[Vampyr]

Playing in a recent match, I led the ♥K, taken by dummy's A. Next I led the ♦A.

The host did not have a lawbook handy, but luckily there were two county directors at the table, and declarer was amenable to our making the ruling. "She must play it at her first legal opportunity" "and if partner gets the lead while it is still on the table, there are lead penalties".

As it happened, I was the next defender on lead, and the declarer wants me to lead a non-diamond. Of course I could not do that, having already led a diamond. "I feel aggrieved" - those were declarer's actual words.

We worked out that if we hadn't cashed the four diamonds we cashed after my lead, declarer would not make more tricks than he did after we cashed them.

But... suppose that were not the case, and declarer stil felt hard done by, and we ended up needing to call a referee. We all know the correct ruling, but should there be penalties assigned? To us, for making a ruling at the table? To declarer for not having a lawbook on the premises?

If so, must we ring a referee every time there is an irregularity? There are a lot of competitions which means there are a lot of matches, and calling a referee for every irregularity would run the referees ragged. But also I realise that the danger of making rulings at the table is that the ruling might be incorrect.

What is the solution? (Let us assume that playing the match at a club, where there is a director present, is not an option. The teams may live very far from a club big enough to host matches, or the match is held on a day when such a club is closed, or whatever. And naturally looking at the lawbook online is not an option either.)

[mgoetze]

You are surely aware of what the lawbook itself has to say about making your own rulings, and as such this is not really a matter of law.

I believe this question is best addressed to the organizer of whatever competition it was that you were/are participating in. Usually I would expect there to be provisions in the regulations of the event, stipulating, for example, that if both team captains agree then there is no need to call a referee. Furthermore, we here on the forum lack important context - for instance it is unclear to me whether/how the referees are compensated for their availability.

[Vampyr]

I believe the referees are volunteers, but others on this forum can correct me if I am wrong.

[gordontd]

For matches played privately in EBU knockout events there are regulations that cover the need for rulings. My experience is that such problems arise only rarely.

[paulg]

It must be rare to play in a location that does not have access to the internet in some form for at least one of the players, giving access to the current law book.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2016-February-02, 01:25, said:

For matches played privately in EBU knockout events there are regulations that cover the need for rulings. My experience is that such problems arise only rarely.

That link does not seem to work for me.

[lamford]

 Vampyr, on 2016-February-01, 20:27, said:

We worked out that if we hadn't cashed the four diamonds we cashed after my lead, declarer would not make more tricks than he did after we cashed them.

That is what all seemed to agree at the time, but subsequently I realised that if a referee had been consulted, he would have advised the declarer that the ace of diamonds was an MPC and would have to be played at the first legal opportunity. Just having a law book is not enough. A referee would also have explained the lead penalties if either of us gained the lead, and he should also explain that the ace of diamonds has to be discarded if the defender cannot follow ("Not many people know that" - wrongly attributed to Michael Caine). He would also have told the declarer that knowledge of the requirements for playing the MPC were AI to all, but the suit and rank of the MPC were UI to the offenders. When the referee was asked to explain that further, he would not have been able to do so, as even top directors cannot. He should also explain that if a defender could have been aware that the MPC might damage the non-offenders, that the TD could award an adjusted score. Meanwhile, one of their players would have missed his last train ...

As it happens, I think declarer could have made an overtrick by finessing the ten of hearts (he had QTxx opposite Axx) when you would have been forced to discard the ace of diamonds, and now declarer could have built a spade trick. And in answer to paulg, I am sure there was internet there, but neither side wanted to check the seating arrangemets at the start, although we did get them right ...

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2016-February-02, 05:11, said:

That link does not seem to work for me.

Try it again now. Should work.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2016-February-02, 05:24, said:

That is what all seemed to agree at the time, but subsequently I realised that if a referee had been consulted, he would have advised the declarer that the ace of diamonds was an MPC and would have to be played at the first legal opportunity. Just having a law book is not enough. A referee would also have explained the lead penalties if either of us gained the lead, and he should also explain that the ace of diamonds has to be discarded if the defender cannot follow ("Not many people know that" - wrongly attributed to Michael Caine). He would also have told the declarer that knowledge of the requirements for playing the MPC were AI to all, but the suit and rank of the MPC were UI to the offenders. When the referee was asked to explain that further, he would not have been able to do so, as even top directors cannot. He should also explain that if a defender could have been aware that the MPC might damage the non-offenders, that the TD could award an adjusted score. Meanwhile, one of their players would have missed his last train ...

s/would/should/g

For those less technical, that means that all uses of "would" should be replaced with "should", since we all know that many TDs don't achieve this standard.

