[dickiegera]

On about the 5th trick [S declarer] E fails to follow suit ♥ E corrects this.
S win the trick,

W wins trick #6 and is now on lead. Before S can state his option for a Club lead W leads A of diamonds
Director called. Director gives S his options and S ask for a Club lead

West now leads King of clubs and then leads Ace of diamonds within a second or two.

I believe that he must keep leading clubs unless S indicates differently
Also should not the ACE of diamonds be a major penalty and lead restriction of some type be imposed?

HELP clarify all of his

Thank you

[barmar]

Why wasn't the TD called when E originally revoked? He would have stated the options, and should stick around until the penalty card is played to make sure that declarer is given the opportunity to exercise his option.

If declarer requires him to lead the suit of the penalty card, that requirement only lasts for one trick. If declarer forbids him from leading the suit of the penalty card, the prohibition lasts as long as he holds the lead.

See Law 50D2a. "for as long as he retains the lead" is only attached to "or to prohibit him from leading that suit".

So the TD was correct, he could lead a club and then lead the ♦A.

[mycroft]

First, the law on Major Penalty Cards states (before it gets into what happens):

Law 50, my emphasis said:

A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise

and in the ACBL, the primary reason the Director would "designate otherwise" is that declarer expects to enforce lead restrictions that the opponents are not completely aware of (so they can attempt to mitigate the issue).

It is likely that a TD should, if E-W are not experienced, ask South why he did not call the TD when the revoke was corrected (as barmar says), and if unsatisfied, state that the exposed card is not at this point a penalty card, allow the Diamond Ace to be played, and when it wins, then allow declarer to require or forbid a club. Obviously, if West is experienced enough to know that it's not just "play at first opportunity", then no - but that's surprisingly rare knowledge among players (partly because of this habit of not actually calling the director).

If the TD chooses to enforce the penalty, then yes, absolutely the Diamond Ace is a major penalty card, and should East win the forced club trick, South would have options there. But as barmar states, the requirement to lead a club is a one-time process (forbid is "as long as that defender retains the lead". Yes, the law is ambiguous (lovely English), but that is the way it is to be read - and after the CK holds, West is not only able to - but required to - lead the DA:

Law 50D1a said:

Except [when required to follow suit or follow a lead restriction], a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading,...

You probably know the "5 options" when an opening lead out of turn is made. Remind yourself that that includes "force the lead of that suit once, or forbid that suit as long as you hold the lead" (my paraphrase at the table). That is because if the opening LooT is refused, it is a Major Penalty Card, and the same restrictions now apply that apply to a corrected revoke, or any other reason a MPC is on the table.

[blackshoe]

If players want to make their own rulings at the table, they are not playing duplicate bridge and should not bother calling the director for anything. Then, when the table erupts in violence, the director should call the cops.

Alternatively, the director, when called long after he should have been, as here, should make whatever ruling will piss off the most players at the table.

[blackshoe]

More seriously, I would say that no player has a penalty card until the director says it's a penalty card, and if the director is called to the table, finds a card face up in front of a defender, and is told that the defender revoked two tricks ago and so that card is a penalty card, the director should rule "no it isn't" and instruct the player to put it back in his hand, and play to continue. Of course, this isn't a requirement of the law, it's an option for the director, but it seems to me a good one in such a case. Because if he just lets it remain a PC, the idiots are just going to keep doing the wrong thing.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2022-August-11, 21:16, said:

More seriously, I would say that no player has a penalty card until the director says it's a penalty card, and if the director is called to the table, finds a card face up in front of a defender, and is told that the defender revoked two tricks ago and so that card is a penalty card, the director should rule "no it isn't" and instruct the player to put it back in his hand, and play to continue. Of course, this isn't a requirement of the law, it's an option for the director, but it seems to me a good one in such a case. Because if he just lets it remain a PC, the idiots are just going to keep doing the wrong thing.

Although I sympathize with you, you shouldn’t bend the Laws to teach a lesson. You’re right, until the TD says so, a card is not a penalty card, but if the TD sees that card, he has to decide that it’s a PC now. The Laws may be ambiguous in many places, that’s not the case with Law 49. A card from a defender that’s exposed, becomes a PC unless it was exposed during normal play.
Well, that Law is a bit ambiguous. A defender’s card that was played in a previous trick and is lying face up, is not a PC, but the information thereof is unauthorized for partner. That’s missing from Law 49.

[axman]

dickiegera, on 2022-August-10, 17:16, said:

On about the 5th trick [S declarer] E fails to follow suit ♥ E corrects this.
S win the trick,

W wins trick #6 and is now on lead. Before S can state his option for a Club lead W leads A of diamonds
Director called. Director gives S his options and S ask for a Club lead

West now leads King of clubs and then leads Ace of diamonds within a second or two.

I believe that he must keep leading clubs unless S indicates differently
Also should not the ACE of diamonds be a major penalty and lead restriction of some type be imposed?

