[jallerton]

A correspondent writes:

The facts: Declarer, South, had Qxxxx of a suit in Dummy and the bare 10 in hand. She called for a small one from dummy and East played the J. West was asleep and thought the J was the lead, so seeing Dummy's Q she played the K. She realised her mistake, panicked, and attempted to substitute a small card. The Director was not called. There was a little discussion and when the trick had been turned E led the A. Declarer was also asleep and accepted the lead, while still believing the K had been played. When she later attempted to cash Dummy's Q she was upset to see the K reappear.

Now the TD is called to the table. How should the TD rule and under what Law(s)?

[pran]

The most important law here is Law 11A which begins: 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.

South did not call the Director, nor did he (apparently) object when West (illegally, see Laws 45A and 57F2) substituted a card to the first trick in question.

So East eventually remained on the lead and led his Ace to the second trick in turn. Finally West had his King available for the third trick.

Being asleep is no excuse for any player, but I consider the possibility of honouring both sides with a PP in the hope that this will assist them in remembering to call the Director in the future?

[RMB1]

Who offended here? West, who played the king and then attempted to change it.

Did declarer offend? South was confused by West and thought he had played King; but South had played the King. South accepted a lead out of turn. Neither of these are offences.

Law 45 tells us the King is played. Even if it was inadvertent, the King is a major penalty card and would have to played to the first trick. I would restore the King to the first trick. If the substituted small card had been seen by East then it is a major penalty card (exposed deliberately) and must be played at the first legal opportunity - so must be played when West is following to the Queen.

There may be further rectification due because the penalty card was not subject of the appropriate penalties following the first trick.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2010-December-09, 02:27, said:

Who offended here? West, who played the king and then attempted to change it.

Sure (Law 47F2)

RMB1, on 2010-December-09, 02:27, said:

Did declarer offend?

Sure (Law 9B)

RMB1, on 2010-December-09, 02:27, said:

South was confused by West and thought he had played King; but South had played the King.

Typo? South played no King.

RMB1, on 2010-December-09, 02:27, said:

South accepted a lead out of turn. Neither of these are offences.

South actually "accepted" West's replacement of the King with a small card and consequentially that East had the lead to the following trick.
While not neccessarily offences these certainly are irregularities contributing to the final result on the board.

RMB1, on 2010-December-09, 02:27, said:

Law 45 tells us the King is played. Even if it was inadvertent, the King is a major penalty card and would have to played to the first trick. I would restore the King to the first trick. If the substituted small card had been seen by East then it is a major penalty card (exposed deliberately) and must be played at the first legal opportunity - so must be played when West is following to the Queen.

And this is obviously how the director should rule if he had been called properly.
More specifically he would have ruled the King played, so West now has the lead and must play the small card he tried to substitute (this card "could have been seen by East"). Thus the second trick would go to the Queen, and from thereon we know nothing of what would have happened.
(Note that with a major penalty card in West, South has his options when East has the lead.)
But here we have two tricks played subsequent to the irregularity before the director is called. The director has a next to impossible task if he tries to establish equity, because if he had been called properly the chances are high that the next two tricks might even have been completely different from what was played at the table.

Both West and South committed irregularities, now they must take their medicine. (There is also a matter of Law 74B1 here)

RMB1, on 2010-December-09, 02:27, said:

There may be further rectification due because the penalty card was not subject of the appropriate penalties following the first trick.

No further rectification, but quite likely some procedure penalties.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2010-December-09, 03:23, said:

South actually "accepted" West's replacement of the King with a small card and consequentially that East had the lead to the following trick.

You cannot accept something if you did not see it happen. The surprise at seeing the king later in the play strongly suggests that South accepted a lead out of turn and not a retraction of the card played.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2010-December-09, 03:23, said:

The director has a next to impossible task if he tries to establish equity, because if he had been called properly the chances are high that the next two tricks might even have been completely different from what was played at the table.

While I am not convinced that this approach is correct, if correct I do not see it as next to impossible, just as fairly normal and easy enough. He just makes an adjustment after the hand based on weightings and probabilities, quoting Laws 12A1 and 12C1C.

But like the other posters it is not so clear to me that this is the correct approach. I am not really sure what happened from the OP. Perhaps Jeffrey could explain what declarer saw and what happened as far declarer was concerned.

[jallerton]

Declarer didn't know the card was changed. She knew an attempt had been made to change the card, but believed that attempt had been abandoned when challenged.

[bluejak]

Of course now we have the problem that declarer did only one thing wrong: she did not call the TD. In general, acting on one's own belief is just tough luck if one's belief turns out to be wrong.

It's a mess. Declarer did not knowledgeably condone the substituted card, and yet ....

Perhaps we could point out that the defender's substitution without calling the TD, being an infraction, certainly could have disadvantaged the opponents so we adjust under Law 23?

