I'm a Director, too!

[iviehoff]

But the 11A-thing would be equally true if declarer had called the director instead of dummy.

 

TD may rule that lead restrictions can't be enforced now, that's a good observation. But this point can't have anything to do with the ethics of calling the director in the first place.

Of course the 11A thing doesn't matter whether it is declarer or dummy that calls the director.

 

Once no one called the director at the time of the infraction, it isn't a proper penalty card, as now appears to be consensus. What it is, instead, is NOS's consent to a table-made ruling, that hasn't been fully spelled out.

 

So both declarer and dummy having consented to a table-made ruling at the time of the irregularity, no longer have the protection of the TD, unless they were weak players in need of protection from someone trying to con them. No one should bother the TD later. And as I said before, if I'd been the director, I would have told them it was now their problem and not to bother me with it, as they had made a table ruling and I saw no reason to interfere with it.

 

Having reread Ed's account, it sounds like dummy did actually initially do the "reasonable thing" I suggested, if perhaps a little precipitately and in terms that were not best calculated to promote Ed to cooperate, ie, what dummy did was remind Ed of the lead restrictions when they arose, rather than call the director. What was unreasonable was for dummy to expect the TD to protect him when Ed refused to give them under those conditions. Dummy was lucky.

[jdonn]

Hypothetical question. In any situation where a player should call a director but instead states exactly what the director is supposed to state when he arrives, can the opponents possibly be damaged?

[pran]

Once no one called the director at the time of the infraction, it isn't a proper penalty card, as now appears to be consensus.  What it is, instead, is NOS's consent to a table-made ruling, that hasn't been fully spelled out.

It is a proper penalty card unless and until the Director is called to the table (for whatever reason) and makes a ruling that it is not a penalty card.

 

Read Law 49 and the first part of Law 50 carefully.

[gnasher]

Once no one called the director at the time of the infraction, it isn't a proper penalty card, as now appears to be consensus.

The opinions of three people out of 24 do not constitute a consensus.

 

Sven's explanation of why it is a penalty card, which no one has refuted, seems convincing to me. In fact, I can't even see why anyone should think that it isn't a penalty card. Is there some hidden ambiguity in the wording of Law 62 that leads you to that conclusion?

 

CORRECTION OF A REVOKE

A. Revoke Must Be Corrected

A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity

before it becomes established.

B. Correcting a Revoke

To correct a revoke the offender withdraws the card he played and

substitutes a legal card.

1. A card so withdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 50) if it was

played from a defender’s unfaced hand.

[blackshoe]

Hypothetical question. In any situation where a player should call a director but instead states exactly what the director is supposed to state when he arrives, can the opponents possibly be damaged?

Not if he gets it right.

 

Iviehoff: I did not refuse to do anything, and I'll thank you not to claim I did.

[jdonn]

Hypothetical question. In any situation where a player should call a director but instead states exactly what the director is supposed to state when he arrives, can the opponents possibly be damaged?

Not if he gets it right.

Yes of course if he got it wrong things would be different. But he got it right in this case. So my point is the opponents weren't damaged, so what is all the fuss about over what dummy said as opposed to if he had called the director?

[Oof Arted]

;)

 

 

Not getting at ED

 

But If a Senior Director appears to 'Bend' the Laws by not calling TD then Dummy should also have the right to 'Bend' those same Laws

 

:)

[iviehoff]

Iviehoff: I did not refuse to do anything, and I'll thank you not to claim I did.

My interpretation of your words in your initial post "when I objected" is that when your opponent asked for the lead restrictions, by objecting, you did not consent to applying them, at least not at that time. I am sorry if I have misinterpreted you. Perhaps you could explain in more detail exactly what you were objecting to, and what you would have done if your opponent had not immediately called the director in response to your "objection".

[iviehoff]

It is a proper penalty card unless and until the Director is called to the table (for whatever reason) and makes a ruling that it is not a penalty card.

 

Read Law 49 and the first part of Law 50 carefully.

You are quite right. But 11A would commonly be grounds for refusing to designate it as a penalty card if called late. That was a ruling that came up from time to time in our old home.