HELP clarify all of his

Thank you

According to the statement of facts:
1. E omitted play to T5 and corrected it.

2. W won T6 and led the DA. S objected and demanded a club. W complied with the CK… and then played the DA a second later.

3. there is no basis for S to have the right to demand a club (for there to be a basis for S to demand a lead penalty a PC is a predicate and there was no PC: and the identity of the PC has an effect as to what may and may not be demanded)

4. the timing of the second DA suggests that T7 had but one card when the DA was played. I would construe this to be an infraction (not waiting for T7 to be quitted) that improperly communicates via the infraction (the location of the CA and perhaps additional information).

[axman]

sanst, on 2022-August-12, 01:49, said:

Although I sympathize with you, you shouldn’t bend the Laws to teach a lesson. You’re right, until the TD says so, ...

Reading L49 accurately such cards automatically are PCs- not requiring prior TD ruling.

[mycroft]

Law 49 points to Law 50 (which of course, points back to Law 49, but still). Law 50 does not say that it is a penalty card - or that it is not a penalty card.

It says, as I quoted last time, that it is "a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise".

Having said that, the number of corrected revokes that go without director calls has to be in the 90+%, and almost always there isn't an issue. I'd say that applies to corrected revokes at my table, even, unless it's obvious that both the opponents don't know the rules, and it's possible to matter. It's almost never an issue either because the players "know what to do" = "play when possible", the play is automatic and the PC is irrelevant, or because either everybody or nobody knows the laws about lead restrictions.

Like some other violations of the Laws that happen either every hand or at least every session, I don't think this is much of an issue; I like the ACBL's attitude of "as long as everybody's okay with it, fine. If you're going to try to surprise the poor opponents with the Law, we have a way to ensure a fair table." Is it the best Secretary Bird attitude? Of course not. But hey, no harm no foul, and it teaches the ones that do want to take every advantage the laws allow (note, this includes me, this isn't a criticism) that they have to make sure the director is there beforehand so the opponents are on the same page.

Finally, since I'm talking Laws esoterica, a reminder that information from a penalty card is no longer unauthorized to partner while it is still on the table. Yes, I know that's not what sanst was saying, but I misread it the first time; and it used to be.

[sanst]

Law 49 states that a defender’s card in a position etc. “becomes” a PC, not that it is one automatically. Yes, this is splitting hairs, but there is an irregularity, the TD should have been called forthwith and that official and nobody else can decide what should be done. Law 81C is rather clear about this: “The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage”. Those parentheses should be dropped from that law and “not the players” should be printed in a larger type, caps, bold and double underlined.

[axman]

sanst, on 2022-August-13, 02:04, said:

Law 49 states that a defender’s card in a position etc. “becomes” a PC, not that it is one automatically. Yes, this is splitting hairs, but there is an irregularity, the TD should have been called forthwith and that official and nobody else can decide what should be done. Law 81C is rather clear about this: “The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage”. Those parentheses should be dropped from that law and “not the players” should be printed in a larger type, caps, bold and double underlined.

Does the law say it becomes a PC when the moon is blue? Does it say it becomes a PC when the TD says so? No. It says it becomes a PC. Period. What does That Mean? Well, consider the counterfactual case that it means it becomes a PC when the TD says so. Is that the same as: It says it becomes a PC. Period. No, and for the hypothesis we contemplate that is its effect. If the TD never gets around to saying it is a PC… did it BECOME a PC (as the law specifies)? Nope. This exercise demonstrates that a TD declaration merely clarifies that it is a PC- yet is not necessary to cause it to become one.

In other words, becomes was used to denote transformation (at that point in time distinct from some future time).

[mycroft]

I would be happy to argue that it is a penalty card, and remains so until the director is called, and decides that given the timing, she will designate it "not a penalty card" - or "no longer a penalty card" or whatever. I don't think it matters whether the director clears things up using Law 50 or whether she does it with Laws 9-11, as long as "hah, I know the Law and you don't, I win" gets the result it deserves.

I agree with all the SBs on the thread who say that this is a really bad situation and the TD should just be called when this happens, all the time. In fact, when called to the table for any of these situations (whether it's "he's on lead, I don't want him to play the PC, does he have to?" or "I want to enforce the lead penalty" "what lead penalty?" or "he led before I was able to decide which of my options to take" - here, whether or not he knew about the potential lead penalty) I make a point of saying "it is best if you call the director when the [revoke is noticed/corrected|lead out of turn is made|extra card is shown/dropped]" as I go clearing up what has happened this time.

Do I also agree with all the SBs on this thread who believe that "I know the Law and you don't, I win" should be a valid tactic? I'm sure my history will let you decide. But it's not how we as a culture have chosen to play this game.

