PeterAlan, on 2023-February-07, 17:58, said:
I was being stupid in a hasty reply - of course, E, whilst on lead, is not the partner of a player with a major penalty card.
But I'm still not understanding your reason for thinking that ♣6 has become a major penalty card - what am I missing? You say "Third: E has led ♣6 before the TD was called and had given the declarer the opportunity to require E to play clubs or prohibit to do so." Yes, ♣6 was led to trick 3, but in the normal course of play before there was any reason to suppose that there had been a revoke - W didn't expose either the ♣9 or the ♦7 until after ♣6 was led - and it was only later that this reason for calling the TD arose. It seems to me that ♣6 remains led to trick 3 and never becomes a major penalty card. What do you think I am missing? Why would the TD ever be trying to give the declarer the option you mention?
Certainly in this case it is splitting hairs, the
♣6 is the lead in trick three, either as the legally played card or as MPC. But any card of a defender that’s exposed becomes a PC, unless it was played in the normal course of play (Law 49). But there has been an irregularity, the revoke. Exactly when attention was drawn to the revoke isn’t clear, before E led or at the same moment or later. In the first case it certainly is a MPC, the play stopped until the TD had given his decision. About the the second situation the Laws are silent.
In case there’s A MPC the declarer should get the option to require or forbid the lead of the suit of the MPC. Here’s a MPC, caused by the establshed revoke which in its turn was caused by the play of
♣6. If this is ‘normal play’ or exposing a card not in normal play, which makes it a MPC, doesn’t matter, the card is or should be played. That effectively means that the Laws rob the declarer of the right to require or forbid the play of clubs
.
I looks like the WBFLC didn’t think about this common situation. It’s quite normal for a player who revokes to draw attention to the revoke by saying so and showing the card that should have been played while the partner already played in the next trick, as is the case here. Its consequence is, that the TD should decide after the play that the NOS was damaged or not.
To be honest, I never looked at the situation in the way I describe now. I just let the play continue, tell the players the number of tricks that should go to the NOS and to call me if they thought it was not enough to restore equity.
Well, my question is, what am I missing, too?