[One Short]

A defender thinks he has won trick five, but has not. He therefore leads to the next trick, which is a lead out of turn. This is noticed by the table but the director is not called. Instead, the lead to trick six is now made by the winner of trick five and play just continues as if nothing had happened.
The table had self-ruled but no-one had observed that the offending card could have been a major penalty card or that the lead out of turn could have been accepted. Nor did anyone notice that the offending defender did not return the card to his hand but quitted the card to the row of cards in front of him.
At trick thirteen the defender duly announces that he has no more cards to play and the director is called.
How should the director rule?

[helene_t]

Very likely the player who quited the non-played card will have revoked at some point (if someone else lead the suit of the card he quited). In that case the normal revoke penalty applies.

Otherwise nothings happens. He is deemed to have played the mistakenly quited card to the 13th trick.

[pran]

And as the failure to call the Director when attention was drawn to the irregularity at trick 6 led to further irregularities later so that the Direector was at last called at end of the play -

A procedure penalty to both sides is in order!

[campboy]

Did anyone actually draw attention to the irregularity? If not there is no requirement to call the TD.

Who did win trick 5? If it was declarer (in either hand) and attention had not been drawn then he is entitled to go ahead and make the correct lead, but if he does so the irregular lead will not be a penalty card (law 53A).

As for the status of the card mistakenly put with the played cards, I agree with Helene.

[blackshoe]

Carefully!

"Noticed by the table, but the director was not called". This is, IMO, an error, but it is not an infraction so long as no one drew attention to the LOOT. If someone did so, see the last paragraph below.

Quote

Law 53C: Subject to Law 53A, if it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. When this occurs, the proper lead stands and all cards played in error to this trick may be withdrawn. Law 16D applies, but there is no further rectification.

Law 53A deals with accepting the LOOT, but that didn't happen, so doesn't apply here. If the LOOTer had just put his LOOT back in his hand, all would have been well. But he didn't, so…

It appears that the defender has played two cards to trick five, and then followed normally to the correct lead to trick six. So trick five is defective.

Quote

Law 67B2: After both sides have played to the following trick, when attention is drawn to a defective trick or when the Director determines that there had been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards), the Director establishes which trick was defective. To rectify the number of cards, the Director should proceed as follows…

2. (a) When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the Director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards*, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the Director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). Ownership of the defective trick does not change.
(b) A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender’s hand, and a failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke.

So the card which was led out of turn and then quitted to trick five is restored to the offender's hand and he plays it to trick thirteen. Now the TD should check tricks six to twelve to make sure the offender didn't revoke. If he did revoke, the usual revoke penalties are applied. If not, the table result stands.

Procedural penalties may be appropriate here. If attention was drawn to the original irregularity (the LOOT), the director should have been called, and any of the four players could have done so (see Law 9B). A PP might be issued to both sides for the failure to call the TD, but this will not happen often. If the time required to resolve the problem causes problems at other tables (or at this table for the next round) because the EW pair here are not ready to move on time, a PP might also be issued to the defense for delaying the game. This would be independent of and in addition to a PP for failure to call the TD at trick 5/6. Whether to issue a PP and how large a PP to issue is at TD discretion, although some jurisdictions, in particular the EBU, issue guidance (see the White Book). In the delay of game case the TD might issue a DP instead of a PP. If this is a first offense (at least, the first one of which the TD is aware) I would issue warnings rather than penalties in points.

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-March-20, 08:28, said:

Did anyone actually draw attention to the irregularity?
[...]

Indeed someone did. If not in other words someone did so simply by rectifying the lead out of turn.

Rectifying an irregularity instead of ignoring it is deemed drawing attention to it.

Had they just played on as if the lead out of turn were accepted then there would not have been a violation of Law 9B, now there was.

[mycroft]

If someone leads and then I do, because it's my turn, I may not have even noticed, never mind drawn attention to, the LOOT.

I highly doubt that attention was not drawn, but it is possible. Merely following the Laws does not in itself "draw attention" to anything.

[RMB1]

Are we really arguing about whether to issue a procedural penalty for failure to call the TD in a club?

I think the TD should restrict himself to applying Law 67B2 - restore the card and assess any potential revoke penalty.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-20, 08:42, said:

Law 53A deals with accepting the LOOT, but that didn't happen, so doesn't apply here. If the LOOTer had just put his LOOT back in his hand, all would have been well. But he didn't, so…

Oops, yes, Law 53C was the law I was looking at but I typed 53A for some reason.

