[H_KARLUK]

---

Hi all,

This is a side suit (clubs) . Declarer played Ace, then said she did not intend to play that card and wanted to take it back. I as South played small out of turn (before my partner played).

Dummy called the TD.

Ruling : North should play highest card under Ace!

Could anyone interpret please? I really couldn't see any damage for declarer and want to understand the reasoning behind that decision.

Thanks.

[blackshoe]

This thread should probably be moved to the Simple Rulings forum.

Your director is an idiot.

First, declarer played a card and then "wanted to take it back". If so stating constitutes drawing attention to an irregularity (I think it does) then there is no problem with the dummy calling the director. However, if it does not, then the director call was illegal (Law 43A1{a} and {b}). Still, the TD must rule in accordance with the laws on declarer's desire to change his play, and on South's play out of turn.

Regarding the first, the card is played, and cannot be withdrawn, unless declarer can convince the TD that he didn't intend, at the time he played it, to play the ace of clubs. That's a prospect I find highly unlikely, but I would still investigate. Apparently the TD at the table decided it was not an unintended play, so let it stand (there is no evidence he did any investigation, but that may have been oversight in the OP).

Regarding the second (here's where we get to the "idiot" part), South's exposed card is a major penalty card (Law 49) to be played at South's first legal opportunity (Law 50). THERE IS NO LAW ALLOWING THE TD TO REQUIRE THAT NORTH PLAY ANY PARTICULAR CARD. North can play whatever he likes, although he has UI from knowledge of what the penalty is (knowledge that there is a penalty card, which is a different thing, is AI to North, see Law 50E).

I am curious about one thing, though: why did you play out of turn?

Given that the TD has made this execrable ruling, he should apply Law 82C, possibly adjusting the score and treating both sides as non-offending in doing so.

[H_KARLUK]

blackshoe, on Oct 4 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

I am curious about one thing, though: why did you play out of turn?

Well, i am sorry if posted in wrong forum.

I thought it doesn't matter when an eventual winner played. Really does it matters?

Thanks for your time.

[blackshoe]

Not wrong to post here, just better to keep things in the forum designated for whatever the topic is - in this case a ruling.

It does matter. Perhaps not so much in this particular case, but routinely playing out of turn because you "know" who's going to win the trick will get you in trouble sooner or later, and besides, this is an easy rule to follow (play in your correct turn) so why not follow it?

[H_KARLUK]

You are quite right. Honestly, I am OK with rules. Anyways, I think 'eventual winner' is a simple exception.

I asked TD to show me his basis in a polite language. Right that moment pointed out to take a look for the handbook he holds.

-----

Premature Lead or Play by Defender - Law 57

Declarer's options : When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick or plays of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card. Declarer has three options:
1. He may require offender's partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led.
2. He may require offender's partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led.
3. He may prohibit offender's partner from playing a card of a different specific suit.

Note : When offender's partner is unable to comply with the choice made by declarer, he may play any legal card.

When a defender plays before his partner, there is no penalty:
1. If declarer has played from both hands
2. If dummy has played a card on his own inititative or illegally suggested that it be played.

Note : A singleton in dummy or a group of cards in the same suit which are equal in rank is not considered to be automatically played.

-----

(My review, my opinion) I think it would be nice to redefine item When a defender plays before his partner, there is no penalty:
"If declarer has played an eventual winner card in a correct turn from ANY hands before offender while both defenders able to follow the suit ".

*****
If main concern is to keep the unity of field in a fair way, then how come it is possible to assign a contract or give a ruling to bring about plus one while impossible to make it for any World Grandmaster?

Really. in such circumstances, punishment does not have influence on the field while the running event was MPs?
*****
As a simple soul, I am quite sure circumstances easily alter the case

ps. Sorry, English is not my parent language. I sincerely hope that I did not make much grammar error.

[cherdanno]

H_KARLUK, on Oct 4 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 4 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

I am curious about one thing, though: why did you play out of turn?

Well, i am sorry if posted in wrong forum.

