[VixTD]

In this month's session of our county teams league there were four head-to-head teams-of-four matches running in the same room, with a playing director (me). In one first division match the following occurred:

In the middle of play in a spade contract, a diamond was led round to a defender, who ruffed and led a heart to the next trick. His partner asked if was really out of diamonds, and he found one in his hand, corrected the revoke and now seemed to have two penalty cards (the trump and the heart). He thought declarer ought to be able to choose which one was led to the next trick, offered her the choice and play continued. Declarer went one off, and the defenders said they should ask the TD at the end of the match how it should be scored.

The TD was not very impressed at the end of the match and suggested that he should have been called earlier. The defenders protested that it was up to their opponents to call the director.

To sum up, all players were old enough to know they should have called the director at the time. The defending side seemed to have taken the initiative in making up the ruling. What do you think I should have done?

[pran]

VixTD, on 2017-February-10, 07:37, said:

In this month's session of our county teams league there were four head-to-head teams-of-four matches running in the same room, with a playing director (me). In one first division match the following occurred:

In the middle of play in a spade contract, a diamond was led round to a defender, who ruffed and led a heart to the next trick. His partner asked if was really out of diamonds, and he found one in his hand, corrected the revoke and now seemed to have two penalty cards (the trump and the heart). He thought declarer ought to be able to choose which one was led to the next trick, offered her the choice and play continued. Declarer went one off, and the defenders said they should ask the TD at the end of the match how it should be scored.

The TD was not very impressed at the end of the match and suggested that he should have been called earlier. The defenders protested that it was up to their opponents to call the director.

To sum up, all players were old enough to know they should have called the director at the time. The defending side seemed to have taken the initiative in making up the ruling. What do you think I should have done?

1: The Director is to be called immediately when attention is drawn to an irregularity. This means that he should be called when the offender discovered that he indeed revoked.
2: The lead of the heart did establish the revoke, so the (revoking) trump may no longer be withdrawn, and certainly does not become a penalty card.
3: The offender was on the lead to the next trick so his heart has been led, and play continues "normally" thereafter.
4. Two tricks are transferred from the offending side to the non-offending side after the play ends (unless the offending side does not win any trick subsequent to the revoke trick in which case only the revoke trick is transferred).
5: The Director should investigate if Law 64C justifies further rectification beyond the transfer of the two tricks automatically transferred.

Further rectification and/or a PP might be the result from the offender himself correcting the revoke without the Director having been called to the table. The fact that both sides are equally responsible for calling the Director does not change this.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-February-10, 08:01, said:

4. Two tricks are transferred from the offending side to the non-offending side after the play ends (unless the offending side does not win any trick subsequent to the revoke trick in which case only the revoke trick is transferred).

Maybe not, because of Law 11A:

Quote

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

[pran]

I notice that a poll has been added.
Unless the players involved are really unexperienced I most often tell them in such situations when they have failed to call me in time:
You know that you must call the Director but you made up your own ruling instead.
I shall let the result that you agreed upon stand however unfair it might seem for either of you.
Consider this a warning and make sure you call the Director next time.

[VixTD]

Sorry, I've changed one of the questions to include a possible two-trick penalty as that would more likely have been the one that would have applied.

[mycroft]

Law 10B. So, given that, here's my ruling:

I choose to allow the rectification and waiver done without my knowledge. Score stands. I am awarding Procedural Penalties to both sides, as follows:
Declarer: I think that anybody who thinks that the opponents both know the law and are acting in your best interest needs to learn otherwise, the hard way. Had you called, they would have been given a two trick penalty, having established the revoke before noticing it. As it is, you chose to accept a different ruling; next time you won't, eh?
Defenders: I expect to see, as part of the entry fee next time, a decorated piece of art of Laws 10 A and B. Embroidery or cross-stitch will do, as will calligraphy. We will post it on the wall.
Given that crack about whose responsibility it is to call the director, *you* can do 10A/B, *you* can do 9B and C.
Next hand, please.

