[barmar]

Last night I was called to a table in an ACBL club game. Declarer's LHO had a card sitting face up on the table.

What had happened was that 2 tricks earlier, LHO had revoked and immediately corrected her revoke by herself, and put the incorrect card on the table as a penalty card. Her partner had won that trick, declarer won the next trick, and at this point they called for a director.

I rules that play should continue, and we'd follow the normal PC laws: she has to play it at her first legal opportunity, and if her partner got on lead decarer would have lead options. Also, to determine whether there was damage due to the delayed call, I asked declarer what he would have done if I'd been called at the proper time and gave him his lead options then. He said he would have requested a lead of the PC's suit, but the partner didn't have any of them at the time, so she would have been able to lead as she wished, so I ruled no damage.

Other than 9B, I couldn't find any law specific to the delayed resolution of the revoke. If they'd been experienced players, I might have given both sides PP's for failing to call me at the proper time, but all were beginners or novices.

Did I miss anything?

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-June-13, 14:59, said:

Last night I was called to a table in an ACBL club game. Declarer's LHO had a card sitting face up on the table.

What had happened was that 2 tricks earlier, LHO had revoked and immediately corrected her revoke by herself, and put the incorrect card on the table as a penalty card. Her partner had won that trick, declarer won the next trick, and at this point they called for a director.

I rules that play should continue, and we'd follow the normal PC laws: she has to play it at her first legal opportunity, and if her partner got on lead decarer would have lead options. Also, to determine whether there was damage due to the delayed call, I asked declarer what he would have done if I'd been called at the proper time and gave him his lead options then. He said he would have requested a lead of the PC's suit, but the partner didn't have any of them at the time, so she would have been able to lead as she wished, so I ruled no damage.

Other than 9B, I couldn't find any law specific to the delayed resolution of the revoke. If they'd been experienced players, I might have given both sides PP's for failing to call me at the proper time, but all were beginners or novices.

Did I miss anything?

If declarer had requested a lead in the PC's suit then the PC is taken up and ceases to be a PC. The fact that RHO is void and cannot comply with the request does not change this.

So in this case you should simply have ordered LHO to take back the PC and have play to continue without any rectification.

(If RHO had not been void in the PC's suit you should have considered Law 11A)

[TimG]

barmar, on 2012-June-13, 14:59, said:

Also, to determine whether there was damage due to the delayed call

Is this necessary? Both sides had the opportunity to call the director at the time of the infraction.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-June-13, 16:05, said:

So in this case you should simply have ordered LHO to take back the PC and have play to continue without any rectification.

I can understand that could be an option available to the director, but to say the director "should" do it seems to be going too far. It is always a mess when things have happened and gone wrong due to a late director call, so I don't think there are hard and fast rules as to what "should" happen. There are usually a number of plausible alternatives.

As a fact, the player did not exercise the lead penalty option, and to say that they should be treated as if they had done, when if they had known about it they would have exercised it to their detriment, seems to me to be rather harsh, and certainly not necessary.

If there are any claims for adjustments later on, then what a player would have done if properly informed at the correct time is of course a relevant consideration.

[Vampyr]

It seems to me that this might have been a good time for some education. I think I would have ruled that there was no penalty card, and stressed to the inexperienced players the importance of calling the director as soon as an irregularity occurs.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2012-June-14, 04:08, said:

I can understand that could be an option available to the director, but to say the director "should" do it seems to be going too far. It is always a mess when things have happened and gone wrong due to a late director call, so I don't think there are hard and fast rules as to what "should" happen. There are usually a number of plausible alternatives.

As a fact, the player did not exercise the lead penalty option, and to say that they should be treated as if they had done, when if they had known about it they would have exercised it to their detriment, seems to me to be rather harsh, and certainly not necessary.

If there are any claims for adjustments later on, then what a player would have done if properly informed at the correct time is of course a relevant consideration.

OP stated that declarer said he, if properly asked would have requested a lead in the PC's suit.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2012-June-14, 05:44, said:

OP stated that declarer said he, if properly asked would have requested a lead in the PC's suit.

Precisely. What I wrote makes no sense without it.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-June-14, 05:29, said:

It seems to me that this might have been a good time for some education. I think I would have ruled that there was no penalty card, and stressed to the inexperienced players the importance of calling the director as soon as an irregularity occurs.

