[blackshoe]

 iviehoff, on 2012-March-28, 07:04, said:

Generally speaking cards that must be played stay faced; if faced cards are picked up, generally speaking it is because theya re cards that don't have to be played: whether a penalty card that ceases to be a penalty card in the applicable circumstances, or a card permitted to be withdrawn in the relevant circumstances, or a card that has been faced but not played for whatever reason that happened, there are avariety of possibilities. You were correct that he is not allowed to withdraw the card in this situation. Where you were perhaps naive was in thinking that after picking it up he would then play it again. In picking it up without getting any complaint, he presumed that he had been allowed to withdraw it, or that it was treated as never played - because that would be normal for a card picked up.

A card faced on the table may only be picked up on the instruction of the director.

Any time you aren't sure what the rules are, call the TD. That's why he's there.

[bluejak]

 aguahombre, on 2012-March-27, 20:18, said:

incorrectly believing an irregularity has ocurred is certainly reason to call for the director. But, that doesn't mean the opponents had an obligation to call the director when one had not occurred. Nor, does a player forfeit his right to a ruling about the change of lead on this occasion merely because of someone's mistaken opinion that declarer's previous lead was an irregularity.

I am unconvinced that the opponents knew that no irregularity had occurred.

It all seems very strange to me: if there is any question whether an irregularity has occurred, surely it is not up to the players to decide?

[bixby]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-29, 08:30, said:

I am unconvinced that the opponents knew that no irregularity had occurred.

It all seems very strange to me: if there is any question whether an irregularity has occurred, surely it is not up to the players to decide?

This suggestion, while theoretically correct under the Laws, overlooks the fact that in real life there are numerous situations in which it is customary to point out an irregularity without calling the Director.

If someone places a quitted card incorrectly, facing the wrong way, do you call the Director? I've never seen anyone do that. Players just point out that the card is pointed incorrectly, the mistake is corrected, and play continues. In real life, it would be considered absurd to call the Director for this form of irregularity. Anyone who did would be branded as the Secretary Bird of all Secretary Birds.

My sympathies are with the OPer. If declarer led to trick 2 while I, as defender, still had my card facing up for trick 1, I wouldn't call the Director, I would just point out that trick 1 wasn't finished and expect declarer to wait until everyone was finished with trick 1. If I were declarer in this same scenario, I would be stunned if someone called the Director (I wouldn't object or anything, but I would be stunned). It was only when the declarer changed his card for trick 2 that something happened that merited calling the Director.

[blackshoe]

Your example (someone placing a card in the wrong direction in their quitted tricks) is flawed, as it is among the class of irregularities for which the law provides specific guidance that players may do something when faced with them. Law 46 is another such example. Declarer not calling for a card from dummy in the correct form ("X of [suit]") is an irregularity, all of Law 46B tells players how to handle it, they handle it, there's rarely a need for the TD. However, there are other irregularities in a different class - the director is really needed to make sure those irregularities are handled correctly. In such cases, custom notwithstanding, if the NOS do not call the TD, they risk losing their right to rectification. Worse, sometimes they compound the problem. They may, for example, impose an incorrect rectification. A possible example of this might be treating a minor penalty card as if it were major.

In the case at hand, the laws do not address the problem. Because of that lack, leading while not everyone has quitted the previous trick is not, technically, an irregularity. However, declarer picking up his played card and putting it back in his hand is an irregularity. It is also one of that class of irregularity which will require the director to make sure it is handled correctly. So the assertion that nothing worthy of a director call occurred until declarer changed his card is incorrect.

[bluejak]

Like everyone else, I often do not call the TD when there is some sort of irregularity. But I live with the consequences on the rare occasions where there are some. I work on the principle that either you call the TD or you don't: you do not call the TD later.

[blackshoe]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-30, 09:01, said:

I work on the principle that either you call the TD or you don't: you do not call the TD later.

Sure. So do I. We might wish that everybody followed this principle. But they don't.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-30, 08:35, said:

In the case at hand, the laws do not address the problem. Because of that lack, leading while not everyone has quitted the previous trick is not, technically, an irregularity. However, declarer picking up his played card and putting it back in his hand is an irregularity. It is also one of that class of irregularity which will require the director to make sure it is handled correctly. So the assertion that nothing worthy of a director call occurred until declarer changed his card is incorrect.

But are players really expected to memorize all the actions that are irregularities? And if you don't know, or even suspect, that something is an irregularity, you're not going to feel a need to call a TD. As someone said, if you're not sure, call -- but in this case they probably weren't "not sure", so they didn't see the need.

I'm a student of the Laws, but I admit that I didn't remember that taking back the card is an irregularity, and would not have batted an eye at declarer's initial action. As with the OP, it's only when a different card appears when he replays that I'd have a problem.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-March-30, 09:37, said:

I'm a student of the Laws, but I admit that I didn't remember that taking back the card is an irregularity, and would not have batted an eye at declarer's initial action. As with the OP, it's only when a different card appears when he replays that I'd have a problem.

