[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-29, 16:36, said:

Pran: The statement is true. I don't understand your objection to it.

Law 9A said:

1. Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.
2. Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For an incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.

Nothing in this (general) law says anything about "leading or playing to the following trick".
This limitation applies only to incorrectly pointed cards as explicitly specified in Law 65B3.
And observe that the clause "Unless prohibited by Law" excludes for instance Dummy in many situations from the rights otherwise given in Law 9.

So sorry - the statement I marked is very unfortunate and in many situations directly wrong.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2019-June-29, 17:15, said:

Nothing in this (general) law says anything about "leading or playing to the following trick".
This limitation applies only to incorrectly pointed cards as explicitly specified in Law 65B3.
And observe that the clause "Unless prohibited by Law" excludes for instance Dummy in many situations from the rights otherwise given in Law 9.

So sorry - the statement I marked is very unfortunate and in many situations directly wrong.

As I read it, he was talking about the specific irregularity of pointing a card wrong. Granted he didn't say so, but context is important. In the context of someone having pointed a card wrong the statement is, as I said earlier, correct.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-29, 19:55, said:

As I read it, he was talking about the specific irregularity of pointing a card wrong. Granted he didn't say so, but context is important. In the context of someone having pointed a card wrong the statement is, as I said earlier, correct.

And the next player to read that statement absorbs it subconsciously disregarding the context.

I don't know how many times during my 40 years as director I have had players "knowing the rules" because they were told so by a director in another situation, only that it turned out the original situation had been different.

In this case all he remembers is that "a player can now point out an irregularity when the opponents have made a lead to the next trick but his side has not yet played to it".
No limitation to the kind of irregularity or which player.

[pescetom]

Pran, I was talking specifically about pointing, as the quotes of the two versions of law 65 makes clear.

It's a small change, and arguably not a good one, but it seems fairly evident. IIRC the 2017 Laws Commentary implies that the intention was was to align to establishment of a revoke.

[Vampyr]

I don’t understand the difficulty here. Law 9A2 specificities declarer and defenders. Then it directs one to 65B3 for tricks turned the wrong way, and here we find the phrase “a player”. I do not think the difference is random, nor do I even think that cards turned the wrong way is an irregularity.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2019-July-01, 07:25, said:

I don’t understand the difficulty here. Law 9A2 specificities declarer and defenders. Then it directs one to 65B3 for tricks turned the wrong way, and here we find the phrase “a player”. I do not think the difference is random, nor do I even think that cards turned the wrong way is an irregularity.

The difference (Law 9A2 vs. 65B3) is not random - it was most certainly intended.
And a played card turned the wrong way is a violation of Law 65: B1 or B2 as the case might be, and as such it is definitely an irregularity.