[blackshoe]

sanst, on 2022-August-12, 01:49, said:

Although I sympathize with you, you shouldn’t bend the Laws to teach a lesson. You’re right, until the TD says so, a card is not a penalty card, but if the TD sees that card, he has to decide that it’s a PC now. The Laws may be ambiguous in many places, that’s not the case with Law 49. A card from a defender that’s exposed, becomes a PC unless it was exposed during normal play.
Well, that Law is a bit ambiguous. A defender’s card that was played in a previous trick and is lying face up, is not a PC, but the information thereof is unauthorized for partner. That’s missing from Law 49.

Hm.

Quote

Law 50, paragraph 1: 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 72C may apply).

The "unless" clause highlighting is mine. The law does not specify when the director might "designate otherwise" so it seems to me it's up to him when to do it - or not to do it.

Law 72C is irrelevant here. If you interpret Law 49 such that director never has discretion to "designate otherwise" then the card is indeed a PC. But is it the intent of the lawmakers that the director not have the discretion supposedly given to him in Law 50 "when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand"? If so, then the discretion supposedly given in Law 50 does not exist; that provision of the law is null and void.

I don't buy it.

The UI issue is not relevant to the question whether it's a penalty card.

As far as I'm concerned, the alternative here is "okay, it's a penalty card. 25% of a top PP to both sides for failure to call the director when East corrected his revoke".

[sanst]

My problem with the “unless the director decides otherwise” clause, is that I wouldn’t know which law gives him the possibility to do so. Law 49 is clear about a card becoming a penalty card. So please, give an example where you would decide that a card that’s a penalty card according to Law 49 is no longer a PC.
I can think of one. Here is a novice player that puts his cards on the table assuming that he’s the dummy, but he’s a defender. I would tell him to pick up his cards immediately and then give a lecture about paying attention and let the play continue. Besides, it’s an absolute nuisance if you declare that all these cards are PC’s, and explain at every trick what should be done. Luckily I’ve never been called for this, although I’ve seen it happen more than once.

[mycroft]

Well, a very common one is "Very experienced player has opponents do the 'no clubs,partner?' 'Oh yes, I have one' dance, put the card on the side, and then play to have revoker's partner on lead, then attempt to enforce the lead penalty - and when *that* is objected to, calls the director." Really, at least in the ACBL, it is.

And it should be obvious why this is an equitable ruling.

Yes, it would be *much better* if we trained people more strongly to call the director when the replacement happens, but currently that's not what happens. And the issue in the OP is what happens as a result. And when everything that didn't happen but should have seems to be in favour of one side, and there's a legal way to rule such that that "benefit" is wiped out, then whether or not it's the "perfect" ruling, at least the non-offender realizes that calling the director and getting their rights *right* rather than becoming an offender in their own right is better, and that's one more person that will do things correctly in future. It's called "education", and frankly, it's the only way rank-and-file bridge players actually are willing to learn the Laws.

[barmar]

There are a few places in the Laws where the TD is given discretion not to apply the normal rectification for an irregularity. But I think these are all intended to be unusual exceptions due to mitigating circumstances. It clearly shouldn't be at the TD's whim, because it's not fair that application of the Laws should be so dependent on the TD's mood or opinions.

I can't think of many good reasons why the TD would choose that an exposed card isn't a PC. Maybe something involving a player with physical disabilities? Or perhaps a passerby knocking the card out of the player's hand (this sounds like something out of Lamford's SB stories, most likely involving jam).

[mycroft]

Much of the Director's discretionary powers (very few of which are in Law 12, "Director's Discretionary Powers") revolve around ensuring that the Law isn't used as a bully, or that the Laws are actually applied when something goes wrong (instead of what the players think is right, or what the players "know" the Laws to be). Or to decide how severe, and in what form, penalties for behaviour unbecoming or disruptive to the game need to be in each specific case to be sufficient to inhibit repetition.

Many uses of these powers are standardized, in written or consensus form, by RAs, as they find out what works and what doesn't.

As I have said, one of the consensus results in the ACBL is "when an experienced player does the same behaviour as someone trying to take away their inexperienced opponents' L10C4 rights by leaving them in the dark about the true nature of the effects of a Major Penalty Card, we do what we need to to equalize the situation." If that means that the expert doesn't get their lead penalty this time, they'll learn something about the Laws themselves - I think it's called L9B2? L11A? (which I still don't like the current phrasing of, especially as it seems to be intended to be used by the WBFLC).

Yes, there's lots of "how do I know this pair doesn't know the Laws as well as I?" in there. And like an old response of BarMar's to Blackshoe about the midnights, "if you can't tell immediately, you're not an expert." And after all, the Law says you should do it all the time, even if everybody knows the Laws well. So I guess, "if you don't know from experience they know, assume they don't and call." Or, as I do, "if there is any chance at all that I may be in a position to enforce a lead penalty, call the TD now."

Cool thread though - that's two - possibly three - suggestions to the Laws Committee already.