[One Short]

The playing director is called to the table to deal with an opening lead out of turn by west. Nobody objects to the allegation and the director asks no questions as the offending card lies face up on the table. The ruling is given and play continues without any further incident.

When he later that evening arrives at the playing director’s table, west is asked by the director if he has been behaving himself in the meantime. Then the story unfolds. While west is taking his card from his hand, the declarer in an attempt to prevent a lead out of turn, wafts his hand towards west and accidently knocks the card out of west’s hand. The card flutters down to the table and lands face up. East confirms that it was not possible to see the face of the card before the accident happened.

East/West are meek and mild and west is a nonogenarian using a walking frame to get round the room. The declarer is forceful and experienced.

Is it now too late to do anything about it?

If at the time the director had been aware of all the circumstances could he rule that the card is replaced in west’s hand without penalty?
Would there be UI or AI?
Would a PP be in order?

The card was ranked below a ten

[Vampyr]

Certainly a card exposed by another player is UI to that player's side. I am not so sure about the side of the player who had held the card. I would like to say it is neither AI nor UI, if there can be such a thing. And it should be ruled that the card be placed back in West's hand without penalty, though I can't think of a basis in law. I don't think that the lawmakes anticipated this sort of thing.

A DP would be issued, not a PP. and maybe a short ban.

[gordontd]

The basis in law is

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).

This seems like a good time for the Director to designate otherwise.

I would have more sympathy with declarer, who was after all trying to prevent a lead out of turn, were it not that he was happy to accept the rectification from a situation that he created, without owning up to his own part in it.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-18, 09:03, said:

A DP would be issued, not a PP. and maybe a short ban.

What is the sentence for elder abuse over there?

[ahydra]

Indeed - I think a "short ban" simply for trying to prevent an OLOOT and, in doing so, accidentally knocking a card out of someone's hand is extremely excessive.

Declarer should have said that he/she knocked the card out of the hand by accident. If he/she gained any advantage from the OLOOT then IMO this should be taken away, and the "normal" table result restored for both sides. Gordon's legal reasoning looks good - although law 50 does state that it doesn't apply to leads, the card wasn't really led, just accidentally exposed.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

"Wafting" a hand in the general direction of an opponent does not call to my mind a vision of that hand getting anywhere close to the opponent's cards, unless the opponent has a habit of holding them way out over the table. So I envision a more forceful action than "wafting".

The director has become aware of a problem within the correction period, so not only can he deal with it, he must (Law 81C2).

I would get hold of declarer and ask him why he didn't own up to his part in the exposure of the card. Then I would give him a DP for that failure.

I would rule, post facto, that in view of the new evidence, my earlier ruling at the table was director error. Then I would apply Law 82C.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-18, 11:37, said:

"Wafting" a hand in the general direction of an opponent does not call to my mind a vision of that hand getting anywhere close to the opponent's cards, unless the opponent has a habit of holding them way out over the table. So I envision a more forceful action than "wafting".

Yeah, it sounds like he might have been actively trying to stop west from leading by putting his hand on the cards, not just indicating that it's not his lead with a hand-wave.

Quote

The director has become aware of a problem within the correction period, so not only can he deal with it, he must (Law 81C2).

I would get hold of declarer and ask him why he didn't own up to his part in the exposure of the card. Then I would give him a DP for that failure.

I would rule, post facto, that in view of the new evidence, my earlier ruling at the table was director error. Then I would apply Law 82C.

Is it really "director error" if he makes the correct ruling in light of the evidence available? Should he really be expected to ask enough questions to have elicited these details?

Or is the reason for the incorrect ruling irrelevant?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-March-22, 00:07, said:

Yeah, it sounds like he might have been actively trying to stop west from leading by putting his hand on the cards, not just indicating that it's not his lead with a hand-wave.

Is it really "director error" if he makes the correct ruling in light of the evidence available? Should he really be expected to ask enough questions to have elicited these details?

Or is the reason for the incorrect ruling irrelevant?

Quote

Law 82C: If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.

Seems to me that the answer to your last question is "yes, the reason is irrelevant."

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-22, 02:34, said:

Seems to me that the answer to your last question is "yes, the reason is irrelevant."

Sounds like an excellent reason to lie to the TDs then!

[blackshoe]

I don't know why people insist on coming up with "justifications" for their assumption that everybody (else) lies and cheats.

[Zelandakh]

I don'T assume everybody (or anybody specific) lies or cheats but neither do I think that a TD would not correct their ruling if the found out it was based on incorrect information being given to her/him by the players. The idea of a TD not being allowed to correct a ruling strikes me as very strange indeed, especially as that is precisely what ACs can ask a TD to do if they think an error has been made on a point of law.

[campboy]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-23, 13:31, said:

I don'T assume everybody (or anybody specific) lies or cheats but neither do I think that a TD would not correct their ruling if the found out it was based on incorrect information being given to her/him by the players. The idea of a TD not being allowed to correct a ruling strikes me as very strange indeed, especially as that is precisely what ACs can ask a TD to do if they think an error has been made on a point of law.

Of course if a result is obtained and then the TD makes a ruling which he later discovers to be wrong, he can change it.

Law 82C is designed for the situation where the TD makes a ruling during the hand which affects the result, and the error is discovered too late to recover the situation. Here, he wants to correct his ruling by adjusting to the result which would have been obtained if the correct ruling had been made, i.e. what would have happened if there had been no penalty card. Law 82C allows him to do that. Of course he may not be certain what that result would have been, and in that case he has to award a split score, giving both sides the benefit of the doubt.