[bixby]

No question for the group, just a possibly amusing story.

Playing in a regional ACBL tournament over the weekend, my partner and I got two tops off the Laws. On one board, we were on defense and the declarer, in 4S, ruffed a club in hand at trick 8 and claimed two tricks later for making 5. As he was pushing his cards together I happened to notice a club in his hand. We got two penalty tricks, even though without the revoke declarer would have made 4. +100 was tied for top.

In the second session of the same event, my partner opened 3C as dealer and I held xxx / KJx / AQxx / Axx. I took a chance and bid 3NT, figuring that on any lead but a spade I would probably have nine tricks. The opening lead was a spade . . . from the wrong side! I called the Director more quickly and loudly than I think I ever have before, and exercised the option to require the correct defender to lead and to prohibit the lead of a spade. My LHO harrumphed for a while and finally led a diamond. Partner had xx / xx / Kx / KQxxxxx. +630 was a clear top.

Stay alert to the Laws!

[steve2005]

bixby, on 2018-July-09, 06:48, said:

As he was pushing his cards together I happened to notice a club in his hand. We got two penalty tricks,

Are you saying he never showed his hand when claiming? Very bad if so.

[bixby]

Good question. I don't fully remember, but I believe his claim was that dummy was good, so no one was focused on the cards in his hand. Declarer showed his hand, but only as part of the process of scooping his cards together. It wasn't anything nefarious. He was very surprised to learn that he had revoked.

[barmar]

Second hand is a counter-example to the old adage that you should usually accept a lead out of turn -- if they don't know whose lead it is, they probably don't know the correct lead.

It also shows why the prohibition persists as long as the player holds the lead -- they couldn't just cash the ♥A and then switch to a spade.

[weejonnie]

"I called the Director more quickly and loudly than I think I ever have before"

Just to remind you that calling the director in an inappropriate manner is a breach of etiquette. This could lead on to a breach of law 74A (failing to maintain an courteous attitude at all times).

[barmar]

I'm sure he just means he was very excited.

[bixby]

Yes, exactly.

[chrism]

I was directing a Regional last weekend and was called to the table: West was declarer, and South had just tabled an opening lead of a diamond. After listening to his options, declarer chose not to accept the LOOT and to forbid a diamond lead. South duly picked up his diamond ... and led a club.

[weejonnie]

chrism, on 2018-July-10, 09:26, said:

I was directing a Regional last weekend and was called to the table: West was declarer, and South had just tabled an opening lead of a diamond. After listening to his options, declarer chose not to accept the LOOT and to forbid a diamond lead. South duly picked up his diamond ... and led a club.

Could be interesting if declarer forbids the club, and then a diamond, and then a heart! - if South persists.

(Actually I can't think off-hand anywhere that would stop this - the cards are no longer penalty cards. I mean - if you demand a suit is led and it can't be then the penalty lapses and if you forbid a suit from being led and the defender only has the suit then the penalty lapses, but not under the above circumstances.)

[pran]

chrism, on 2018-July-10, 09:26, said:

I was directing a Regional last weekend and was called to the table: West was declarer, and South had just tabled an opening lead of a diamond. After listening to his options, declarer chose not to accept the LOOT and to forbid a diamond lead. South duly picked up his diamond ... and led a club.

weejonnie, on 2018-July-11, 04:41, said:

Could be interesting if declarer forbids the club, and then a diamond, and then a heart! - if South persists.

(Actually I can't think off-hand anywhere that would stop this - the cards are no longer penalty cards. I mean - if you demand a suit is led and it can't be then the penalty lapses and if you forbid a suit from being led and the defender only has the suit then the penalty lapses, but not under the above circumstances.)

What surprised me was that the Director apparently left the table without verifying that a proper rectification was executed.

When declarer had made his choice the Director ought to 1: Order South to pick up his diamond and 2: Order North to lead a card other than a diamond.

Only when these actions are completed should the Director leave the table (it shouldn't take that many seconds).

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-July-11, 05:26, said:

What surprised me was that the Director apparently left the table without verifying that a proper rectification was executed.

Chris's post doesn't say that, I don't think it even suggests it.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-July-11, 08:43, said:

Chris's post doesn't say that, I don't think it even suggests it.

