alanmet

Just out of interest was the queen moved to a played position or was it in its original position. ie was it still with the 9 and 3? Cheers Alan

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 Law 62 also states a card so withdrawn becomes a penalty card.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

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

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

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

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

There is no penalty card. Only the director can assign a card to be a penalty card. The director wasn't called, hence no penalty card. Therefore there can't be a penalty for not playing it which there wouldn't be anyway because it is a faced card. I think people are looking for a complex solution to a simple problem. Both parties are equally to blame for this fiasco give them a 40/40 board and call it a day. Hopefully they won't do it again. Cheers Alan

A point that seems to have been overlooked is that there has never been a penalty card. Only the director can nominate a card to be a penalty card. The director would have his work cut out on this one, one thing is clear is that both sides are at fault and should be penalised. Also it would be unlikely that dummy would realise that the actions taken meant attention had been drawn to the irregularity. Cheers Alan

My apologies. But the judgement now is based on whether he would have chosen not to pass after 6C. It has nothing to do with the fact that he may have preempted 3S. Cheers Alan

Hi Blackshoe My understanding is that once the auction is finished there is no going back. In this case the auction had finished. Law 21 can't apply now. Cheers Alan

Once the opposition had recieved the correct meaning (which they are entitled to )of the bid the director should have said to the opposition, "call me back at the end of the play of the hand if you think you have been disadvantaged". There was certainly no value in discussing anything with the opposition away from the table and was the wrong thing to do. This has now alerted his partner that he probably has some values. The hand has to be played in 6C. Damage if any is assessed at the end of play. Cheers Alan

In this particular instance the outcome will be both partners have to pass the first round. More interestingly what would happen if both partners had bid? UI everywhere, could the auction continue normally, maybe cancel the board and give an artificial adjusted score!! What do you reckon? Alan

You have simply misbid. There can't be UI because your partner hasn't alerted because he has no reason to. You have to simply try to resue the situation the best you can. The chances are you are not going to benefit from your mis-bid and if you do it is your good luck. The laws are not there to penalise people for making stupid mistakes. Cheers Alan

Hi Everyone Should an Insufficient Bid be alerted if without interference would have been alerted? If so on what basis? The bid itself is not legal. 1NT 2S 2D meant as a transfer without the 2S overcall. Cheers Alan