Major Penalty card

[barmar]

Let me try again.

 

(1) The original irregularity was the action by the defender of correcting his unestablished revoke and placing the revoke card face up on the table as a (presumed) penalty card, irregular only because he did so without calling the director and thus in the absence of the recitations which would have said what must happen with a penalty card.

(2) The subsequent irregularity was failing to play the penalty card, which, as you correctly told me, though it took me time to get it, is a revoke.

(3) These two matters are plainly related.

 

You said that that a revoke will rarely be related to an original irregularity, which as a general point is perfectly fine, especially because it admits the possibility of an exception. But in this case we do in fact have a revoke (the second irregularity) that is related to the original irregularity, we do in fact have that rare exception.

The law that mentions SEWOG (12C1b) refers to action by the NOS. Your #1 and #2 are by the same player, so 12C1b is not applicable.

[pran]

Law 12C is a general law specifying the procedures to be followed whenever the Director considers awarding an adjusted score. The only exception to this would be if a more specific law said otherwise (i.e. suspended Law 12C), but I am not aware of any such (more specific) law.

 

When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.

 

The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.

Providing the Director with all the power he may need to award split scores (for cause).

[jallerton]

Jeffrey and others suggest that it might be "wild" or "gambling". "Wild" is doing things you know are mad without regard to the consequences, and I don't think it was anything like that. In fact the player was quite the opposite of wild, he was meek. "Gambling" is making a conscious decision to do something you know is against the odds in the hope that on this occasion it will prove the winning decision. It wasn't anything like that either.

 

Suppose that an opponent commits an irregularity to which attention is drawn. You know that calling the TD is the best way to protect your own side's interests and you probably also know that the Law requires you to do so. If you decide not to call the TD in these circumstances, that appears to me to meet your definition of "wild" quoted above very well.

 

I must admit that sometimes, in a club setting where there is a playing TD for example, I judge not to call the TD when technically I should do so. I am taking a gamble here: by not calling the TD I save the time and likely aggravation for all concerned (a winning decision if I wouldn't gain anything by a TD call) at the potential cost of not getting a "rectification" in my favour. So my decision not to call the TD seems to meet your definition of "gambling" as well!

 

Sven: Yes, Law 12C1f explains that the scores need not balance, but you need to use other Law(s) to guide you as to how to arrive at particular (potentially unbalanced) assigned scores.

[pran]

Suppose that an opponent commits an irregularity to which attention is drawn. You know that calling the TD is the best way to protect your own side's interests and you probably also know that the Law requires you to do so. If you decide not to call the TD in these circumstances, that appears to me to meet your definition of "wild" quoted above very well.

 

I must admit that sometimes, in a club setting where there is a playing TD for example, I judge not to call the TD when technically I should do so. I am taking a gamble here: by not calling the TD I save the time and likely aggravation for all concerned (a winning decision if I wouldn't gain anything by a TD call) at the potential cost of not getting a "rectification" in my favour. So my decision not to call the TD seems to meet your definition of "gambling" as well!

 

Sven: Yes, Law 12C1f explains that the scores need not balance, but you need to use other Law(s) to guide you as to how to arrive at particular (potentially unbalanced) assigned scores.

All the Director needs is his judgement of the case. If he finds cause for split score then he has the power.

 

The most common situation that comes to my mind is when a non-offending side is denied (full) compensation for damage because of some irregularity on their behalf while the offending side is denied the unjust gain from their irregularity.

[alanmet]

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

 

Over the weekend I played in two one-day Green Point events, first Swiss Pairs, second Swiss Teams. The following incident occurred and I should like to hear opinions.

 

North is playing a spade contract. She leads a heart from dummy, West follows, she ruffs, and East discards a diamond. West says "No hearts, partner?" and East finds a heart, no-one saying anything. She leaves the diamond face-up on the table as a major penalty card and plays the heart.

