[jillybean]

We have a major (Q) penalty card on the table, partner of exposed card is on lead.
Declarer choses to forbid a ♣ lead. Is the card picked up and put back in the hand?
I believe this is the same for both minor and major penalty cards?

While reading Law#50 I came across an interesting part of law50 C that say when a defender has a minor penalty card on the table she can not play a card of the same suit below the rank of an honor but she is entitled to play an honor of the same suit, and the minor penalty card remains a penalty. This is of course logical, and a game changer!

[mycroft]

Yes: 50D2a. No (because a minor penalty card does not come with lead restrictions on partner (50C), so the situation doesn't happen).

Note very carefully the requirements for a minor penalty card - not just the size of the card, but the (lack of) intent of the card owner. They are very rare, and only in "inconsequential" cases are the less consequential restrictions applied.

[jillybean]

Oh my - this law is often applied incorrectly.

[axman]

jillybean, on 2023-January-30, 12:38, said:

While reading Law#50 I came across an interesting part of law50 C that say when a defender has a minor penalty card on the table she can not play a card of the same suit below the rank of an honor but she is entitled to play an honor of the same suit, and the minor penalty card remains a penalty. This is of course logical, and a game changer!

Actually it is illogical. A PC is effectively an extra turn... where requiring it be played at the first opportunity is the attempt to minimize the effect of the extra turn. As such, a minor penalty card still is an extra turn thereby permitting the infractor to take a different extra turn exacerbates the infraction not cure it.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-January-30, 13:34, said:

Oh my - this law is often applied incorrectly.

In first year TD courses we were told "forget minor penalty cards and get major penalty cards right".
Obviously one can not, but they are rare as mycroft says.

[jillybean]

axman, on 2023-January-30, 14:00, said:

Actually it is illogical. A PC is effectively an extra turn... where requiring it be played at the first opportunity is the attempt to minimize the effect of the extra turn. As such, a minor penalty card still is an extra turn thereby permitting the infractor to take a different extra turn exacerbates the infraction not cure it.

Declarer is playing in NT, 2 rounds of clubs have been played (A,K won by declarer) and now defender after mistakenly playing a club to a spade trick, has a major penalty card on the table (2♣), Q5♣ in their hand. Declarer leads ten♣, logically defender would win the trick with the Q and possibly also win the remaining clubs.
In my experience we are told 2♣ has to be played at first opportunity so declarer wins the trick that was never theirs with logical play. That's never sat right as I believe the intent of the laws is to restore equity, not to punish people. Can you explain further please?

[axman]

jillybean, on 2023-January-30, 18:00, said:

Declarer is playing in NT, 2 rounds of clubs have been played (A,K won by declarer) and now defender after mistakenly playing a club to a spade trick, has a major penalty card on the table (2♣), Q5♣ in their hand. Declarer leads ten♣, logically defender would win the trick with the Q and possibly also win the remaining clubs.
In my experience we are told 2♣ has to be played at first opportunity so declarer wins the trick that was never theirs with logical play. That's never sat right as I believe the intent of the laws is to restore equity, not to punish people. Can you explain further please?

You opined that that minor pc are logical. While I took issue with that. When a player corrects revoke he retracts a card. And having already playing a card to the trick he substitutes a different card. He has played 2 cards to a trick one of them retracted. That is two turns when everyone else took their ONE allotted turn. Not only have turns been unbalanced unauthorized communication has occurred (that is the effect of unbalanced turns).

Supposedly the PC is to return the balance of turns as quickly as possible so that the Unfair advantage lasts as little as possible.

An effect of the minor pc is to lengthen the duration of the imbalance of turns.

end commentary on laws.

begin commentary on your latest opinion.

The law specifies that by pulling the C2 in playing to the trick it meets the specifications of major pc. the law specifies that major pcs are compelled to be discharged at first opportunity (rebalances turns).

The notion that letting OS take an unfair number of turns is equity is bonkers. The law does not define equity (except by L70BCDE with respect to its usage in L70A). Considering that someone figures that they can get bonkers ideas into to the law with the notion that an accidentally dropped spot means so much less than an intentionally played card is a statement about the condition of the human race. To believe that such a notion is sufficient to declare that unbalancing turns doesn't matter at all gives incentive for players to seek to take those free extra turns that you seem to believe are equitable. All knowledge of the actual distribution can be of critical value to partner and thus it is folly to declare by fiat that it does not matter at all. And that is why minor pc is bonkers.

[jillybean]

Ok, I've got minor and major penalty card mixed up.
Same scenario as above but defender fumbles when playing to the spade trick and the 2♣ drops face up on the table.

Minor penalty card?

If declarer then leads clubs, the defender with the minor penalty card on the table is not forced to play it but can elect to cover the 10♣ with the Q♣?

(Of course if the partner of the player with a penalty card is on lead, UI has to be addressed also.)

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-January-30, 19:42, said:

Ok, I've got minor and major penalty card mixed up.
Same scenario as above but defender fumbles when playing to the spade trick and the 2♣ drops face up on the table.