[blackshoe]

But If a Senior Director appears to 'Bend' the Laws by not calling TD then Dummy should also have the right to 'Bend' those same Laws.

Not sure whether that's a reference to my age or to my directorial standing. If the latter, thanks for the promotion. B)

 

I 'bent' the rules in this case because I was tired of being accused of being too adamant about the letter of the law — in fact the director in the case has formed the opinion (she's wrong, but that doesn't seem to matter to her) that I call the director primarily to teach opponents the laws. The reaction of some of you here (I'm anything from a hypocrite to a cheat) leads me to conclude that I should go back to calling the TD whenever there is an irregularity, unless it is so very minor that I can't see any possibility of later problems — and probably even then. I wonder what nasty epithets that will draw. ;)

 

My interpretation of your words in your initial post "when I objected" is that when your opponent asked for the lead restrictions, by objecting, you did not consent to applying them, at least not at that time. I am sorry if I have misinterpreted you. Perhaps you could explain in more detail exactly what you were objecting to, and what you would have done if your opponent had not immediately called the director in response to your "objection".

 

My objection was to what I perceived to be dummy's communicating with declarer about the play. And if she hadn't called the TD at that point, I would have.

[pran]

It is a proper penalty card unless and until the Director is called to the table (for whatever reason) and makes a ruling that it is not a penalty card.

 

Read Law 49 and the first part of Law 50 carefully.

You are quite right. But 11A would commonly be grounds for refusing to designate it as a penalty card if called late. That was a ruling that came up from time to time in our old home.

I have seen the same elsewhere, and it is (IMHO) a grave error by the Director to "rule otherwise" if his only reason for doing so is that he wasn't properly called in time.

 

He should (as I have already stated) "rule otherwise" only if he feels that rights have been jeopardized by a failure to call him earlier.

[pran]

I 'bent' the rules in this case because I was tired of being accused of being too adamant about the letter of the law — in fact the director in the case has formed the opinion (she's wrong, but that doesn't seem to matter to her) that I call the director primarily to teach opponents the laws.  The reaction of some of you here (I'm anything from a hypocrite to a cheat) leads me to conclude that I should go back to calling the TD whenever there is an irregularity, unless it is so very minor that I can't see any possibility of later problems — and probably even then. I wonder what nasty epithets that will draw. :ph34r:

 

My interpretation of your words in your initial post "when I objected" is that when your opponent asked for the lead restrictions, by objecting, you did not consent to applying them, at least not at that time. I am sorry if I have misinterpreted you. Perhaps you could explain in more detail exactly what you were objecting to, and what you would have done if your opponent had not immediately called the director in response to your "objection".

 

My objection was to what I perceived to be dummy's communicating with declarer about the play. And if she hadn't called the TD at that point, I would have.

It can happen to anybody!

 

I was teased by one of my former pupils in a course to become Director when in a local club tournament I found myself in a similar situation with him as playing Director.

 

This was under the 1997 laws when calling the Director on any irregularity was compulsory, but we didn't call him until we found it neccessary.

 

When he saw the penalty card he exclaimed that he had not ruled that, and (with a smile) ordered it to be taken back.

 

No hard feelings, and play just continued. (Still he was wrong!)

[barmar]

I 'bent' the rules in this case because I was tired of being accused of being too adamant about the letter of the law — in fact the director in the case has formed the opinion (she's wrong, but that doesn't seem to matter to her) that I call the director primarily to teach opponents the laws. The reaction of some of you here (I'm anything from a hypocrite to a cheat) leads me to conclude that I should go back to calling the TD whenever there is an irregularity, unless it is so very minor that I can't see any possibility of later problems — and probably even then. I wonder what nasty epithets that will draw. :ph34r:

I think you're between a rock and a hard place.

 

At the table, it's often easy to get away with minor stuff like this, and maybe even preferable in some environments. But you're almost guaranteed to get no sympathy in a discussion group dedicated to laws and rulings -- this is the place for pedantry.

 

So go ahead and keep things informal in friendly club games, but don't advertise your "flaunting" of the laws here. ;)

[blackshoe]

Perhaps I should have cloaked the whole thing in anonymity to begin with. Still, it's an interesting problem, whether any of the players know anything about the laws or not.