 

Two tricks later declarer leads another heart from dummy and ruffs it. Ignoring the major penalty card, the diamond, East over-ruffs to beat the contract. If East discards the contract will make.

 

At the end of the hand West berates East for not playing her penalty card, while South calls the TD.

 

The TD asks South why he did not call him earlier: South replies that he was dummy, and no-one drew attention to the revoke so he could not call the TD until the end of the hand.

 

So, two questions:

 

1. Did "No hearts, partner?" draw attention to the revoke? Could South legally have called the TD when East found a heart?
   
2. How do you rule now?
   

[pran]

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

Not so fast.

A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise

[...]

and from the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" (Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen):

 

A defender's exposed card is a penalty card unless the Director says otherwise. So nothing removes the status of the exposed card as a penalty card in the absense of a Director's ruling. [...]

 

Where the players have agreed amongst themselves that a card is a penalty card, the Director called subsequently to the table should usually rule it to be so and proceed on that basis. [...]

 

The commentary next discusses exceptions to this principle, but those are not relevant here and it will take us too far away to go into that discussion.

[gnasher]

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.

That's not true. Law 49 states that the card "becomes a penalty card" as soon as it is exposed. There's no requirement for the director to designate it as such. Under Law 50 it is possible for the the Director to decree that it's not a penalty card, but if he doesn't do so it remains a penalty card.

 

Putting aside the legalities of this situation, it would be absurd to refuse to treat this as a penalty card merely because the director wasn't called at the right time. If declarer and both defenders intended that the card be treated as a penalty card, the director should rule on the basis that it was a penalty card.

 

Similarly, if West already knew the rules about penalty cards, the director should further rule as though these rules had been explained to him at the time of the first penalty card, because South's infraction in failing to call the director didn't affect West's later actions.

[alanmet]

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

 

What I do now think is that we should examine whether we can adjust under Law 23 in relation to damage from the irregularity of failure to play the penalty card - I presume we will discover it was sufficiently foreseeable that failing to play it could well damage the opposition.

 

In relation to take your general point, I'm not convinced that is actually the lesson that the defenders really understand. I think they would understand that it was the other sides's failure to call the TD that gave them an apparent advantage. Also given the general understanding that you aren't required to call the TD for your own irregularities, and that is sufficiently unclear to the ordinary player that what happened amounts to calling attention (you post it as a question on this forum), I would rather give them words rather than penalties for failure to call.

 

Let me cite a case where I benefited from my own irregularity: it hasn't given me any wrong lessons I don't think. I feel rather embarrassed because I once made a doomed contract because I inadvertently led from the wrong hand and the defender just followed, and that was that as far as I could see. With a red face, I pointed out what had happened to the defence, as soon as it happened, and they wrote it off as their own folly. Although that incident made me think that declarer's leading from the wrong hand now looked like rather costless ploy, it didn't encourage me to lead from the wrong hand as declarer when I could see an advantage. I am aware that in general defenders are looking out like hawks for leads from the wrong hand, because they think that is the only chance they have to repair it. I later realised, years later, that a director could have adjusted the score under Law 23 for my original inadvertent irregularity, though I think it would be rare to find a case where such an adjustment has occurred, and I'm not sure many ordinary club directors would realise that, or even accept it if you tried to argue it to them.

[alanmet]

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

 

Not so fast.

 

and from the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" (Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen):

 

A defender's exposed card is a penalty card unless the Director says otherwise. So nothing removes the status of the exposed card as a penalty card in the absense of a Director's ruling. [...]

 

Where the players have agreed amongst themselves that a card is a penalty card, the Director called subsequently to the table should usually rule it to be so and proceed on that basis. [...]

 

The commentary next discusses exceptions to this principle, but those are not relevant here and it will take us too far away to go into that discussion.

[iviehoff]

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.

...

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.

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.

[gnasher]

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?

 

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]

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]

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.

 

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]

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

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

 

 

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]

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

 

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

 

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]

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

I'll go with what Blackshoe said.