Yes - minor penalty card.

Quote

If declarer then leads clubs, the defender with the minor penalty card on the table is not forced to play it but can elect to cover the 10♣ with the Q♣?

Yes, but they could not cover the C8 with the C9 from their hand.

Quote

(Of course if the partner of the player with a penalty card is on lead, UI has to be addressed also.)

For the UI implications you have to look at Law 50E. 50E1 tells use that partner is entitled to know that the player has the C2 and that the C2 has to be played before any other club below the 10. It gets strange with 50E3 though. Let's say that partner leads the CA and the two is played. Now partner is not entitled to the information that the signal may not be accurate. So if they are playing "low encourage", partner has to treat it as an encouraging signal absent other information. And then there's a catch-all clause for the director to consider in 50E4, maybe if a player leads a low card to partner's minor penalty card for an unexpected entry.

IRL, I've never seen any significant issues with a minor penalty card. Mostly people have a bit of a laugh about it and it gets dealt with in a couple of tricks with no damage done.

[sfi]

P.S. A player cannot have more than one minor penalty card. Any two penalty cards at one time mean they are all major.

[jillybean]

That's logical.

IRL I can't remember defender being advised that they could play an honour (of the same suit) instead of the minor penalty card, they are told they must play the penalty card.

edit

Should a player, to protect themselves, ask the Director if the card is a Major or Minor penalty card?

And for completeness, I was day dreaming and put the 2♣ on the table when declarer led a spade.
The 2♣ stays on the table as a major penalty card, I play a spade (to follow suit) and when declarer or partner next plays clubs I must play the 2♣ regardless of what club honor cards I hold?

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-January-30, 21:19, said:

IRL I can't remember defender being advised that they could play an honour (of the same suit) instead of the minor penalty card, they are always told they must play the penalty card.

Eek. Now you're getting into Law 82C territory (Director's Error). The director should know better than that.

[jillybean]

sfi, on 2023-January-30, 21:16, said:

Yes - minor penalty card.


Yes, but they could not cover the C8 with the C9 from their hand.

Understood

sfi, on 2023-January-30, 21:16, said:

For the UI implications you have to look at Law 50E. 50E1 tells use that partner is entitled to know that the player has the C2 and that the C2 has to be played before any other club below the 10. It gets strange with 50E3 though. Let's say that partner leads the CA and the two is played. Now partner is not entitled to the information that the signal may not be accurate. So if they are playing "low encourage", partner has to treat it as an encouraging signal absent other information. And then there's a catch-all clause for the director to consider in 50E4, maybe if a player leads a low card to partner's minor penalty card for an unexpected entry.

I'm surprised that the C2 is AI for partner but not acting on the information when the card is sitting there on the table and the Director has explained the options could be big stretch too. As is the case for all UI, it seems to rely heavily on the understanding of the law and integrity of players.

[jillybean]

To continue...

I have a minor penalty card on the table, ♣2.

Declarer leads a club, I win the trick with the Q♣

Must I now lead the ♣2?

[sanst]

jillybean, on 2023-January-30, 22:39, said:

To continue...

I have a minor penalty card on the table, ♣2.

Declarer leads a club, I win the trick with the Q♣

Must I now lead the ♣2?

Yes, unless you can play a honour of clubs. The ten is a honour, too.

Actually, I’ve never been asked for a ruling which would result in a minor PC. Usually the player is allowed by the others to pick it up and put it back. Afterwards it might happen that you are called because the partner is accused of having made use of the knowledge .

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-January-30, 22:39, said:

To continue...

I have a minor penalty card on the table, ♣2.

Declarer leads a club, I win the trick with the Q♣

Must I now lead the ♣2?

No, but you can't lead the 3-9 of clubs. You can lead a club honour or any card in any other suit in preference to the C2.

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-January-30, 21:51, said:

I'm surprised that the C2 is AI for partner but not acting on the information when the card is sitting there on the table and the Director has explained the options could be big stretch too.

I'm not privy to the discussions that led to the law, but that's my guess about why they made it AI. Having it as UI would be a nightmare to adjudicate.

[mycroft]

Axman, you have major and minor penalty cards mixed up. A minor penalty card is a card *accidentally revealed*, *lower than the ten*, and only one. I can't see how you get "extra turn" (and we have had a long discussion about that, and I think we see each other's points, while not necessarily agreeing) from a dropped card or a card stuck to the back of a played card.

Major penalty cards - I absolutely agree with you. They tried to do something, they get an extra chance (to do it right), and we're mitigating that by giving declarer options or other lines of play that may be more successful than at other tables where they were not available. Some may say that it's too much, but is revoking or leading out of turn any less of a "bridge mistake" than failing to cover? I would say "more", frankly - I expect even novices to be able to follow suit or know who's on lead. I see nothing wrong with "I played illegally, and got a bad score I never could have given up" from people who also say "they failed to cover, I got a trick I wasn't entitled to, and inducing that is good declarer play."

