OR require a club OR forbid a diamond, with the club remaining a PC in the third case only. This seems to be one of those cases of double infraction that the Laws don't quite address, though of course I may be missing something.

There is no doubt in the laws here and your ruling was as far as I understand quite correct: The prohibition against a diamond lead by North remains in force until a different player has had the lead, and in addition South now has an exposed club to be handled according to Law 50D (single major penalty card).

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-July-11, 12:30, said:

However, if he indeed has done so then the second LOOT by South is a severe violation of Law 90B8 and as such subject to a substantial procedure penalty (more than just a warning).

I think 90B8 is about intentionally refusing to comply, not about misunderstanding or having a senior moment.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-July-16, 08:21, said:

I think 90B8 is about intentionally refusing to comply, not about misunderstanding or having a senior moment.

Having "a senior moment" might be excusable, misunderstanding a clear instruction from the Director is not (because it implies paying insufficient attention to the game - Law 74B1).
Law 90B8 says "failure". This law is violated also when the failure is unintended or when an instruction is just ignored.