I thought it doesn't matter when an eventual winner played. Really does it matters?

Thanks for your time.

Of course it does. Maybe the suit layout is

---

Declarer (West) least the 9, and partner is thinking about playing the king. But when he sees your ace, of course he won't.

[H_KARLUK]

cherdanno, on Oct 5 2009, 12:20 AM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Oct 4 2009, 07:22 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 4 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

I am curious about one thing, though: why did you play out of turn?

Well, i am sorry if posted in wrong forum.

I thought it doesn't matter when an eventual winner played. Really does it matters?

Thanks for your time.

Of course it does. Maybe the suit layout is

---

Declarer (West) least the 9, and partner is thinking about playing the king. But when he sees your ace, of course he won't.

Sorry, I think I said 'when an eventual winner played'. Seems there is a misunderstanding about START POINT

Do you really think 9 is an eventual winner in your layout?
Maybe you wanted to point out 'playing out of turn' when there are options.

Do you really advocate anything matters when Ace cashed in correct turn? Perhaps 'obvious', 'very clear'.

Of course Yes or of course No?

[jeffford76]

Technically the director should have offered a choice to declarer, but the choice declarer will make is obvious and the one that was enforced. It's a really bad idea to play out of turn as defender.

LAW 57 - PREMATURE LEAD OR PLAY
A. Premature Play or Lead to Next Trick
When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to
the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the
card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects
one of the following options. He may:
1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit
led, or
2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit
led, or
3. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by
declarer.

[blackshoe]

It seems that I read Law 57 too quickly before my previous post. Law 57 does indeed give declarer options. I do stand by my previous statement that no law gives any of these options to the TD.

[H_KARLUK]

I think the best should be :

When there is no damage then no penalties.

Whenever there is a penalty bringing tricks to normal result without any skill the field auto suffers.

Seriously, why anybody never tries just to rectify the loss with same amount?

And I think nobody cares to bypass any wrong going thing

[barmar]

Some of the Laws prescribe rectification that's easy to apply, so that the TD doesn't have to try to figure out exactly what the damage was so that he can restore equity. An example is the revoke law, which simply transfers a set number of tricks to the non-offending side.

However, if damage is more severe, the Laws do allow him to restore equity.

If you want to debate what the laws SHOULD be, rather than learn how to apply them as they ARE, use the "Changing Laws" forum.

[barmar]

Rhetorical question: How did you play out of turn in a BBO tourney (see the forum name)?

[H_KARLUK]

Penalties have an universal feature : they are individual.
For example, say somebody charged, it's out of issue to sentence relatives, friends etc when they are clean.

Okay, bridge is a partnership game.

The question should be : why need to give EXTRA advantages for offended players instead of just trying to rectify the damage in equal amount course?

I don't think everybody need to learn Bridge Laws. One can play more carefully to avoid penalties. In practice that does not help so much. You make a reasonable, flat contract. Then suddenly you see your score is not bright. Bcos somebody somewhere distracted, simply out of turn played etc, so the room suffered with any punishment.

Point taken? I know most probably no "rational" response to the idea. Np.

If you care to serve justice and fairplay, then you should not harm innocent people with not much healthy rulings.

It seems you skipped to follow whole posts. Let me repeat :
(My review, my opinion) I think it would be nice to redefine item When a defender plays before his partner, there is no penalty:
"If declarer has played an eventual winner card in a correct turn from ANY hands before offender while both defenders able to follow the suit ".

Perhaps I should use "obvious" instead of eventual. Sorry for my language barrier.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on Oct 4 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

Your director is an idiot.

I think that's an unfortunate comment, and one that's not going to encourage other players to want to become directors.

Quote

the card is played, and cannot be withdrawn, unless declarer can convince the TD that he didn't intend, at the time he played it, to play the ace of clubs.

Which law says this?

Quote

North can play whatever he likes, although he has UI from knowledge of what the penalty is

As you've acknowledged in a later post, this is not correct, which makes the following comment even worse.

