[gnasher]

alanmet, on 2012-October-09, 03:37, said:

Refering to law 50 the director still has to be called and deem the card as a penalty card.

Did you actually read Law 50 before you wrote this?

Quote

If the director isn't called who is going to tell the declarer of his rights.
Players cannot carry out rectification of an infraction.

Those are both separate matters from the question of whether the card is a penalty card.

[pran]

alanmet, on 2012-October-09, 03:37, said:

Refering to law 50 the director still has to be called and deem the card as a penalty card.
If the director isn't called who is going to tell the declarer of his rights.
Players cannot carry out rectification of an infraction.
Cheers
Alan

A lie is a lie however many times it is repeated.

No law says that it takes a Director to declare a card a penalty card. Law 50 says that "a defender's exposed card is a penalty card unless the Director says otherwise"

Players can do whatever they want, but if they do as they are required to do and call the Director in case of a (suspected) irregularity they will (usually) receive the correct ruling instead of whatever fancy ruling they invent themselves.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2012-October-09, 03:44, said:

There is absolutely no basis for an assigned adjusted score here, so 40/40 or any other assigned score would be quite illegal. You do need to read the laws and apply them as written.

40/40 is not an assigned adjusted score, it is an artificial adjusted score.

Maybe there is no reason for an assigned adjusted score, but let us have another look.

Law 23 said:

AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side,he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

One defender effectively gave her own ruling [silently] by withdrawing the played card and leaving it on the table as a major penalty card. I have little doubt that the TD would have allowed this ruling under Law 10B. From comments after the end it was clear she knew she had to play it at the first opportunity, as did declarer.

When there came the position where she had to play it under Law 50D1A [the TD having not deemed it not to be a penalty card under Law 50 para #1] she forgot, as did declarer, and play continued. But her failure to play that penalty card was a breach of Law 50D1A.

Now, at the time she failed to play the penalty card but over-ruffed instead, that was an irregularity, and she 'could have been aware at the time of her irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side'.

So why does Law 23 not apply?

[Fluffy]

this is off topic, but I am so curious, why didn't East overruff the first heart trick and pitched a diamond instead?

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2012-October-09, 06:35, said:

40/40 is not an assigned adjusted score, it is an artificial adjusted score.
...
So why does Law 23 not apply?

Sorry I meant artificial.

I have argued several times for the application of Law 23 and no one has yet given any reason why not.

[bluejak]

As one who thinks Law 23 does apply I am not going to give you a reason why not! But it would be assigned, not artificial, if Law 23 was applied.

[alanmet]

Hi
With regards to reading the laws and applying them I think the important Laws here are 9B, 10A&B
It appears from the responses in this thread self directing is acceptable.
If everyone knew the rules inside out maybe this would work but unfortunately that is far from reality.
There is a TD for a reason so you him\her.
Cheers
Alan

iviehoff, on 2012-October-09, 03:44, said:

It is a common mistake to think that there can be no penalty card if the director is not called. For some reason you are ignoring the definitive demonstration of this point that was made above to you. The reason for this common error is that a Director may use L 11 to deny rectification to a side that took action without calling the director in certain circumstances, commonly the lead restrictions, on the grounds that the NOS may have taken advantage of the fact that the OS didn't get the recitation of them in advance. The fact that a Director sometimes does this does not mean it wasn't a penalty card.

There is absolutely no basis for an assigned adjusted score here, so 40/40 or any other assigned score would be quite illegal. You do need to read the laws and apply them as written.

[bluejak]

Of course self directing is not good, and no-one has suggested it is. But the purpose of this forum is to help people decide what to do in situations. So, we have a situation where the players did not call the TD. No-one suggests this is good, but when the TD is called now he has to deal with it. Saying "You are naughty people, you should have called me earlier, so I will not help" is not the answer. Following the Laws and understanding them is the answer.