No, he doesn't say.
But the facts given in the story speaks for itself.
Even a mediocre director would (if still present) have prevented the continued irregularities by South.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2018-July-11, 09:07, said:

No, he doesn't say.
But the facts given in the story speaks for itself.
Even a mediocre director would (if still present) have prevented the continued irregularities by South.

How precisely? Dive on the table to cover up the card?

[pran]

gordontd, on 2018-July-11, 09:32, said:

How precisely? Dive on the table to cover up the card?

I am really surprised over these comments.

How do you actually educate your directors?

We are trained that a director's main duty is to get the play back on tracks as best as possible after an irregularity (See Law 82A). His job is not completed just by giving a ruling, he must also see to it that no more irregularities follow (for instance because of ignorance) as a direct consequence of the original irregularity.

Therefore the Director should preferably remain at the table, ready to give further instructions to the players until the situation is cleared up.
Apparently that was not done here?

[axman]

pran, on 2018-July-11, 09:07, said:

No, he doesn't say.
But the facts given in the story speaks for itself.
Even a mediocre director would (if still present) have prevented the continued irregularities by South.

You ought to be cognizant of the connotations attached to ACBL tournament, particularly ACBL TDs. In my earliest years Spider gave the following MI ruling: 'I'm backing up the auction.'

1S-P-4C-P
4S-P

Upon which I doubled 4C. Rather than 'backing up the auction' the correct ruling was to cancel the last pass and have the auction proceed from there.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2018-July-11, 10:14, said:

I am really surprised over these comments.

How do you actually educate your directors?

We are trained that a director's main duty is to get the play back on tracks as best as possible after an irregularity (See Law 82A). His job is not completed just by giving a ruling, he must also see to it that no more irregularities follow (for instance because of ignorance) as a direct consequence of the original irregularity.

Therefore the Director should preferably remain at the table, ready to give further instructions to the players until the situation is cleared up.
Apparently that was not done here?

My reading of it is that the director was there, had given appropriate instructions, yet the player still made a second lead out of turn. I've seen that happen. How do you propose to stop it?

[pran]

gordontd, on 2018-July-11, 11:14, said:

My reading of it is that the director was there, had given appropriate instructions, yet the player still made a second lead out of turn. I've seen that happen. How do you propose to stop it?

I fail to see how the director can have given appropriate and sufficient instructions.

my post #10 above said:

When declarer had made his choice the Director ought to
1: Order South to pick up his diamond and
2: Order North to lead a card other than a diamond.

However, if he indeed has done so then the second LOOT by South is a severe violation of Law 90B8 and as such subject to a substantial procedure penalty (more than just a warning).

[gordontd]

pran, on 2018-July-11, 12:30, said:

I fail to see how the director can have given appropriate and sufficient instructions.

However, if he indeed has done so then the second LOOT by South is a severe violation of Law 90B8 and as such subject to a substantial procedure penalty (more than just a warning).

In the case I saw, he was just confused. Creating a second penalty card was all that was required.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2018-July-11, 11:14, said:

My reading of it is that the director was there, had given appropriate instructions, yet the player still made a second lead out of turn. I've seen that happen. How do you propose to stop it?

That's how I interpreted it as well. The LOOTer simply misunderstood, and thought that the lead prohibition applied to himself, not his partner.

Yeah, there are poor directors out there, but there are also players who don't listen carefully.

It should also be noted that the director in question was the poster of the message here.

[weejonnie]

barmar, on 2018-July-11, 13:52, said:

That's how I interpreted it as well. The LOOTer simply misunderstood, and thought that the lead prohibition applied to himself, not his partner.

Yeah, there are poor directors out there, but there are also players who don't listen carefully.

It should also be noted that the director in question was the poster of the message here.

Last Tuesday I had a case where a player passed after his partner had called. I explained that the call could be accepted, in which case the auction would continue without further rectification (but if his LHO and partner passed then the calls would be cancelled to allow his RHO to call) or, if rejected he would have to repeat his pass. The call was accepted and as I left the table I noticed that his RHO (not LHO) had made the next call! By the time I turned, however, the player had passed again (legitimising the COOT). Having explained the reason for my return, I allowed the auction to continue without further rectification.