I have a horrible feeling that we might finish up ruling for the defence if we are not careful, and declarer will have learnt the hard way about calling the TD. In some ways I do not mind her getting a bad score to teach her to call the TD, but surely the defence should not gain. PPs? Split scores?

[pran]

bluejak, on 2010-December-11, 09:55, said:

Of course now we have the problem that declarer did only one thing wrong: she did not call the TD. In general, acting on one's own belief is just tough luck if one's belief turns out to be wrong.

It's a mess. Declarer did not knowledgeably condone the substituted card, and yet ....

Perhaps we could point out that the defender's substitution without calling the TD, being an infraction, certainly could have disadvantaged the opponents so we adjust under Law 23?

I have a horrible feeling that we might finish up ruling for the defence if we are not careful, and declarer will have learnt the hard way about calling the TD. In some ways I do not mind her getting a bad score to teach her to call the TD, but surely the defence should not gain. PPs? Split scores?

Just to repeat what I have already indicated: I cannot avoid the suspicion that West's replacement of the card played was deliberatly done in such a way as to hope that it would pass unnoticed.

I am certainly not happy about this feeling because I have only one word for it if it is justified: Cheating.

Aside from that I agree that the whole situation is a mess, with both sides (more or less) responsible.

[mycroft]

bluejak, on 2010-December-11, 09:55, said:

Of course now we have the problem that declarer did only one thing wrong: she did not call the TD. In general, acting on one's own belief is just tough luck if one's belief turns out to be wrong.
[...]
I have a horrible feeling that we might finish up ruling for the defence if we are not careful, and declarer will have learnt the hard way about calling the TD. In some ways I do not mind her getting a bad score to teach her to call the TD, but surely the defence should not gain. PPs? Split scores?

Well, defenders also failed to call the TD, so I can't see giving declarer the short end of the stick if we don't give defenders (who clearly are more at fault) their short end as well. I like a split score, but I'm more prone to "double-bad" than many of my colleagues. I certainly think that a penalty is in store for the defenders, no matter what - and if they knew that calling the TD would have led to them not being able to do it (whether or not that was why they tried to correct without the TD), it'll be a pretty stiff one.

[jallerton]

This incident occurred at a local club. South and West have been described to me as "little old ladies". Does that affect anyone's atiitude towards awarding procedural penalties?

Quote

Of course now we have the problem that declarer did only one thing wrong: she did not call the TD. In general, acting on one's own belief is just tough luck if one's belief turns out to be wrong.

What are the consequences for failing to call the TD you are aware that an opponent has committed an irregularity?

Law 11 says:

Quote

LAW 11 - FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO RECTIFICATION

A. 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.

B. Penalty after Forfeiture of the Right to Rectification

Even after the right to rectification has been forfeited under this Law, the Director may assess a procedural penalty (see Law 90).

I understand that declarer was aware of the exposed card (the penalty card), but not of any other irregularity. Under Law 11A, it seems to me that South may (should?) forfeit her right to take advantage of the Law 50 penalty card rules.

Quote

It's a mess. Declarer did not knowledgeably condone the substituted card, and yet ....

.....but as South was apparently not aware that (i) the originally played card had been restored to West's hand and that (ii) a non-played card had been added to West's pile of "played" cards, why should South be punished in any way for that?

So, it looks to me as though a relatively simple and legal ruling would be:

1. ♣K is restored to the original trick, because Law 45 tells us it was "played". As Robin says, even if it was inadvertent, the King is a major penalty card and would have to played to the first trick.

2. Although the attempted substituted card would have been a penalty card has the TD been called immediately, South has forfeited her right to take advantage of the small club being a penalty card at that time (and it would be impracticable to rewind the play by several tricks).

3. At the TD's option (I think), the small card could become a penalty card now. This will make little difference as West would probably contribute this small club to this trick in any case.

4. West should receive a procedural penalty for changing her card illegally (and for not calling the TD).

5. South could also receive a procedural penalty, but it would have to be for a lesser amount that West's; in the club/LOL context, maybe a warning would suffice.

[bluejak]

The attitude to penalties generally that I advocate is:

• If the players are relatively inexperienced or silly a warning is nearly always enough.
  
• If no other table is affected a warning is nearly always enough.

On the other hand, be wary of assuming that other players do not know what they are doing. A cautionary tale from about ten years ago. I was playing with a local partner in a Welsh event. Two elderly ladies sit down at the start of the round. My partner - usually very tactful with ladies - made some remark or other.

"Do you know, dear," said one of the opponents to her partner, "I think these nice young men think we are little old ladies."

"But we are, dear," her partner gently reminded her.

It came as no surprise to either of us when we were thrashed over the three boards.

If players are experienced club players, and not silly, I think penalties are under-used when other players are disadvantaged, even when they are "little old ladies".

When other tables are not involved, but players take an action which severely discommodes their current opponents, again I think penalties are under-used.