Certainly, if I beleived that the declaring side was new enough that they might be being taken advantage of, I would rule differently. But County First Division?

This is one of those things that just croggles me. Why would you believe that a) they know what to do, and b) aren't biased, even if they aren't trying to get away with something?

Edit: I think, in parallel with "home matches" (something that doesn't really happen here), they could have agreed to something to keep the game moving (as you were in the WC or taking another ruling or three), and *also agreed* to call the TD at the end of the match and ask you to rule as if you had been there at the time, accepting whatever ruling you give then. If that were the case, whether I was happy about the idea of extending this to playing directors or not, I would do exactly that.

[nige1]

IMO the director should investigate the facts, belatedly, as far as he is able. Then try to rule as if he had been called at the time of the irregularity -- probably a 2-trick penalty.

He should also consider a PP for both sides. On the face of it, declarer seems merely to have been ignorant of the law. Defenders seem to have made a suspiciously self-serving ruling. But both sides deserve a reprimand for inventing law on the hoof, rather than stopping to call the director.

[pran]

nige1, on 2017-February-10, 13:08, said:

IMO the director should investigate the facts, belatedly, as far as he is able. Then try to rule as if he had been called at the time of the irregularity -- probably a 2-trick penalty.

He should also consider a PP for both sides. On the face of it, declarer seems merely to have been ignorant of the law. Defenders seem to have made a suspiciously self-serving ruling. But both sides deserve a reprimand for inventing law on the hoof, rather than calling the director.

That encourages the following players' attitudes:
"We rule according to what we believe is correct, but call the Director later if we understand that we have made a wrong ruliing. No harm done, the Director will eventually give the correct ruling and who cares about a reprimand anyway?"

[wanoff]

If it was only a county match, I wouldn't worry too much. Maybe try and achieve equity.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-February-10, 14:08, said:

That encourages the following players' attitudes:
"We rule according to what we believe is correct, but call the Director later if we understand that we have made a wrong ruliing. No harm done, the Director will eventually give the correct ruling and who cares about a reprimand anyway?"

This is the reason for 11A that I quoted above, to prevent this kind of double-shot.

[VixTD]

I just told them all off but allowed whatever result they had cooked up to stand, which is what the majority have voted for. I worried that the defenders had persuaded the declarer to go along with their ruling, and so gained an advantage.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2017-February-10, 11:18, said:

Unless the players involved are really unexperienced I most often tell them in such situations when they have failed to call me in time:
You know that you must call the Director but you made up your own ruling instead.
I shall let the result that you agreed upon stand however unfair it might seem for either of you.
Consider this a warning and make sure you call the Director next time.

This seems like an excellent way of encouraging gamesmanship. The cunning side can offer the opponents a less favourable option here knowing that they will gain the advantage from it if accepted and, if not, the "normal" ruling will be taken instead, so there is no downside. Or do you also issue penalties for every pair that offers such a ruling to their opponents?

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-16, 03:49, said:

This seems like an excellent way of encouraging gamesmanship. The cunning side can offer the opponents a less favourable option here knowing that they will gain the advantage from it if accepted and, if not, the "normal" ruling will be taken instead, so there is no downside. Or do you also issue penalties for every pair that offers such a ruling to their opponents?

I have never experienced any pair "offering a less favourable option". When they make up their own ruling it is to my knowledge always due to ignorance of the Laws.

Both pairs are always warned about their duty to call the Director. So far my procedure has been sufficient and they learned their lesson.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2017-February-16, 04:37, said:

Both pairs are always warned about their duty to call the Director. So far my procedure has been sufficient and they learned their lesson.

Do you think the pair that gained because of the lack of a TD call "learned their lesson" too?

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-16, 05:48, said:

Do you think the pair that gained because of the lack of a TD call "learned their lesson" too?

In my experience yes.

[mycroft]

I am simply going to point to my previous response here. There are ways and ways of teaching lessons. The TDs know their own.