[pran]

In the hope that some candidate hoping to become a qualified tournament director will find this useful:

We are here in the middle of an auction when a single card has been exposed by one of the players so we go straight to
LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION
and rule that:
every such card be placed face up on the table until the auction ends.

then we judge(!) that the card was exposed in a deliberate act apparently intended as a lead, proceed with
Law 24B. Single Card ...... Prematurely Led
and rule:
offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 72C when a pass damages the non-offending side).

Now we must wait until the conclusion of the auction, then we note that the offender has become a defender, go to
Law24E Defenders
and rule
every such card becomes a penalty card (see Laws 50 and 51).

At this time the card has not (yet) been led so we go directly to
LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD

No headache, no inconsistency, no problem: Examination test passed.

Good luck!

[lamford]

jhenrikj, on 2020-August-16, 01:27, said:

Lamford, pls explain to us how you apply 57 after a Loot?

There wasn't a LOOT. So, exactly as it says in Law 57. The penalty card which was led is now led just as it it had been led before partner had played to the previous trick. And the declarer has the four options stated.

[jhenrikj]

Have you ever seen any director including the lawmakers applying 57 to a Loot? You do realize that with your interpretation you have to apply law 57 after all leads since alls leads are made before his partner had played to that trick and thus must be premature.

You are just plain wrong Lamford.

[lamford]

jhenrikj, on 2020-August-16, 07:47, said:

Have you ever seen any director including the lawmakers applying 57 to a Loot? You do realize that with your interpretation you have to apply law 57 after all leads since alls leads are made before his partner had played to that trick and thus must be premature.

You are just plain wrong Lamford.

This was not a lead out of turn, which has its own procedure. It was the disposition of a penalty card for a card led during the auction. The reason I have never seen a director applying Law 57 to a card led during the auction is because I have never seen a lead during the auction before. I have only once applied Law 57 to the play. LOOT is an acronymym for lead out of turn, not lead during the auction.

You are just plain wrong jhenrikj.

[pran]

lamford, on 2020-August-16, 08:13, said:

This was not a lead out of turn, which has its own procedure. It was the disposition of a penalty card for a card led during the auction. The reason I have never seen a director applying Law 57 to a card led during the auction is because I have never seen a lead during the auction before. LOOT is an acronymym for lead out of turn, not lead during the auction.

You are just plain wrong jhenrikj.

And this was not a lead out of turn.

[lamford]

smerriman, on 2020-August-15, 17:40, said:

It's so obvious what is meant to happen here, it really is simply waste of time arguing otherwise - and to be honest, other than you, does anyone really care about this? I'd rather the rulemakers focus on things that actually matter.

I don't agree it is at all obvious. The card was a penalty card, and was led rather than exposed. The TD is told to see Law 57. It beggars belief that you should say that he shouldn't do that because there is no previous trick. Do people really care about any errors in the Laws? You would have no penalty at all for a lead during the auction. Next time partner seems to be thinking about sacrificing or making a lightner double in the pass-out seat, I will get that lead on the table, both to silence him and to tell him what I am going to lead. And you just say "it's so obvious what is meant to happen here." I presume you mean that there is no further penalty on East. That for sure is wrong, and the alternative ruling is that the enforced pass by East during the auction has damaged the non-offenders, and that East (were he not obliged to pass) would have to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI of the lead during the auction, and would have a clear LA of pulling to 4C, which would be 500 for NS.

CC and Ch appealed against the -2200 and SB appealed against the 3 VP fine. The AC decided in a nutshell that
D. Director’s Option
The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12).

The AC agreed that it was doubtful whether the Laws intended Law 57 to apply here (even though they say that it does). But the TD was right to rule in favour of the non-offending side. In addition, he had the right to restore equity, and that would include East pulling the redouble to 4Cx and going for 500. In any case, if there were director error, the +2200 would stand for NS, and EW would be treated as non-offending and get +500. All the scores resulted in the same tournament result, a win for SB's team. The principle in sport of only overturning a "clear and obvious error" was followed and the score stood. The 3 IMPs fine for SB stood as well even though he argued that he had not breached Law 74B5, but the AC decided he had.

[pran]

lamford, on 2020-August-16, 08:43, said:

The AC agreed that it was doubtful whether the Laws intended Law 57 to apply here (even though they say that it does).

You have an AC that cannot read and understand the laws, and which fails to distinguish between the auction period where Law 24 applies and play period where Law 57 applies?

Terrific

[smerriman]

lamford, on 2020-August-16, 08:43, said:

I don't agree it is at all obvious. The card was a penalty card, and was led rather than exposed. The TD is told to see Law 57. It beggars belief that you should say that he shouldn't do that because there is no previous trick. Do people really care about any errors in the Laws?