[axman]

One Short, on 2014-March-20, 07:57, said:

A defender thinks he has won trick five, but has not. He therefore leads to the next trick, which is a lead out of turn. This is noticed by the table but the director is not called. Instead, the lead to trick six is now made by the winner of trick five and play just continues as if nothing had happened.
The table had self-ruled but no-one had observed that the offending card could have been a major penalty card or that the lead out of turn could have been accepted. Nor did anyone notice that the offending defender did not return the card to his hand but quitted the card to the row of cards in front of him.
At trick thirteen the defender duly announces that he has no more cards to play and the director is called.
How should the director rule?

We are given to understand that the four players have quit their cards to T5 before offender plays the first card to T6 [a lead**].

However, the player that did win T5 next plays a card about which the law says:

L53C. Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead

Subject to Law 53A, if it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. When this occurs, the proper lead stands and all cards played in error to this trick may be withdrawn. Law 16D applies but there is no further rectification.

The status thus far is the first card to a trick has been played and a second card to that trick has been played. The second card is deemed to not have been played to the first card. At this point the law provides that the first card can be withdrawn [ostensibly not a PC if returned to hand expeditiously] but the player did not do so.

Next, the offender and the other two players play cards. Offender’s second card, though quitted with T6, ostensibly was exposed during T6, and, does not belong to T6; and, his first card does belong.


**By definition: Lead — the first card played to a trick.

[campboy]

pran, on 2014-March-20, 09:11, said:

Rectifying an irregularity instead of ignoring it is deemed drawing attention to it.

What do you think "ignoring it" would look like? What seems to have happened here is that the player whose turn it was to lead has just gone ahead and led, exactly as he would have done if the out-of-turn lead had not occurred. That sounds like "ignoring it" to me.

[pran]

campboy, on 2014-March-20, 11:41, said:

pran, on 2014-March-20, 09:11, said:

Rectifying an irregularity instead of ignoring it is deemed drawing attention to it.

What do you think "ignoring it" would look like? What seems to have happened here is that the player whose turn it was to lead has just gone ahead and led, exactly as he would have done if the out-of-turn lead had not occurred. That sounds like "ignoring it" to me.

OP wrote: A defender thinks he has won trick five, but has not. He therefore leads to the next trick, which is a lead out of turn. This is noticed by the table but the director is not called. Instead, the lead to trick six is now made by the winner of trick five and play just continues as if nothing had happened.

Are you trying to convince me that nothing was said at the table to the effect that the defender in question had led out of turn (before the correct player made his lead)?
No chance!

"Ignoring the lead out of turn" would look like treating it as a lead in turn without any comment.

[campboy]

pran, on 2014-March-20, 15:53, said:

Are you trying to convince me that nothing was said at the table to the effect that the defender in question had led out of turn (before the correct player made his lead)?
No chance!

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It is of course pretty likely that something was said, in which case attention has been drawn. But I wanted to make sure by asking One Short. He or she knows what actually happened; neither of us do.

[One Short]

OK- so here is what happened. It was one of those “friendly club nights” where the offender was making a come-back after living away for a decade; not having played bridge during that time because there was not a bridge club anywhere near his home (Cornwall).
He did think he had won the trick and his play out of turn was noticed to the extent that the table agreed that he should withdraw the card. Play then proceeded with the winner of trick 5 leading to trick 6; everyone pretending that the lead out of turn had never happened.
He did not put the offending card back in his hand but quitted it. At trick 13 he had no cards left
I was the playing director and at trick 13 was now called. My heart sank as my immediate thoughts were of a revoke and the rigmarole of finding out the play of the 8 remaining tricks. Because of the time this investigation might take it would probably have meant cancellation of 2 boards, one at this and one at my table.
The aspect of the 5th card to the trick also crossed my mind and I told them I did not know how to deal with it. The table offered to score the board as average which I readily accepted in order to move on. It did seem to be a practical solution in the circumstances although I did later think that Average Minus to both sides might be more appropriate as they were all guilty of something even if I knew not what.
These are issues now being considered at academic leisure, and the point to my original post was to consider how experienced directors would have dealt with it there and then so as to be better prepared should it ever arise again in the next 20 years or so.

[pran]

One Short, on 2014-March-21, 01:13, said:

OK- so here is what happened. It was one of those “friendly club nights” where the offender was making a come-back after living away for a decade; not having played bridge during that time because there was not a bridge club anywhere near his home (Cornwall).
He did think he had won the trick and his play out of turn was noticed to the extent that the table agreed that he should withdraw the card. Play then proceeded with the winner of trick 5 leading to trick 6; everyone pretending that the lead out of turn had never happened.
He did not put the offending card back in his hand but quitted it. At trick 13 he had no cards left
I was the playing director and at trick 13 was now called. My heart sank as my immediate thoughts were of a revoke and the rigmarole of finding out the play of the 8 remaining tricks. Because of the time this investigation might take it would probably have meant cancellation of 2 boards, one at this and one at my table.
The aspect of the 5th card to the trick also crossed my mind and I told them I did not know how to deal with it. The table offered to score the board as average which I readily accepted in order to move on. It did seem to be a practical solution in the circumstances although I did later think that Average Minus to both sides might be more appropriate as they were all guilty of something even if I knew not what.
These are issues now being considered at academic leisure, and the point to my original post was to consider how experienced directors would have dealt with it there and then so as to be better prepared should it ever arise again in the next 20 years or so.