[alanmet]

You said “Of course self directing is not good, and no-one has suggested it is. But the purpose of this forum is to help people decide what to do in situations.”
The fact of the matter is self directing is not allowed. It should be frowned upon. I realise at some clubs there are playing directors which does make it somewhat awkward.
Personally I don’t, so when I direct there is no excuse not to call.
The main issues arising from not calling the director are:-
1. There is a very good chance the rectifications won’t be carried out correctly, because the non offenders may not get all of the options available, or the people at the table simply don’t know the laws well enough (very likely). Then of course the director has to try and sort the mess out when it gets out of hand as in this case.
2. When you have an experienced pair playing someone less experienced they can intimidate the lesser experienced pair to accept their version of the ruling. Unfortunately I believe this is quite common. Bridge bullying, I hate it.
So the purpose of the forum is to decide what to do in situation, which is exactly what it should be about.
In this particular case as a director you have a choice to make.
Do I accept the diamond as a legal penalty card and address the situation as though I had been called at the time, or do I not accept the diamond as a penalty card because I wasn’t called at the time. I would take the second approach in which case both parties are guilty of not calling the director.
East west were certainly aware of the procedural failings and north must have been asleep. The poor dummy wasn’t sure what to do , understandably so.
Assuming the penalty card had been awarded the revoke wasn’t established anyway. In the second incident there is no rectification for revoking when failing to play a faced card on the table, therefore the table result should stand.
But then there is Law 23. Did east realise he should have played the diamond instead of over-ruffing, surely he wouldn’t be so arrogant as to try that. If it was the case then he should be penalised quite severely. Applying law 23 is a very serious step.
For me there are three possible solutions
1. Let the table score stand, contract down.
2. Apply law 23 and adjust the score to N-S making. Plus Penalise E-W
3. Because of the multiple infringements judge no result can be obtained and score it 40/40.

The issue for me is that if you let them get away with self directing they will keep doing it, which is fine if you want an easy night reading the newspaper. I would go option 3.

Cheers
Alan

bluejak, on 2012-October-09, 18:46, said:

Of course self directing is not good, and no-one has suggested it is. But the purpose of this forum is to help people decide what to do in situations. So, we have a situation where the players did not call the TD. No-one suggests this is good, but when the TD is called now he has to deal with it. Saying "You are naughty people, you should have called me earlier, so I will not help" is not the answer. Following the Laws and understanding them is the answer.

[gnasher]

Alan, you seem to be saying that you want to rule in a way that teaches the players a lesson. You can do that straightforwardly and without ignoring the Laws: rule on the penalty card according to the Laws, and separately award a procedural penalty to both sides for failing to call the director when they should have done.

If you rule that it wasn't a penalty card because you weren't called, you are knowingly making an illegal ruling. That's a far worse offence than the one the players have committed.

[Zelandakh]

alanmet, on 2012-October-10, 02:57, said:

The main issues arising from not calling the director are:-
1. There is a very good chance the rectifications won’t be carried out correctly, because the non offenders may not get all of the options available, or the people at the table simply don’t know the laws well enough (very likely). Then of course the director has to try and sort the mess out when it gets out of hand as in this case.

Judging from the rest of your post (and some personal experiences too for that matter) there is a very good chance that rectifications will not be carried out correctly even if someone does call the Director.

[alanmet]

Hi
I understand your concerns but disagree with your statement that I am knowingly making an illegal ruling.
Like I said if people self direct you have no idea how the rectification was carried out and if someone gained or lost from the situation.
Could you explain to me Law 10 B? What it means and when you would apply it.
Cheers
Alan

gnasher, on 2012-October-10, 03:43, said:

Alan, you seem to be saying that you want to rule in a way that teaches the players a lesson. You can do that straightforwardly and without ignoring the Laws: rule on the penalty card according to the Laws, and separately award a procedural penalty to both sides for failing to call the director when they should have done.

If you rule that it wasn't a penalty card because you weren't called, you are knowingly making an illegal ruling. That's a far worse offence than the one the players have committed.

[blackshoe]

Law 49 says that if a defender's card becomes exposed other than in the normal course of play or application of law, it is a penalty card. So if such a card is exposed, it is a penalty card from that point on. If the TD is later called to the table and sees the card there, it is still a penalty card. Law 50 says that it remains a penalty card unless the TD designates otherwise. However, even if he does so, it was still a penalty card before the director got to the table. So if the player whose card it is failed to play it when the laws required, it is not legal for the director to claim that doesn't count as an irregularity on the grounds the card was never a penalty card, because it was a penalty card at the time the player failed to play it.

Put it another way: the law does not say that a defender's exposed card is a penalty card only when the director says it is, as you previously asserted.