Quote

the TD has made this execrable ruling,

I don't want this to seem like an attack on you, Ed, but there is an undesirable tendency of some on these forums (not usually you) to issue personal criticisms of directors involved in rulings, rather than focussing on discussing the rulings themselves. I think we would all gain from being polite about directors, while having the freedom to discuss their rulings in as robust terms as required.

[blackshoe]

I don't usually dump on rulings online - after all, I make mistakes too. Guess I was having a bad day. So I apologize to our readers, and to the director concerned.

As I said upthread, I misread Law 57. Still, it gives the options it gives to the player, not the director, so when the director ruled that the club K had to be played under the Ace, he was wrong to do so.

Which law says the declarer can change his play? None. I was really having a bad day. Sheesh.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on Oct 6 2009, 11:15 PM, said:

Still, it gives the options it gives to the player, not the director, so when the director ruled that the club K had to be played under the Ace, he was wrong to do so.

I agree

[peachy]

H_KARLUK, on Oct 4 2009, 10:12 PM, said:

*****
If main concern is to keep the unity of field in a fair way, then how come it is possible to assign a contract or give a ruling to bring about plus one while impossible to make it for any World Grandmaster?

Really. in such circumstances, punishment does not have influence on the field while the running event was MPs?
*****

The "field protection" and "unity of the field" are completely irrelevant and have nothing to do with a table ruling. TD must not consider the field when he makes a ruling, no law allows him to do that.

I don't know why this "field protection" thingy keeps popping up in opinions.

[H_KARLUK]

peachy, on Oct 7 2009, 03:44 AM, said:

The "field protection" and "unity of the field" are completely irrelevant and have nothing to do with a table ruling.  TD must not consider the field when he makes a ruling, no law allows him to do that.

I don't know why this "field protection" thingy keeps popping up in opinions.

Sorry, okay you tell what you believe.

Maybe you have an answer :

(I posted in same thread somewhere above)
The question should be : why need to give EXTRA advantages for offended players instead of just trying to rectify the damage in equal amount course?

I don't think everybody need to learn Bridge Laws. One can play more carefully to avoid penalties. In practice that does not help so much. You make a reasonable, flat contract. Then suddenly you see your score is not bright. Bcos somebody somewhere distracted, simply out of turn played etc, so the room suffered with any punishment.

[barmar]

H_KARLUK, on Oct 7 2009, 09:29 PM, said:

The question should be : why need to give EXTRA advantages for offended players instead of just trying to rectify the damage in equal amount course?

Although the primary goal of the laws is to restore equity, a secondary goal of some of them is to punish offenders, as a deterrent.

For example, the law on revokes may require the offending side to forfeit one trick won after the revoke, even if the revoke had nothing to do with winning that trick. This way, the TD doesn't have to try to figure out how the play would have gone without the revoke.

[H_KARLUK]

barmar, on Oct 8 2009, 02:19 AM, said:

H_KARLUK, on Oct 7 2009, 09:29 PM, said:

The question should be : why need to give EXTRA advantages for offended players instead of just trying to rectify the damage in equal amount course?

Although the primary goal of the laws is to restore equity, a secondary goal of some of them is to punish offenders, as a deterrent.

For example, the law on revokes may require the offending side to forfeit one trick won after the revoke, even if the revoke had nothing to do with winning that trick. This way, the TD doesn't have to try to figure out how the play would have gone without the revoke.

Maybe in justice is all virtues found in sum. If you believe justice begins next door then np.

I think some guys simply believe that a good match blows fire. Funny!

Wait a minute, seems they'll only remember the well's value when it becomes dry.

It shouldn't be hard to assign private penalties & handicaps without disturbing the field. Firstly check other scores, make your adjustment and keep equity for damaged board. Then say offender pair scored 50 % MPs at the end of event, just pull down to ie 49.75 % while the clean players remain their scores. I think that would be more fair deterrent factor.

Meanwhile, we should either challenge under old library silence or in a social way. It's really not easy to stay concentrated on 2nd. Believe or not, in practice each time extra efforts required