Well, that is a common result of not following correct procedures: Adding more (severe) problems.

The correct procedure at trick thirteen would of course have been to examine the play to see if the player had indeed revoked. This examination is easily done within a few seconds because you simply turn all quitted cards for each of the four players face up without disturbing their mutual sequence, and then quickly replay the board from trick 6.

If the director does not perform this examination but just cancels the Board, then he is committing an error which requires a Law 82C rectification: Ave+ to both pairs!

[blackshoe]

Friendly club game or not, it is a mistake for a TD to allow the players to make his ruling for him. If you don't know what to do, there are, in the EBU at least, people you can call to ask for help — the official TD list includes phone numbers.

The table made its own ruling originally. This is a violation of Law 9B and Law 10A, at least. The impact is found in Law 11. The NOS may forfeit their right to rectification of the original infraction (the LOOT) (It's a bit too late for that anyway) and may even so still get a PP, as might the OS.

At the table, at trick 13: trick 5 (not 6) is defective, having too many cards. Find the extra card in that defender's quitted tricks and have him put it back in his hand. Examine tricks 6 through 12 to see if there were any revokes. If not, tell them to get on with it. That shouldn't take very long. Even if there were multiple revokes, it shouldn't take long to deal with them. Do so, applying penalties (from the revoke laws, not PPs) as appropriate. If an adjusted score becomes necessary due to revokes (Law 64C) deal with it later.

"Friendly club night"? Fair enough. Read the players the riot act about making their own rulings and not calling the TD, but give PPs only if handling the case causes other boards to be lost (and if that does happen, do give a PP to each player - rather than each side - because all four players should have called the TD originally). In the EBU that's 20% of a top, normally, for each side. If they think that's too much, tell them that if they were in the ACBL it would be 50%. Or if you think it's too much you can give a lesser amount - but I would still call it a PP to each player. For example, 5% to each player is 10% for the side. They don't have to know you're being "generous". The idea is to make sure they get the point that they need to call the TD when there's been attention drawn to an irregularity.

Players don't have the right to make their own rulings, but they do have the right to ask the TD to waive rectifications "for cause" (see Law 81C5). I suppose "he's been out of bridge for ten years" is cause enough, for a first offense. You might point out to the players that had they called you when the LOOT was made they could have asked you to waive rectification for the LOOT, and you could have granted that waiver, but you would have been at the table to make sure the offender put the card back in his hand.

If it's still within the correction period, you should go back and change the score to Ave+ for both sides, on the basis of TD error, as Sven suggested.

[axman]

One Short, on 2014-March-21, 01:13, said:

OK- so here is what happened. It was one of those “friendly club nights” where the offender was making a come-back after living away for a decade; not having played bridge during that time because there was not a bridge club anywhere near his home (Cornwall).
He did think he had won the trick and his play out of turn was noticed to the extent that the table agreed that he should withdraw the card. Play then proceeded with the winner of trick 5 leading to trick 6; everyone pretending that the lead out of turn had never happened.
He did not put the offending card back in his hand but quitted it. At trick 13 he had no cards left
I was the playing director and at trick 13 was now called. My heart sank as my immediate thoughts were of a revoke and the rigmarole of finding out the play of the 8 remaining tricks. Because of the time this investigation might take it would probably have meant cancellation of 2 boards, one at this and one at my table.
The aspect of the 5th card to the trick also crossed my mind and I told them I did not know how to deal with it. The table offered to score the board as average which I readily accepted in order to move on. It did seem to be a practical solution in the circumstances although I did later think that Average Minus to both sides might be more appropriate as they were all guilty of something even if I knew not what.
These are issues now being considered at academic leisure, and the point to my original post was to consider how experienced directors would have dealt with it there and then so as to be better prepared should it ever arise again in the next 20 years or so.

When presenting a question it is important to ask the question that you want answered.

For instance, you have two questions [1] what is the correct ruling? and [2] how to deal with it as a playing*** TD (as in how to avoid cancelling one or more boards to avoid delay of game)?

