[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-October-03, 19:23, said:

First time I was called to make a ruling (on a LOOT) I pulled out the book. Declarer said "we don't have time for that".

Wow.

Actually the EBU expects directors to explain the options for opening leads out of turn from memory (yes, we are tested on it) and of course if you can do that you can also rule any leads out of turn without the book.

Of course, the player in question would presumably have had the same reaction whatever the ruling was. Maybe he was hoping you would make an error so he could just collect his A+?

[weejonnie]

axman, on 2019-October-02, 10:54, said:

You have noticed a defect in the revoke correction procedure. Namely, offender can learn of cards before his correction (the Alcatraz Coup condition). It does not seem cricket that the offending side can get two extra turns rather than suffer the effects of L57A.

Director of course rules under 72C - the "could have been aware"... rule and awards an adjusted score.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-03, 19:29, said:

Wow.

Actually the EBU expects directors to explain the options for opening leads out of turn from memory (yes, we are tested on it) and of course if you can do that you can also rule any leads out of turn without the book.
[...]

Last time I was involved in examination of candidates they failed the examination even when they gave the correct ruling unless they also showed (correctly) which law they applied. I assume this is still how we qualify new directors.

[pran]

axman, on 2019-October-02, 10:54, said:

You have noticed a defect in the revoke correction procedure. Namely, offender can learn of cards before his correction (the Alcatraz Coup condition). It does not seem cricket that the offending side can get two extra turns rather than suffer the effects of L57A.

weejonnie, on 2019-October-04, 03:00, said:

Director of course rules under 72C - the "could have been aware"... rule and awards an adjusted score.

I still fail to see how the revoke correcting procedure can leave the offenders with any advantage (other than avoiding the full consequences of an established revoke).

Example(s) rather than just theory please.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-October-03, 19:23, said:

First time I was called to make a ruling (on a LOOT) I pulled out the book. Declarer said "we don't have time for that".

Amusing coincidence. First time I was called to make a ruling on a LOOT, I hesitated for a few seconds, wondering whether I had it right or needed to pull out the book. Declarer (by far the most qualified player in the tournament, and a visitor too, so hard to offend) said "we don't have time, these are my choices" and started to list them. He was quite surprised when I asked him to keep quiet and let me do the talking. I doubt it would have worked out well had I asked for a minute to read the book.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2019-October-04, 04:26, said:

I still fail to see how the revoke correcting procedure can leave the offenders with any advantage (other than avoiding the full consequences of an established revoke).

Example(s) rather than just theory please.

Dummy has QJT9 and declarer has a singleton Ace.

Declarer leads the Queen from dummy and declarer discards. LHO now follows with the King.

Declarer "Oops! I pulled out the wrong card - I have the Ace, singleton moreover". LHO can change their card of course.

Declarer can now try and ruff out the King instead of playing a ruffing finesse - or take another line, perhaps finessing in another suit. (From V Mollo)

Of course if the offenders obey the rule of law then they cannot make use of this information but a declarer who would deliberately stoop to such an action is unlikely to be one who would not take advantage of the UI.

I am pretty sure there is an example in a TD course where a player revokes and this changes the odds significantly on whether an outstanding honour card will fall. Although this may just count as theory.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-03, 19:29, said:

Of course, the player in question would presumably have had the same reaction whatever the ruling was. Maybe he was hoping you would make an error so he could just collect his A+?

No, he was just being a jerk.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-October-03, 00:28, said:

If you are absolutely sure that your memory of the law is complete and correct, you're probably wrong.

There are a very small number of Laws that I think I know like the back of my hand. This wasn't one of them, so I would always pull out the book.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-03, 19:19, said:

They trust your memory more than the original source? Bizarre.

I think players expect the TD to "know" the Laws, and having to pull out the book makes them seem unsure what they're doing.

This is of course ridiculous, but impressions are not always based on rational consideration.

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2019-October-04, 07:55, said:

Dummy has QJT9 and declarer has a singleton Ace.

Declarer leads the Queen from dummy and declarer discards. LHO now follows with the King.

Declarer "Oops! I pulled out the wrong card - I have the Ace, singleton moreover". LHO can change their card of course.

Declarer can now try and ruff out the King instead of playing a ruffing finesse - or take another line, perhaps finessing in another suit. (From V Mollo)

Of course if the offenders obey the rule of law then they cannot make use of this information but a declarer who would deliberately stoop to such an action is unlikely to be one who would not take advantage of the UI.

I am pretty sure there is an example in a TD course where a player revokes and this changes the odds significantly on whether an outstanding honour card will fall. Although this may just count as theory.

Law 16C2 said:

For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

So the Director shall adjust the result if an offender attempts this coup.
(Whether the offender can claim that the UI did not influence his choice is immaterial unless he can show that the UI really had no impact here)

[Vampyr]

I recently had a very uncommon ruling — a person had prematurely corrected an insufficient bid with a sufficient bid in another suit. I was certain that partner was barred, but felt that it didn’t hurt to check in the law book.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-04, 13:05, said:

I recently had a very uncommon ruling — a person had prematurely corrected an insufficient bid with a sufficient bid in another suit. I was certain that partner was barred, but felt that it didn’t hurt to check in the law book.

I always need to check the book to determine whether partner is barred for one round or the rest of the auction (although in practice the difference is usually immaterial, as the opponents should pass to deny the barred player a chance to bid again, and the offending player should assume they'll do this).

[zenbiddist]

sfi, on 2019-October-01, 21:15, said:

If RHO wins the ace, both defenders have a major penalty card. So law 50D2 kicks in. Before RHO leads, declarer gets the normal lead options associated with LHO's penalty card. If their penalty card is compatible with declarer's choice, they must lead that. If not, they lead another card and it remains as a penalty card.

Thanks!

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-04, 13:05, said:

I recently had a very uncommon ruling — a person had prematurely corrected an insufficient bid with a sufficient bid in another suit. I was certain that partner was barred, but felt that it didn’t hurt to check in the law book.

I think barred for the whole auction, but I'm not certain and so would definitely check here. It's not a classic like say lead out of turn.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-04, 13:05, said:

I recently had a very uncommon ruling — a person had prematurely corrected an insufficient bid with a sufficient bid in another suit. I was certain that partner was barred, but felt that it didn’t hurt to check in the law book.

pescetom, on 2019-October-08, 06:06, said:

I think barred for the whole auction, but I'm not certain and so would definitely check here. It's not a classic like say lead out of turn.

correct:

Law 27B2 said:

except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply, and see Law 72C.

The fact that the correction was premature is irrelevant for this ruling

Law 27C said:

If the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification the substitution, if legal, stands unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A1 allows (but see B3 above). The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-October-08, 07:12, said:

The fact that the correction was premature is irrelevant for this ruling

Well, yes, I know this because I read the law at the time but it stands to reason.