Law 10 is a separate issue. The director may (is permitted by this law to) cancel a rectification imposed by the players. I would rarely do so, though, unless there has been significant damage caused by the players not applying the rectification correctly, or unless the players applied an incorrect rectification, and then only if the situation is recoverable. Note that Law 10B always applies, in that the director may cancel the players' rectification, or let it stand. This is an either-or proposition — the TD has to do one or the other; he cannot do both, and he cannot do neither. In this penalty card case, though, the designation of the card as a PC was the correct rectification, so unless there's some damaging factor, the TD should not, IMO, cancel it.

[alanmet]

Hi
As people keep saying Law 50 states a card prematurely exposed by a defender is a penalty card.
Law 62 also states a card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card.
I think the wording should include "once the director has been called"
The inference from the responses on this thread is that because of the wording whether you call the director or not is a matter of choice.
If you think you can carry out the rectification yourself it is OK, no harm.
For some bizzare reason Laws 9 & 10 don't count. Personally I don't believe this is the case.
A card is faced that shouldn't be, you call the director, he confirms it a penalty card (major or minor)and explains what needs to happen.
A good director would stay at the table to make sure it was disposed of correctly.
Self directing is not an option, especially if you happen to be a director.
Cheers
Alan

blackshoe, on 2012-October-10, 13:19, said:

Law 49 says that if a defender's card becomes exposed other than in the normal course of play or application of law, it is a penalty card. So if such a card is exposed, it is a penalty card from that point on. If the TD is later called to the table and sees the card there, it is still a penalty card. Law 50 says that it remains a penalty card unless the TD designates otherwise. However, even if he does so, it was still a penalty card before the director got to the table. So if the player whose card it is failed to play it when the laws required, it is not legal for the director to claim that doesn't count as an irregularity on the grounds the card was never a penalty card, because it was a penalty card at the time the player failed to play it.

Put it another way: the law does not say that a defender's exposed card is a penalty card only when the director says it is, as you previously asserted.

Law 10 is a separate issue. The director may (is permitted by this law to) cancel a rectification imposed by the players. I would rarely do so, though, unless there has been significant damage caused by the players not applying the rectification correctly, or unless the players applied an incorrect rectification, and then only if the situation is recoverable. Note that Law 10B always applies, in that the director may cancel the players' rectification, or let it stand. This is an either-or proposition — the TD has to do one or the other; he cannot do both, and he cannot do neither. In this penalty card case, though, the designation of the card as a PC was the correct rectification, so unless there's some damaging factor, the TD should not, IMO, cancel it.

[gnasher]

alanmet, on 2012-October-10, 12:09, said:

Could you explain to me Law 10 B? What it means and when you would apply it.

I'll go with what Blackshoe said.

[gnasher]

alanmet, on 2012-October-11, 00:37, said:

Hi
As people keep saying Law 50 states a card prematurely exposed by a defender is a penalty card.
Law 62 also states a card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card.
I think the wording should include "once the director has been called"

You may well think that, but so what? At present it doesn't say that, so you can't rule as though it did.

Quote

The inference from the responses on this thread is that because of the wording whether you call the director or not is a matter of choice.
If you think you can carry out the rectification yourself it is OK, no harm.
For some bizzare reason Laws 9 & 10 don't count.

Nobody has said that.

What we have said is that Laws 49 and 50 apply, as well as Laws 9 and 10. Law 10B doesn't say "If the players make up their own ruling, all other rules are rescinded and the director can do whatever he feels like."

[bluejak]

alanmet, on 2012-October-11, 00:37, said:

As people keep saying Law 50 states a card prematurely exposed by a defender is a penalty card.
Law 62 also states a card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card.
I think the wording should include "once the director has been called"

Maybe it should, but it doesn't, and this is the wrong forum to discuss that. There is a forum 'Changing Laws & Regulations' to discuss changes. We have to rule with the current Laws.

Quote

The inference from the responses on this thread is that because of the wording whether you call the director or not is a matter of choice.

No-one has said that or implied that. The thread is about how to rule when a table did not call the TD. No-one is suggesting they were right not to call the TD, except for dummy who [probably] was not allowed to.

Quote

If you think you can carry out the rectification yourself it is OK, no harm.

Who says that? We don't. We think you call the TD. But the TD has to do something when the players don't.

Quote

Self directing is not an option, especially if you happen to be a director.

So what? The question is what you, as a TD, do when faced with this situation.