[Vampyr]

 paulg, on 2016-February-02, 02:48, said:

It must be rare to play in a location that does not have access to the internet in some form for at least one of the players, giving access to the current law book.

LOL maybe this is my fault for mentioning it!

Anyway, could you tell me please, Gordon, what one does when there is an irregularity which must be resolved before play can continue?

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2016-February-02, 10:39, said:

LOL maybe this is my fault for mentioning it!

Anyway, could you tell me please, Gordon, what one does when there is an irregularity which must be resolved before play can continue?

I pointed you towards the regulations that tell you what to do. Is that not enough?

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2016-February-02, 11:56, said:

I pointed you towards the regulations that tell you what to do. Is that not enough?

Well, all of the options in Section 23 involve both captains, so if they are not both at the affected table it is difficult to see how the players can proceed after a COOT etc.

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2016-February-02, 12:09, said:

Well, all of the options in Section 23 involve both captains, so if they are not both at the affected table it is difficult to see how the players can proceed after a COOT etc.

They can agree on a suitable arbiter. They don't have to be at the table to do that. In practice, I have never encountered such a problem in more than 20 years of playing matches privately. Have you? Did you resolve it, or are you still sitting there waiting?

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2016-February-02, 12:36, said:

They can agree on a suitable arbiter. They don't have to be at the table to do that. In practice, I have never encountered such a problem in more than 20 years of playing matches privately. Have you? Did you resolve it, or are you still sitting there waiting?

I haven't either. But I am still not quite sure what you mean by agree on a suitable arbiter. Do the players suspend the play of the hand in question, and then ring up the arbiter at the end of the stanza?

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2016-February-02, 12:41, said:

I haven't either. But I am still not quite sure what you mean by agree on a suitable arbiter. Do the players suspend the play of the hand in question, and then ring up the arbiter at the end of the stanza?

If you need the ruling to complete the hand, why not phone straight away?

[RMB1]

Some of this discussion surprises me.
I had a telephone call sometime in 2015 for a ruling under Law 45C1 (compulsory play of card by defender).
I assumed that this was from a match played privately and some of the posters to this thread were players at the table.

[lamford]

 RMB1, on 2016-February-02, 14:07, said:

Some of this discussion surprises me.
I had a telephone call sometime in 2015 for a ruling under Law 45C1 (compulsory play of card by defender).
I assumed that this was from a match played privately and some of the posters to this thread were players at the table.

I recall it well, because both sides did not agree whether the card was played, and you established that it could have been seen by his partner and was therefore played. The difference in this case was that there was no dispute that my partner had an MPC and the declarer did not want to call a referee, as I think he thought, mistakenly, that he knew the Law. If a referee was called every time there was a BOOT, COOT or LOOT or similar at a match played privately, then the referees would be inundated.

The regulations state: "If no request for a ruling is then stated the players are in the position generally of players when attention is drawn to an irregularity and the Director is not immediately summoned.". This was the case here, and both sides seemed to agree the "rectification". The declarer misunderstood, but he could have obtained a ruling or had a law book on site or access to one (he was in the home team).

[Vampyr]

I do not recall it very well, but I assume we rang Robin in the middle of play?

 lamford, on 2016-February-03, 09:59, said:

I think he thought, mistakenly, that he knew the Law.

Or understood it when we had explained.

But anyway that is not the point. The regulation states that a referee is called at the agreement of both Captains. But apparently it is also OK to call one whenever, and it seems that we have in fact done so.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2016-February-02, 12:36, said:

In practice, I have never encountered such a problem in more than 20 years of playing matches privately.

And I would not expect you to, as any opponent, including me, would be more than happy for you to tell them the rule rather than ring up a referee. I am sure that you are not saying that you have never encountered any infraction in more than 20 years of private matches. And I would be surprised if there was a need to ring a referee over any infraction that gets into simple rulings on this forum. I well recall you volunteering a failure to alert against us, requiring a referee to be called, and was impressed by your correctness on that occasion. So, I feel that your experience is because everyone knows that you will be as fair as possible, and they accept, even expect, you to tell them the correct ruling.

Indeed the regulations provide: "Problems often arise in matches played privately when there is a dispute that involves more than just the reading and application of the law." That strongly implies that when something like an agreed LOOT or similar occurs, the players should just read and apply the law.

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2016-February-03, 10:41, said:

That strongly implies that when something like an agreed LOOT or similar occurs, the players should just read and apply the law.

Provided the law is there to be read.