I agree with pescetom's teacher: "Ignore minor penalty cards, they never come up". Obviously, directors can't, but players should; in cases where it could be a minor PC, the director should have been summoned anyway to tell them "this is an unusual case..." This is also the answer to "Should I ask the Director if it's a minor or Major PC?" If you aren't sure, it's Major. If the director doesn't tell you, it's Major. Ignore minor penalty cards, they never come up.

sanst, you need to read the "disposition of minor penalty card" again, too - no, they need never play the ♣2, if a minor pc, unless and until the only option from their hand is a small club. No lead penalties for partner, no forced lead for them, just "can't play a 2-9 in that suit before playing the mpc".

sfi, while I agree with you about potential director's error, in my experience, it's player-describing-the-situation error when telling the story much more often. They have heard of minor penalty cards, and are aggrieved when they're forced to play the ♣3 to the club trick, going to bed with their Ace - but the ♣3 is on the table because it was pitched on a heart and then the revoke corrected. So it was a Major PC. That's why I tried to be so clear about "read the conditions for mpc *carefully*. They're probably not what you think."

As far as UI/AI of penalty cards - unfortunately, this is just another place in the Laws where they were rewritten to make legal what everybody did anyway. The number of times I heard "oh well, I'll just take the penalty card off the table" (and led that suit) pre-2017 (by 5000 MP players!) were if not legion, definitely pushing "need to take my shoes off" territory. I actually happen to think that, while both conditions were consistent with "bridge", "if I can see it, I can use it. If I can't see it, I can't use it" has the benefit of making intuitive sense. I'm not sure about the "can't use the fact that it was a forced play and maybe not a valid signal once it's played" case though - I need to think about that, read the actual text of the Law, ...

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2023-January-31, 09:50, said:

sfi, while I agree with you about potential director's error, in my experience, it's player-describing-the-situation error when telling the story much more often. They have heard of minor penalty cards, and are aggrieved when they're forced to play the ♣3 to the club trick, going to bed with their Ace - but the ♣3 is on the table because it was pitched on a heart and then the revoke corrected. So it was a Major PC. That's why I tried to be so clear about "read the conditions for mpc *carefully*. They're probably not what you think."

Ok, and this is why when I said I can't remember defender being told they have the option of playing the minor penalty card or a honor of the same suit it's most likely the card was a major penalty and not a Director error. I will pay more attention in future.

When a player has a Major PC on the table and their partner is on lead, declarer may forbid or demand the lead of that suit.
If declarer exercises this right, the card is picked up and no is longer a PC (it remains UI to partner)
Minor penalty cards have no lead restrictions
correct?

If there are 2 penalty cards on the table (major), declarer can demand the lead of one suit or forbid the lead of one or both suits ?
And, if 2 cards can be played to a trick, declarer can choose which card is played? I assume this includes both following suit and discarding?

[axman]

mycroft, on 2023-January-31, 09:50, said:

Axman, you have major and minor penalty cards mixed up. A minor penalty card is a card *accidentally revealed*, *lower than the ten*, and only one. I can't see how you get "extra turn" (and we have had a long discussion about that, and I think we see each other's points, while not necessarily agreeing) from a dropped card or a card stuck to the back of a played card.

Major penalty cards - I absolutely agree with you. They tried to do something, they get an extra chance (to do it right), and we're mitigating that by giving declarer options or other lines of play that may be more successful than at other tables where they were not available. Some may say that it's too much, but is revoking or leading out of turn any less of a "bridge mistake" than failing to cover? I would say "more", frankly - I expect even novices to be able to follow suit or know who's on lead. I see nothing wrong with "I played illegally, and got a bad score I never could have given up" from people who also say "they failed to cover, I got a trick I wasn't entitled to, and inducing that is good declarer play."

I suspect you have lost track of antecedents.

As for the other matter:

When a player calls he communicates.
When a player varies tempo he communicates.
When a player remarks he communicates.
When a player plays a card he communicates.
When a player drops a card he communicates.
When a player acts out of turn he communicates.
When a player changes a call he communicates.
When a player substitutes a card he communicates.
When a player corrects a revoke he communicates.

What does a turn do? It communicates.

During an auction turns to call alternate. Why? To balance the turns.
After the auction alternate sides play a card. Why? To balance the turns.
There are PCs. Why? To balance the turns at the earliest practical time.
What does UI do? It imbalances the turns in favor of the infractor.

What does correcting a revoke do? It imbalances the turns in favor of the infractor.
What does changing a call do? It imbalances the turns in favor of the infractor.
What does correcting a POOT do? It imbalances the turns in favor of the infractor.
What does correcting a BOOT do? It imbalances the turns in favor of the infractor.

An after thought. A mPC by any name is an exposed card. When a card is played it is <drum roll> exposed. So there is good reason to not treat mPC and MPC differently- to restore toward the balance of turns in haste.