TD called 2 tricks after self-corrected revoke

[pran]

No, the most important fact is how the card came to be exposed in the first place. If it was prematurely led, the TD has no option; it's a penalty card. If it was otherwise exposed, the TD may "designate otherwise" so that it is not a penalty card (see Law 50). In any case, the players have illegally decided this is a penalty card (see Law 81C and Law 10A), and the TD is specifically authorized to cancel this designation (Law 50, Law 10B, and Law 11A).

While most of this is correct the Director may have an option even when a defender's card was prematurely led (and the lead was not accepted). Just take a look at Law 47E1.

 

But I am flattered by even David now seeming to approach my view that 11A is the key law relevant for the OP in this thread.

[blackshoe]

47E1 deals with a different kind of situation, where the "offender" was led down the garden path by an opponent who incorrectly told him it was his turn to lead. I think 47E1 says that the card is definitely not a penalty card ("no further rectification") in such a case.

[pran]

47E1 deals with a different kind of situation, where the "offender" was led down the garden path by an opponent who incorrectly told him it was his turn to lead. I think 47E1 says that the card is definitely not a penalty card ("no further rectification") in such a case.

Precisely.

And therefore a card prematurely led by a defender does not become a penalty card if that defender was told by declarer or dummy that it was his turn to lead.

 

(Remember your own statement: "If it was prematurely led, the TD has no option; it's a penalty card.")

[blackshoe]

Precisely.

And therefore a card prematurely led by a defender does not become a penalty card if that defender was told by declarer or dummy that it was his turn to lead.

 

(Remember your own statement: "If it was prematurely led, the TD has no option; it's a penalty card.")

Note to self: remember to dot every i and cross every t.

[bluejak]

But I am flattered by even David now seeming to approach my view that 11A is the key law relevant for the OP in this thread.

I don't really care whether you read it via Law 50, Law 11A, Law 9/10 or Law 23. The important thing is that a very common practice when a defender puts a card on the table is for declarer to tell him it should be left there, not call the TD, and then when it is to his advantage to call the TD, does so, and whatever Law we use I am not going to let declarer gain an advantage from this.

 

Furthermore, this is the normal way to rule in this situation. Given that, I am not interested in BLML style arguments as to how we approach it, and whether a certain reading of some Law or other might let declarer gain: we are not going to allow him to gain.

 

Unless declarer is ignorant - in which case he will not call you when the partner of the penalty card is on lead - he clearly knows enough Law to demand the lead he wants, and if so, he clearly knows enough law to call the TD when it originally happened.