[bluejak]

There is a minor penalty card by some strange reason, since no TD is called. A card of this suit is led, the declarer tells the player she must play the minor penalty card, and she does, instead of winning the trick with her ace. The trick is finished and quitted, and then she realises that perhaps she did not need to play her minor penalty card. So now she calls the TD.

How do you rule? You may assume that failure to play her ace will in the end cost her side a trick.

[Lanor Fow]

I rule that there has been an irregularity under 9B1 in failing to call the director, and that declarer in trying to apply the law himself could have known that this irregularity would work in favour of his side, so under law 23 I rule that play continues and I will probably award an adjusted score at the end (giving defenders the Ace and consdiering what would happen afterwards).

I'm also going to give declarer a PP and warn defenders about calling the director when attention has been drawn to an irregularity

[pran]

Lanor Fow, on 2012-May-21, 10:41, said:

I rule that there has been an irregularity under 9B1 in failing to call the director, and that declarer in trying to apply the law himself could have known that this irregularity would work in favour of his side, so under law 23 I rule that play continues and I will probably award an adjusted score at the end (giving defenders the Ace and consdiering what would happen afterwards).

I'm also going to give declarer a PP and warn defenders about calling the director when attention has been drawn to an irregularity

Law 11A said:

Action by Non-Offending Side

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.

[jeffford76]

bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 10:21, said:

There is a minor penalty card by some strange reason, since no TD is called. A card of this suit is led, the declarer tells the player she must play the minor penalty card, and she does, instead of winning the trick with her ace. The trick is finished and quitted, and then she realises that perhaps she did not need to play her minor penalty card. So now she calls the TD.

How do you rule? You may assume that failure to play her ace will in the end cost her side a trick.

Declarer gets the score as if the ace had been played, as clearly she should not gain from her action.

It's more interesting what to do for the other side. Unless they're particularly new (or, horrors, the declarer is someone they know is a director), I think they should know enough to call the director when something goes wrong, so I'm likely to have them keep their score.

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2012-May-21, 15:43, said:

It's more interesting what to do for the other side. Unless they're particularly new (or, horrors, the declarer is someone they know is a director), I think they should know enough to call the director when something goes wrong, so I'm likely to have them keep their score.

Under which law?

[shevek]

Minor penalty cards are silly.
If a defender drops a spot card, I REALLY want to tell her to put it back in her hand.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 10:21, said:

There is a minor penalty card by some strange reason, since no TD is called.

Was this MPC agreed among consenting adults? If the defence actively participated and agreed to the ruling that it was a MPC, and then accepted the advice that it had to be played, then I'll tell them that the card is now played and it is nothing to do with me: as far as I'm concerned the card was played voluntarily when they agreed with the advice the ops gave them. They could have taken my advice at the proper time but it is too late now.

But if it was declarer who told the defender it was a minor penalty card, and effectively misdirected them from calling the director for a proper ruling, for example by talking with apparent authority (knowing phrases like Minor Penalty Card), then I will protect the defence by adjusting the score under L23, as a previous poster said.

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-21, 16:05, said:

Under which law?

Would 12C1(b) fit:

Quote

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has
contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the
infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief
in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The
offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been
allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2012-May-24, 07:21, said:

Would 12C1(b) fit:

I doubt it.

[mycroft]

re: shevek: do you really want the opponents, who fumbled maybe, but aren't stupid, to be able to tell each other that the card in this suit is *not* a singleton? Note: if you *do*, there's always L81C5.

I actually think mPCs, confusing to the players as they may be, are a nice compromise between the (minor, save for distribution) information being generated and keeping the game going safely from an infraction that was clearly not intentional. Yes, you don't get to signal in that suit, and that could be a major issue; but as I said, a nice compromise.

[barmar]

VixTD, on 2012-May-24, 07:21, said:

Would 12C1(b) fit:

I think the error of not calling the TD is related to the infraction of declarer telling him how to dispose of the mPC, so it doesn't fit (and it's clearly not wild or gambling).

[VixTD]

barmar, on 2012-May-24, 21:00, said:

I think the error of not calling the TD is related to the infraction of declarer telling him how to dispose of the mPC, so it doesn't fit (and it's clearly not wild or gambling).

So come on then, what is the rule that allows the director to award a split score in such cases where declarer cuts himself off from winners in dummy, but then leads one anyway and the next player carelessly follows to the lead out of turn? Law 23 allows you to adjust the score, but not award a split score. The error of following to the irregular lead is not wild or gambling, and certainly not unrelated to the infraction.

I also remembered an example from the EBU's TD training material in which the auction goes 3♠ - P - P - P (no stop cards, no pauses), minus two. Fourth hand was deemed to have taken advantage of the hasty pass by failing to make an obvious double, which would have led to a worse score. Both sides were considered at fault for failing to follow correct procedure, so the score was adjusted for one side and the other was allowed to keep its poor score. I checked last night, but no law was quoted. Can anyone help?

I agree with Jefford, I think a split score should be awarded if the non-offenders were aware of their obligation to call the director.

[axman]

VixTD, on 2012-May-25, 08:33, said:

So come on then, what is the rule that allows the director to award a split score in such cases where declarer cuts himself off from winners in dummy, but then leads one anyway and the next player carelessly follows to the lead out of turn? Law 23 allows you to adjust the score, but not award a split score. The error of following to the irregular lead is not wild or gambling, and certainly not unrelated to the infraction.


I agree with Jefford, I think a split score should be awarded if the non-offenders were aware of their obligation to call the director.