You are told to see law 57; you see that it cannot possibly apply to this situation.

lamford, on 2020-August-16, 08:43, said:

You would have no penalty at all for a lead during the auction. Next time partner seems to be thinking about sacrificing or making a lightner double in the pass-out seat, I will get that lead on the table, both to silence him and to tell him what I am going to lead. And you just say "it's so obvious what is meant to happen here." I presume you mean that there is no further penalty on East.

None of that is true in the slightest. If you get any form of advantage out of leading prior to the auction completing, then you would be penalised with an weighted score based on what your partner might have done differently if you hadn't (50E).

[lamford]

smerriman, on 2020-August-16, 16:48, said:

You are told to see law 57; you see that it cannot possibly apply to this situation.

So what do you do then? Go back to law 50 and wonder why you were told to "see law 57". Note that it did not say "but see Law 57" which it might do if you just needed to check that this did not change the ruling. Essentially it says that Law 57 will tell you how to handle a major penalty card that was led rather than dropped or exposed. And it does not say, as it might have done, "led after the play period started". One interpretation (and I am not saying it is the only one) is that Law 57 tells you that a premature lead gets draconian penalties, with declarer having four options. It would be illogical if the penalty was applied whenever partner has not played to tricks 1-11, and the player leads prematurely to tricks 2-12 respectively, but is NOT applied when the player leads prematurely to trick 1 and partner has (obviously) not yet played (to trick 0 if you like).

smerriman, on 2020-August-16, 16:48, said:

None of that is true in the slightest. If you get any form of advantage out of leading prior to the auction completing, then you would be penalised with an weighted score based on what your partner might have done differently if you hadn't (50E).

You (and others) seem to be advocating no penalty here and that the six of clubs is led and East can play any card he chooses. I think that the minimum adjustment is that East's enforced pass as a result of the premature lead has damaged the non-offending side and it is then up to the TD to decide on an adjusted score which restores equity to the non-offending side. I can live with 4Cx-2 by East, NS+500. Are you saying that there should be no penalty at all, even though EW have certainly gained "some form of advantage"?

[smerriman]

lamford, on 2020-August-16, 17:28, said:

You (and others) seem to be advocating no penalty here and that the six of clubs is led and East can play any card he chooses. I think that the minimum adjustment is that East's enforced pass as a result of the premature lead has damaged the non-offending side and it is then up to the TD to decide on an adjusted score which restores equity to the non-offending side. I can live with 4Cx-2 by East, NS+500. Are you saying that there should be no penalty at all, even though EW have certainly gained "any form of advantage".

Did you read what I wrote? I specifically said that if they gained an advantage, they would be penalised with a weighted score based on East would have bid otherwise. Which part of my post suggested I advocated no penalty?

[smerriman]

lamford, on 2020-August-16, 17:28, said:

So what do you do then? Go back to law 50 and wonder why you were told to "see law 57". Note that it did not say "but see Law 57" which it might do if you just needed to check that this did not change the ruling. Essentially it says that Law 57 will tell you how to handle a major penalty card that was led rather than dropped or exposed. And it does not say, as it might have done, "led after the play period started)". One interpretation (and I am not saying it is the only one) is that Law 57 tells you that a premature lead gets draconian penalties, with declarer having four options. It would be illogical if the penalty was applied whenever partner has not played to tricks 1-11, and the player leads prematurely to tricks 2-12, but is NOT applied when the player leads prematurely to trick 1 and partner has (obviously) not yet played.

Yes, I follow rule 50. Law 57, as is very clear by its wording, adjusts for situations where you have played before your partner was meant to play. You very well know that, despite trying to make it appear not obvious.

[lamford]

smerriman, on 2020-August-16, 17:34, said:

Yes, I follow rule 50. Law 57, as is very clear by its wording, adjusts for situations where you have played before your partner was meant to play. You very well know that, despite trying to make it appear not obvious.

So you go back to Law 50, even though you are not told to do so? Good set of laws these. Don't you then get caught in a loop where you are then told to see law 57 again? Or as you supposed to remember that this part of the maze is a dead end? I really think the average TD will not do that, and will just ask herself:
a) is the six of clubs a penalty card? Yes
b) Was it led? Yes
Therefore apply Law 57. As best you can.
The TD is not going to try to work out the intent of Law 57 and whether it logically applies here.

If you only apply Law 50, you HAVE to adjust for the enforced pass benefiting the offending side. Any possibility of East pulling the redouble to 4C has disappeared as a result of the lead during the auction.

And please don't tell me what I know or don't know. I don't put words in your mouth.

[smerriman]

lamford, on 2020-August-16, 17:36, said:

In which case you HAVE to adjust for the enforced pass benefiting the offending side. Any possibility of East pulling the redouble to 4C has disappeared as a result of the lead during the auction.