On the basis given the way to proceed is as follows:

State that your finding of agreed facts are that X LOOT to T6. A table ruling was made that it was not accepted and the errant card was to be returned to hand without penalty. The errant card was not returned to hand but was mixed with the quitted cards and there was subsequent play, it now being T13 where now X has no card to contribute.

On this basis rule that play to date stands and that L67B requires the errant card is to be removed from the quitted cards and returned to hand. Verify agreement that the card is the correct one and require that play continue, and**, any other issues [such as L67/64 and PPs] will be ruled upon later.

** The key to dealing with this situation is that the TD needs to know what must be done now and what can be done later: [as time is recognized as a factor and taking advantage of there being but one trick left- then require that play continue, record the number of tricks but not calculate a score (but instead write an R next to the sine for the round. Then require that the players record (this permits delaying a possible ruling) T5 thru T13, underlining the card led and circling the winning card, and putting a square around the errant card. Sign and date the record and return it (tell them where to find you!) before the next round.

Admonish the players to not start a board after the end of round warning is given.

The play record will be use to L64 issues and such]

*** when responding to a summons a playing TD attempts to avoid gaining information about hands he is scheduled to play later in hopes of avoiding artificial scores

[pran]

axman, on 2014-March-21, 16:25, said:

When presenting a question it is important to ask the question that you want answered.

For instance, you have two questions [1] what is the correct ruling? and [2] how to deal with it as a playing*** TD (as in how to avoid cancelling one or more boards to avoid delay of game)?

On the basis given the way to proceed is as follows:

State that your finding of agreed facts are that X LOOT to T6. A table ruling was made that it was not accepted and the errant card was to be returned to hand without penalty. The errant card was not returned to hand but was mixed with the quitted cards and there was subsequent play, it now being T13 where now X has no card to contribute.

On this basis rule that play to date stands and that L67B requires the errant card is to be removed from the quitted cards and returned to hand. Verify agreement that the card is the correct one and require that play continue, and**, any other issues [such as L67/64 and PPs] will be ruled upon later.

** The key to dealing with this situation is that the TD needs to know what must be done now and what can be done later: [as time is recognized as a factor and taking advantage of there being but one trick left- then require that play continue, record the number of tricks but not calculate a score (but instead write an R next to the sine for the round. Then require that the players record (this permits delaying a possible ruling) T5 thru T13, underlining the card led and circling the winning card, and putting a square around the errant card. Sign and date the record and return it (tell them where to find you!) before the next round.

Admonish the players to not start a board after the end of round warning is given.

The play record will be use to L64 issues and such]

*** when responding to a summons a playing TD attempts to avoid gaining information about hands he is scheduled to play later in hopes of avoiding artificial scores

This is a highly irregular, irresponsible and in fact illegal procedure by the Director.

He is supposed to use

Law 67B2 said:

a. When the offender has played more than one card to the defective trick, the Director inspects the played cards and requires the offender to restore to his hand all extra cards*, leaving among the played cards the one faced in playing to the defective trick (if the Director is unable to determine which card was faced, the offender leaves the highest ranking of the cards that he could legally have played to the trick). Ownership of the defective trick does not change.

b. A restored card is deemed to have belonged continuously to the offender’s hand, and a failure to have played it to an earlier trick may constitute a revoke.

* The Director should avoid, when possible, exposing a defender’s played cards, but if an extra card to be restored to a defender’s hand has been exposed, it becomes a penalty card (see Law 50).

The director may not leave it to the players to at a later time tell him which cards were played in what order, he must himself establish those facts on the spot, but this shall not take many Seconds if the players have properly complied with

Law 65C said:

Each player arranges his own cards in an orderly overlapping row in the sequence played, so as to permit review of the play after its completion, if necessary to determine the number of tricks won by each side or the order in which the cards were played.

And be aware of

Law 65D said:

A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to comply with the provisions of this Law jeopardises his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke.

[blackshoe]

One suggestion I found useful when I first began directing: in addition to your copy of the law book, carry a pen or pencil and a spiral notebook (a small pocket size is most convenient, but a 5"x8" is better for writing room). Then you can right down the pertinent facts in case a ruling needs to be reviewed later.

In this case I would write down the quitted tricks myself. If that means I can't later play the board, well, I accepted that possibility when I decided to be a playing director. I would also have the players finish trick 13 before I started the review of quitted tricks.

Sven is correct about the letter of the law, but I think "highly irregular and irresponsible" is a bit over the top. I might have said "irregular" and left it at that.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-22, 13:15, said:

If that means I can't later play the board, well, I accepted that possibility when I decided to be a playing director.

I don't know the situation at the OP's club, but at our local club a playing director in such a position would be entitled to A+, since it doesn't seem fair to punish people for volunteering. That is a good way to run out of volunteers!