As declarer has mastery of two hands he has immense power to manipulate the defenders- it additionally is possible to do so unfairly.

I should think that if declarer has the expectation that his score will be reduced [PP] every time that he LOOT [from hand or dummy] he will be motivated to not POOT intentionally. This can orchestrated by automatically pipping his score every time the lead is not condoned as legal.

As 'unforgiving' as such a policy could appear to some a small pip for the infrequent perpetrator and a large pip for the conventient perpetrator goes toward solving the consequences of 'doing nothing'- by meting out the justice of avoiding the crime all together; and failing that making it likely that the crime will be remedied [defenders are motivated to collect such automatic penalties should they arise; and thus not be duped].

[bluejak]

VixTD, on 2012-May-25, 08:33, said:

So come on then, what is the rule that allows the director to award a split score in such cases where declarer cuts himself off from winners in dummy, but then leads one anyway and the next player carelessly follows to the lead out of turn? Law 23 allows you to adjust the score, but not award a split score. The error of following to the irregular lead is not wild or gambling, and certainly not unrelated to the infraction.

I also remembered an example from the EBU's TD training material in which the auction goes 3♠ - P - P - P (no stop cards, no pauses), minus two. Fourth hand was deemed to have taken advantage of the hasty pass by failing to make an obvious double, which would have led to a worse score. Both sides were considered at fault for failing to follow correct procedure, so the score was adjusted for one side and the other was allowed to keep its poor score. I checked last night, but no law was quoted. Can anyone help?

Any adjusted score may be split. One of the rarest ways a score is split is when both sides are offending, as in both your cited cases.



Off-topic quickie: should that be 'cited' or 'quoted'? What is the difference?

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2012-May-25, 08:33, said:

I also remembered an example from the EBU's TD training material in which the auction goes 3♠ - P - P - P (no stop cards, no pauses), minus two. Fourth hand was deemed to have taken advantage of the hasty pass by failing to make an obvious double, which would have led to a worse score. Both sides were considered at fault for failing to follow correct procedure, so the score was adjusted for one side and the other was allowed to keep its poor score. I checked last night, but no law was quoted. Can anyone help?

When was the training manual written? Under the 1997 Laws, this was legal under (1997)Law 12C2 as both sides are offending sides and there was no obligation to vary an assigned score under (1997)Law 12C3.

I cannot find any corresponding provision in the 2007 Laws, except in ACBL-land (where Law12C1e is enabled). Maybe Bluejak can point us in the right direction.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-May-25, 09:52, said:

Off-topic quickie: should that be 'cited' or 'quoted'? What is the difference?

I think that cited is referred to or mentioned, while quoted is repeated verbatim.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-25, 19:52, said:

I think that cited is referred to or mentioned, while quoted is repeated verbatim.

If you say "I'm ruling based on Law N", that's citing; if you say "I'm ruling based on Law N, which says '...'", that would be both citing and quoting.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2012-May-25, 14:46, said:

When was the training manual written? Under the 1997 Laws, this was legal under (1997)Law 12C2 as both sides are offending sides and there was no obligation to vary an assigned score under (1997)Law 12C3.

I cannot find any corresponding provision in the 2007 Laws, except in ACBL-land (where Law12C1e is enabled). Maybe Bluejak can point us in the right direction.

It was from a County Directors' course, which I haven't attended since about 2003, so it will have been written under the old laws. However, at the Panel Directors' training weekend on the latest law changes no one mentioned that this had been removed, so I think it's supposed to be in there somewhere.

Law 12B1 tells us that the purpose of a score adjustment is to remove any advantage gained by an offender though an infraction, and 12C1(f) tells us the scores do not have to balance. Perhaps that's enough justification to use 12A1.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2012-May-25, 14:46, said:

When was the training manual written? Under the 1997 Laws, this was legal under (1997)Law 12C2 as both sides are offending sides and there was no obligation to vary an assigned score under (1997)Law 12C3.

I cannot find any corresponding provision in the 2007 Laws, except in ACBL-land (where Law12C1e is enabled). Maybe Bluejak can point us in the right direction.

Someone has pointed out Law 12C1F which gives the overall right to give non-balancing adjustments.

When you assign scores, you do so on the basis of redressing damage to non-offending sides, see Law 12B1. While there is no statement in the Laws that you give different scores to different sides, it follows logically from Law 12B1 that an assigned score must be one to redress damage away from an offending side, so in consequence with two offending sides you must work each assignment out separately otherwise you are not following the principle laid down by Law 12B1.

[jallerton]

Thanks, but I'm not yet convinced. Let's read the entire text of Law 12B and also the wording of Law 12C1c.

Law 12B said:

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction,an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).
2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

.

Law 12C1c said:

In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results.

Law 12B1 defines 'damage' and tells us when to adjust. Law 12C1c tells us how to adjust.

If the TD judges that, without an infracton, N/S would have made 8 tricks in 3NT half of the time and 9 tricks in 3NT the other half of the time, then it seems appropriate to give a weighting to N/S of:
..50% of 3NT= by N
+50% of 3NT-1 by N

Having made that judgement about the number of tricks that might be made in 3NT, isn't the TD going to use the same judgement when assigning the E/W score? So it would also seem appropriate to give a weighting to E/W of:
..50% of 3NT= by N
+50% of 3NT-1 by N

So when would the TD assign non balancing scores to two offending sides if not using Law 12C1e? (Law 12C1b is only relevant for "the non-offending side")