I've already told you twice I would adjust for that, despite your repeated implications that I'm saying not to. I'm amazed you can read the rules so clearly but not my posts.

I can't be bothered arguing semantics anymore; Law 50 is the most sensible rule to apply; if a single word would convince you otherwise, fine, change it, who cares.

[lamford]

smerriman, on 2020-August-16, 17:43, said:

I've already told you twice I would adjust for that, despite your repeated implications that I'm saying not to. I'm amazed you can read the rules so clearly but not my posts.

There is some crossover in posts, sorry, with my responding without reading something written in the meantime. I am pleased we agree with adjusting for the enforced pass by East, but I don't think anyone else advocated that. I would still expect the average TD to rule under Law 57 without giving the matter a second thought. When the Law tells him "see Law 57" and Law 57 gives him sensible options, he applies them. It is like a bid out of turn. The TD just goes through the flow chart without stopping to analyse the situation.

And the change to Law 50, if they intend premature leads during the auction to be treated differently to premature leads during the play would be the simple (see Law 57 for a card led during the play)

[axman]

pran, on 2020-August-16, 02:45, said:

In the hope that some candidate hoping to become a qualified tournament director will find this useful:

We are here in the middle of an auction when a single card has been exposed by one of the players so we go straight to
LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION
and rule that:
every such card be placed face up on the table until the auction ends.

then we judge(!) that the card was exposed in a deliberate act apparently intended as a lead, proceed with
Law 24B. Single Card ...... Prematurely Led
and rule:
offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 72C when a pass damages the non-offending side).

Now we must wait until the conclusion of the auction, then we note that the offender has become a defender, go to
Law24E Defenders
and rule
every such card becomes a penalty card (see Laws 50 and 51).

At this time the card has not (yet) been led so we go directly to
LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD

No headache, no inconsistency, no problem: Examination test passed.

Good luck!

I think that the terrain is treacherous.

The law does not speak to the TD judging a card a lead. It says 24B:
…or is any card prematurely led

in other words it was prematurely led or it wasn't. The definitions speak to what is a lead:
Lead — the first card played to a trick.

Which requires the question, 'was a trick in progress?' and the answer is no- the card was not played to a trick.

The definition of trick: Trick — the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead.

As such, the ruling turns on the identity of the card- non honor goes to 24A while an honor goes to 24B.

[pran]

axman, on 2020-August-16, 19:15, said:

I think that the terrain is treacherous.

The law does not speak to the TD judging a card a lead. It says 24B:
…or is any card prematurely led

in other words it was prematurely led or it wasn't. The definitions speak to what is a lead:
Lead — the first card played to a trick.

Which requires the question, 'was a trick in progress?' and the answer is no- the card was not played to a trick.

The definition of trick: Trick — the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead.

As such, the ruling turns on the identity of the card- non honor goes to 24A while an honor goes to 24B.

The question in Law 24, whether a single card below the rank of an honour was led or not, is a matter of judgement by the Director and depends on the manner in which it was exposed.
(This is the only point in Law 24 where an inexperienced Director can get astray)

If the Director judges that it was faced accidentally he applies Law 24A
If the Director judges that it was faced deliberately he applies Law 24B
Otherwise the Director applies Law 24C.

Then no further action is taken by the Director until the auction is completed! after which he will apply either Law 24D or Law 24E, and in case go to Law 50 or 51.

Specifically he shall never apply Law 57 in this situation because there is no reference to Law 57 from Law 24!

[smerriman]

pran, on 2020-August-17, 00:41, said:

Specifically he shall never apply Law 57 in this situation because there is no reference to Law 57 from Law 24!

I don't understand why you keep saying this. Law 24 refers to Law 50, which refers to Law 57. Is there some rule that says that if X refers to Y, and Y refers to Z, then can you never apply Z in the situation of X?

For example, Law 32 about double/redouble out of rotation says to see Law 36, which refers to Law 72C - the director is certainly allowed to use that law, despite there being no reference to it in Law 32.

While I don't disagree about which law should be applied, I don't follow the logic in that one sentence at all.

[pran]

smerriman, on 2020-August-17, 00:54, said:

I don't understand why you keep saying this. Law 24 refers to Law 50, which refers to Law 57. Is there some rule that says that if X refers to Y, and Y refers to Z, then can you never apply Z in the situation of X?

For example, Law 32 about double/redouble out of rotation says to see Law 36, which refers to Law 72C - the director is certainly allowed to use that law, despite there being no reference to it in Law 32.

While I don't disagree about which law should be applied, I don't follow the logic in that one sentence at all.

Here we are back to the point in Law 24 where inexperienced directors might get astray.