I think they could easily tell that they'd created a mess due to their delay (there were two other director calls that evening, also for revokes, and they were handled easily -- and it's a small room so everyone could tell what was going on at other tables). But I don't think it would be right to rule that the PC goes away. Declarer might have exercised his right to request a lead, but he didn't. So I think it's appropriate to rule as if he'd been given the option and chose not to use it, since that's closest to what actually happened.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-June-14, 10:08, said:

I think they could easily tell that they'd created a mess due to their delay (there were two other director calls that evening, also for revokes, and they were handled easily -- and it's a small room so everyone could tell what was going on at other tables). But I don't think it would be right to rule that the PC goes away. Declarer might have exercised his right to request a lead, but he didn't. So I think it's appropriate to rule as if he'd been given the option and chose not to use it, since that's closest to what actually happened.

When he clearly
1: was not given the option, and
2: stated what he would have done had he been given the option?

[kevperk]

pran, on 2012-June-14, 11:19, said:

When he clearly
1: was not given the option, and
2: stated what he would have done had he been given the option?

Some directors apply Law 11 more than others.

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-June-14, 11:19, said:

When he clearly
1: was not given the option, and
2: stated what he would have done had he been given the option?

It's too late now to give him the option. We can't roll the play back two tricks. The actual play was as if he'd not exercised the option, so the PC stayed on the table, and I ruled that play should continue in that mode.

And based on the actual cards the players held, I think the play would have gone essentially the same if declarer had required a lead of the PC suit and RHO led what she actually led (because she didn't hold any). So I don't think either side gained due to the improper procedure they followed.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-June-15, 09:11, said:

pran, on 2012-June-14, 11:19, said:

When he clearly
1: was not given the option, and
2: stated what he would have done had he been given the option?

It's too late now to give him the option. We can't roll the play back two tricks. The actual play was as if he'd not exercised the option, so the PC stayed on the table, and I ruled that play should continue in that mode.

And based on the actual cards the players held, I think the play would have gone essentially the same if declarer had required a lead of the PC suit and RHO led what she actually led (because she didn't hold any). So I don't think either side gained due to the improper procedure they followed.

Apparently I have to dot the i's and cross the t's:

You have his statement that if he had been given the option he would have requested a lead in the PC's suit. The consequence of this request would have been that the play had continued exactly as it did now, but with no PC on the table.

Law 11A Action by Non-Offending Side said:

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

Here such action has indeed been taken by the non-offending (declaring) side, and with your ruling you placed the offending side in a potentially worse situation than the situation they had been in after correct procedures: Now they have a major PC to deal with, had correct procedures been followed they would not, but play would still have been the same.

See the point?

[axman]

pran, on 2012-June-15, 12:29, said:

Apparently I have to dot the i's and cross the t's:

You have his statement that if he had been given the option he would have requested a lead in the PC's suit. The consequence of this request would have been that the play had continued exactly as it did now, but with no PC on the table.


Here such action has indeed been taken by the non-offending (declaring) side, and with your ruling you placed the offending side in a potentially worse situation than the situation they had been in after correct procedures: Now they have a major PC to deal with, had correct procedures been followed they would not, but play would still have been the same.

See the point?

Even though it is irrelevent, it may well have been to declarer's advantage that the void would not yet have been proven immediately to the defenders [as might have occurred had declarer exercised his option].

Anyway, it is my understanding that a defender has an exposed card under his own will and declarer has not exercised any option he might have had. I should believe that the law provides that such card is to be ruled a PC subject to prescribed penalties- and that is that. As for declarer forfeiting the [future] benefits from that PC I am unaware of any justification for so ruling.

[pran]

axman, on 2012-June-15, 13:55, said:

[...]
Anyway, it is my understanding that a defender has an exposed card under his own will and declarer has not exercised any option he might have had. I should believe that the law provides that such card is to be ruled a PC subject to prescribed penalties- and that is that. As for declarer forfeiting the [future] benefits from that PC I am unaware of any justification for so ruling.

No, the defender had the exposed card as a PC resulting (rectification) from the revoke that was not established. This rectification can (and IMO should in this case) be ruled forfeited under Law 11A.

I am not at all considering the exposed card as such an irregularity, it is the consequence of an unestablished revoke.

[axman]

pran, on 2012-June-15, 14:23, said:

No, the defender had the exposed card as a PC resulting (rectification) from the revoke that was not established. This rectification can (and IMO should in this case) be ruled forfeited under Law 11A.

I am not at all considering the exposed card as such an irregularity, it is the consequence of an unestablished revoke.

<attempting to be helpful- in English when using a pronoun [such as THIS] it us important to provide a clear antecedent. An antecedent is the word, phrase, or clause to which a pronoun refers. In this case your antecedent for THIS is ‘the defender had the exposed card as a PC’. End attempt>

The effect of your assertion is that L11 calls for the defender forfeiting the remedy of correcting his revoke. As such the revoke trick is converted to a defective trick as it does not contain the revoke card.

Anyway, for someone who now attempts to read L11 it is likely that he will find himself scratching his head.

