[jh51]

In a pairs game over the weekend, the following occurred in a NT contract:

One of the defenders lead a spade, and her partner discarded a small club (to the surprise of all the other players). The spade that was lead "won" the trick. Before anyone played to the next trick, the opponent who had played the club realized that she did in fact have a spade (at the end of the hand we discovered she had 2 left at that point) and that spade was in fact higher than partner's spade, so she now won the trick.

My partner (I was dummy, so I could not call) did not call the director, so I do not know what the proper ruling would have been. The defender now led the club she had attempted to discard.

Had the director been called, what would the proper ruling have been? If requiring the lead of the exposed card is an option to declarer, that would have been a likely choice as it was a favorable lead at this point. The errent defender never was able to take her final good spade.

[Vampyr]

jh51, on 2011-June-27, 10:00, said:

If requiring the lead of the exposed card is an option to declarer, that would have been a likely choice as it was a favorable lead at this point.

This is the only option available.

[iviehoff]

jh51, on 2011-June-27, 10:00, said:

Had the director been called, what would the proper ruling have been?

The Revoke is not established (Law 63A)
Law 61A A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established.
Law 61B 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 A card so withdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender’s unfaced hand.
Law 50D1(a)A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity

I have omitted showing you bits of law that refer to complications that commonly arise, but in the present case did not arise. These are particularly in the case where someone else has played a card after the revoke, or if the revoker is not immediately on lead to play his penalty card immediately. So it is not really wise to do it yourself, or trust the opponents to do it all themselves. So you really should have called the director, even after the opponent apparently sorted it all out himself.

[bluejak]

jh51, on 2011-June-27, 10:00, said:

My partner (I was dummy, so I could not call) ...

Attention has been drawn to an irregularity, so you could, and should, have called.

[mycroft]

I'm going to include one of iviehoff's "bits of the law", because it might have happened.

When the revoker notices and is forced to correct the revoke, fourth hand to play (whether declarer or dummy) can change her play. It sounds like that was not important, but what if fourth hand could have won the trick - but chose not to on spade, spade, club?

It may be that declarer wants one defender on lead and not the other, or would duck this trick if one hand was on lead, but can't afford to, with the other hand on lead and the forced club return (not in this case, from the OP's description, but it would be in others). Or, it could be that if the suit breaks N-0, declarer has no hope, and needs to play damage control, whereas if it breaks M-1 or better, she can make it, and so shouldn't lose this trick.

YetAnotherReason to call the TD and let him deal with all the options.

[iviehoff]

Mycroft is quite right, I overlooked that the revoker was 3rd to play to the trick. Declarer should have been given the option to change the fourth card played to the trick.
L 62C1 Each member of the non-offending side may withdraw and return to his hand any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 16D).

[jh51]

iviehoff, on 2011-June-27, 10:22, said:

Law 50D1(a)A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity

So you really should have called the director, even after the opponent apparently sorted it all out himself.

These, I guess were the issues that I had doubts about when I asked the question.

I did not know whether declarer had any options (such as requiring or forbidding the lead of the suit of the penalty card.

I also did not know that I, as dummy, could call the director once the revoke had been noticed.

[peachy]

bluejak, on 2011-June-27, 10:24, said:

Attention has been drawn to an irregularity, so you could, and should, have called.

When dummy does call the TD, after irregularity has been pointed out by somebody else at the table, dummy will likely get TD's first attention by "You are dummy, you should not call the director". This happened to me at the Reno NABC not too long ago at the IMP Pairs when partner and opponents started arguing about something, I think it was an exposed card (not sure). Sooo, even some nationally rated directors can err on this.

The Law, however, is clear as blackshoe quoted.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, I've had that "you're dummy, you can't call the director" thrown at me, too. In my case, it was a ZT violation (one of the opponents was badgering my novice partner), and we never got a ruling on it because, after the TD said what he said, he turned around and walked away. I have since been told by ACBL HQ that the dummy is permitted (in the ACBL) to call the TD for a ZT violation even if no one has explicitly drawn attention to it. Haven't had a chance to test it in practice, though.

[mycroft]

So, some of us say "so, who pointed out the irregularity?"

Now, if it were dummy, and it isn't something like ZT, they tend to be told "you have to wait until the end of the hand, and as a result..." but it usually isn't.

[pran]

Every (?) competent Director will establish who called attention to the irregularity when he understands that the actual call for him was made by a Dummy. This is part of his basic training, at least as I know it.

[blackshoe]

"Basic training" in the ACBL, at least at club level, is read the laws, read the regs, take the 100 or so question open book mostly multiple choice test.

That said, I agree that a competent TD ought to establish this fact.