The only reference in Law 50 to Law 57 is in the first line: "A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender".
The simplest way to refute your comment is probably to remind you that the card was not prematurely led by a defender, simply because there was no defender at the time of that irregularity. (This is why we enter Law 24 in the first place).
The offender only became a defender when the auction was completed.

Of course "X refers to Y, and Y refers to Z" implies that X also refers to Z unless the chain is broken in some way.
Here the chain is broken because the link from Y to Z depends on a condition that is not satisfied in the link from X to Y.

[lamford]

smerriman, on 2020-August-17, 00:54, said:

I don't understand why you keep saying this. Law 24 refers to Law 50, which refers to Law 57. Is there some rule that says that if X refers to Y, and Y refers to Z, then can you never apply Z in the situation of X?

For example, Law 32 about double/redouble out of rotation says to see Law 36, which refers to Law 72C - the director is certainly allowed to use that law, despite there being no reference to it in Law 32.

While I don't disagree about which law should be applied, I don't follow the logic in that one sentence at all.

The director uses Law 24 to decide that the six of clubs is a penalty card, and notes that this example is Law 24B, so, as he did, he indicates that East must pass when next it is his turn to call. He did read out all of 24B at the table.

He then finds, or hopefully already knows, that he must find out what to do with it, probably by Law 50:
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 72C may apply).

For completeness I don't accept for one moment pran's argument that this was not "a card led by a defender", and in any case, the WBFLC have carefully put "but not led, seee Law 57" to qualify card, not to qualify "card exposed by a defender". That is a further error, or a further example of sloppiness (am I bovvered - Catherine Tate), in that a card prematurely led by declarer is not subject to Law 57 at all. That clause should probably read:

A card prematurely exposed by a defender (but not led during the play period, see Law 57) is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 72C may apply).

The diligent director looks at law 49 and law 72C and decides it wasn't exposed, but the player could well have been aware that leading it would work to his side's benefit. He also notes the clause "but not led", which tells most directors that this is not the clause to apply, because the card clearly was led (albeit during the auction).

He therefore goes to Law 57. He sees (part of) the heading "Premature Lead", and being a bit of a numbskull thinks he is in the right place now. He starts reading. He notes that the player has indeed led to the next trick. He might reflect (and you say that he should) that there is no "current trick" so the clause "before his partner has played to the current trick" means that he is in the wrong place. He might just think this is just part of the regular sloppy wording that he has seen throughout the laws in his brief tenure as TD, and assumes that "if any" should have been added at the end for logical sense. He might look to see whether there is another section for dealing with a penalty card which was caused by a premature opening lead but only finds Law 50 which has the proviso "but not led". Most TDs would conclude that Law 57 applies because it was a premature lead and the player has indeed led to the next trick.

To rule that this was director error would be inappropriate. I am not arguing what the WBFLC probably intended, but there are certainly no grounds for applying Law 50 and ignoring "but not led, see Law 57". I can accept that the Laws do not tell the TD what to do in this situation, in which case he makes the best of a bad job.

[pran]

lamford, on 2020-August-17, 01:35, said:

The director uses Law 24 to decide that the six of clubs is a penalty card, and notes that this example is Law 24B, so, as he did, he indicates that East must pass when next it is his turn to call. He did read out all of 24B at the table.

He then finds, or hopefully already knows, that he must find out what to do with it, probably by Law 50:
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 72C may apply).

The diligent director looks at law 49 and law 72C and decides it wasn't exposed, but the player could well have been aware that leading it would work to his side's benefit. He also notes the clause "but not led", which tells most directors that this is not the clause to apply, because the card clearly was led (albeit during the auction).

e therefore goes to Law 57. He sees (part of) the heading "Premature Lead", and being a bit of a numbskull thinks he is in the right place now. He starts reading. He notes that the player has indeed led to the next trick. He might reflect (and you say he should that he should) that there is no "current trick" so the clause "before his partner has played to the current trick" means that he is in the wrong place. He might just think this is just part of the regular sloppy wording that he has seen throughout the laws in his brief tenure as TD. He might look to see whether there is a section for dealing with a penalty card which was caused by a premature opening lead but only finds Law 50 which has the proviso "but not led". Most TDs would conclude that Law 57 applies because it was a premature lead and the player has indeed led to the next trick.

To rule that this was director error would be inappropriate. I am not arguing what the WBFLC probably intended, but there are certainly no grounds for applying Law 50 and ignoring "but not led, see Law 57". I can accept that the Laws do not tell the TD what to do in this situation, in which case he makes the best of a bad job.

The Director made one major error: He didn't wait until the conclusion of the auction before using Law 24D or Law 24E.
Alternatively
if the auction was already concluded at the time he was called to the table he apparently failed to realize the importance of the fact that the irregularity was committed by a player before that player became (in this case) a defender.

Having read the various tales from this club I consider either of these errors excusable, but I cannot understand using such an ignorant AC?