[pran]

axman, on 2012-June-16, 06:02, said:

pran, on 2012-June-15, 14:23, said:

No, the defender had the exposed card as a PC resulting (rectification) from the revoke that was not established. This rectification can (and IMO should in this case) be ruled forfeited under Law 11A.

I am not at all considering the exposed card as such an irregularity, it is the consequence of an unestablished revoke.

<attempting to be helpful- in English when using a pronoun [such as THIS] it us important to provide a clear antecedent. An antecedent is the word, phrase, or clause to which a pronoun refers. In this case your antecedent for THIS is ‘the defender had the exposed card as a PC’. End attempt>

The effect of your assertion is that L11 calls for the defender forfeiting the remedy of correcting his revoke. As such the revoke trick is converted to a defective trick as it does not contain the revoke card.

Anyway, for someone who now attempts to read L11 it is likely that he will find himself scratching his head.

You are quite correct: I am scratching my head. I simply do not understand how forfeiting the right to rectification of an unestablished revoke can lead to a defective trick?

Law 62A said:

A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established.

This action is separate from and independent of:

Law 62B1 said:

A card so withdrawn becomes a major penalty card (Law 50) if it was played from a defender’s unfaced hand.

There is no way a Director can overrule Law 62A, but he may certainly overrule Law 62B1, for instance if he finds this justified under law 11A (considering the unestablished revoke as the irregularity).

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2012-June-16, 06:02, said:

<attempting to be helpful- in English when using a pronoun [such as THIS] it us important to provide a clear antecedent. An antecedent is the word, phrase, or clause to which a pronoun refers. In this case your antecedent for THIS is ‘the defender had the exposed card as a PC’. End attempt>

Do you really think it is possible to read "This rectification" as meaning "this something else"?

What you are suggesting here is that one cannot say "I like this bird"? -- rather you must say: "Here is a bird. This I like."

Demonstrative pronouns used with a noun (for example, "this rectification") function as adjectives, not nouns.

I am not saying I think Sven's comment is clear, because I don't think it is. He might mean exactly what you say above, that "the defender had the exposed card as a PC" was, in fact, "this rectification". If so, "the defender etc" is referred to by "rectification", not "this".

In any case it is better to ask for clarification than to post drivel.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-June-16, 08:01, said:

I am not saying I think Sven's comment is clear, because I don't think it is.

When a revoke is discovered before it becomes established it must be corrected.

The "rectification" then consists of three separate actions:
1: The withdrawal of the illegally played card,
2: The play of a legal card to the trick, and
3: The disposition of the illegally played card.

Actions 1 and 2 cannot be omitted (notice Law 44C), but:

Law 11A said:

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law.

The Director may (if he finds this law applicable) instead of ruling that the illegally played card is treated as an exposed card (Law 49) rule that the card is simply restored to the defender's hand without any further rectification.

In this case it is the right to rectification for the unestablished revoke that has been forfeited, not the right to rectification for an exposed card.

[bluejak]

axman, on 2012-June-15, 13:55, said:

Anyway, it is my understanding that a defender has an exposed card under his own will and declarer has not exercised any option he might have had. I should believe that the law provides that such card is to be ruled a PC subject to prescribed penalties- and that is that. As for declarer forfeiting the [future] benefits from that PC I am unaware of any justification for so ruling.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "should believe" but since what you say is contrary to Law it is not true.

Quote

LAW 50: DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD
A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 23 may apply).

So, the Law basically says it will or will not be ruled as a penalty card, and that is a decision for the TD. Traditionally, TDs have ruled it not a penalty card when declarer has known the Laws but not called the TD at the time in a way that could have been to his advantage.

Of course, there are two other ways that a declarer who should have known better and apparently seeks to gain from not calling the TD until later can be dealt with: Laws 11 and 23.

[axman]

bluejak, on 2012-June-18, 07:52, said:

I am not quite sure what you mean by "should believe" but since what you say is contrary to Law it is not true.


So, the Law basically says it will or will not be ruled as a penalty card, and that is a decision for the TD.


Traditionally, TDs have ruled it not a penalty card when declarer has known the Laws but not called the TD at the time in a way that could have been to his advantage.

That gives quite the wrong impression of the law.

The law does not provide that the TD have a reason for ruling such a card no longer a PC. The TD either does so, or not- if and only if the card was exposed prematurely. And a TD that has a couple of thousand riding on the outcome of a player satisfies the law when he has that player put the card back in his hand without additional penalty.

As for this case, was the card prematurely exposed? No, it was exposed at the player's turn to play, and not before; whereby the law otherwise makes no provision for returning the card to hand prior to discharge of penalty.