Thank you. Apparently I failed at expressing this point.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't expect players to memorize all the possible irregularities. It would make more sense to memorize what is proper procedure, and then anything else is an irregularity. But I don't expect players to do that either.

If you aren't aware that something is or may be an irregularity, I don't think you can be faulted for not calling the TD. OTOH, there are four players at the table, and anything that seems like calling attention to an irregularity should trigger a director call by somebody. "Hang on, I've still not quitted the trick" may not technically call attention to an irregularity, but it sure seems like it does.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-30, 10:00, said:

"Hang on, I've still not quitted the trick" may not technically call attention to an irregularity, but it sure seems like it does.

I thought we already established that Declarer's lead after all four cards had been played to the previous trick was NOT an irregularity; the defender not having turned his card down is not an irregularity. I don't know whether fourth hand saying "hang on" to prevent his partner from playing to the next trick so he might retain his option to have the trick faced is an irregularity or not.

So, if "hang on" seems like calling attention to an irregularity, please tell us what irregularity that would be, and which side should have called the TD at that point.

[barmar]

Actually, I'll bet at least one of the players assumed that leading before the previous trick had been quitted was an irregularity, and "hang on" drew attention to it. But they probably also thought that it was one of the trivial irregularities that one just handles at the table.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2012-March-30, 10:15, said:

I thought we already established that Declarer's lead after all four cards had been played to the previous trick was NOT an irregularity; the defender not having turned his card down is not an irregularity. I don't know whether fourth hand saying "hang on" to prevent his partner from playing to the next trick so he might retain his option to have the trick faced is an irregularity or not.

So, if "hang on" seems like calling attention to an irregularity, please tell us what irregularity that would be, and which side should have called the TD at that point.

It isn't an irregularity. I said so. Repeatedly. "Seems like" = "has the appearance of" ≠ "is".

[mgoetze]

 bixby, on 2012-March-30, 08:14, said:

If someone places a quitted card incorrectly, facing the wrong way, do you call the Director? I've never seen anyone do that. Players just point out that the card is pointed incorrectly, the mistake is corrected, and play continues. In real life, it would be considered absurd to call the Director for this form of irregularity.

Huh? Why is this an irregularity? I know several world class players who quit all their cards horizontally and noone ever points out anything.

[pran]

 mgoetze, on 2012-March-30, 23:34, said:

Huh? Why is this an irregularity? I know several world class players who quit all their cards horizontally and noone ever points out anything.

That is a violation of

Law 65 - ARRANGEMENT OF TRICKS said:

A. Completed Trick

When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

B. Keeping Track of the Ownership of Tricks

1. If the player’s side has won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward his partner.

2. If the opponents have won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward the opponents.
[...]

[mgoetze]

Didn't know that's in the laws. Guess what they play at the Bermuda Bowl is just not bridge.

[aguahombre]

 mgoetze, on 2012-March-31, 04:41, said:

Didn't know that's in the laws. Guess what they play at the Bermuda Bowl is just not bridge.

Yeh, the wording of that section, and others...such as how the dummy's cards are arranged when he/she sets it down, make it sound like they are merely describing what normally happens rather than it must be that way. So, it is unclear IMO.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized)…

It seems pretty clear that this is a "does" situation, so not doing it is a violation.

[mycroft]

There are probably 1000 violations of the law that happen every session. There are some violations of law that are habitual, and nobody bothers to correct it, because it's "never a problem".

Except that sometimes it is. Very very rarely, it is. And as I tell the offender when I rule against them, "yes, everybody does it, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong. It just means that almost always it doesn't cause damage. When it does. you get ruled against." When I do something unLawful (and I do), I realize that if it is one of those cases where it costs me, then it costs me.

[c_corgi]

It feels like the direction this thread is taking will result in the conclusion that a minor technical infringement by the NOS will result in loss of rectification for the grossest of misdemeanors by the OS. I don't see why "Director does so rule..." in L11 should not be interpreted as Director rules that NOS may lose the right to rectification... so that there is still scope for TD's judgement. In this case I would rule (1) the original lead stands and (2) the replacement lead is UI to defenders UNLESS declarer was aware that the original lead was irrevocably played.

[Vampyr]

 bixby, on 2012-March-30, 08:14, said:

My sympathies are with the OPer. If declarer led to trick 2 while I, as defender, still had my card facing up for trick 1, I wouldn't call the Director, I would just point out that trick 1 wasn't finished and expect declarer to wait until everyone was finished with trick 1. If I were declarer in this same scenario, I would be stunned if someone called the Director (I wouldn't object or anything, but I would be stunned). It was only when the declarer changed his card for trick 2 that something happened that merited calling the Director.

This post is inappropriate for this thread, because it describes what would happen in the real world.