[BudH]

As Director in an open club game, I arrive at the table with defender South's club jack (CJ) faced and North's club 8 (C8) also faced after completion of trick 4. I am told the contract is 2S by West with South on lead, but North led the C8 out of turn followed a second or two later by South's CJ. South did not notice North's C8 lead, as you would suspect. In my opinion, they were not nearly simultaneous (Law 58A), so North's
C8 was led before South's CJ.

West accepts the North's out of turn C8 lead, plays the CQ from dummy, and South has to follow with the major penalty card CJ.

End of ruling and I leave the table. Or so I thought.

A minute later, I am called to the same table and learn after trick 8 South holds one card more than the other three players. The players then remember South's CJ from before was not really a lead out of turn, but was the card that won the trick prior to North's C8 lead out of turn. Contrary to what both sides told me previously. So South failed to play a card to trick 4 (the CJ should have been part of trick 4) and the CJ was instead part of trick 5.

Players in my club know I am a student of the laws, so when they saw me looking through a law book, they knew this must have been an unusual and/or uncommon ruling. I did find it difficult to find the correct law reference for this (I initially checked LAW 13 - INCORRECT NUMBER OF CARDS and LAW 14 - MISSING CARD unsuccessfully) but finally found it in Law 67 - DEFECTIVE TRICK:

Law 67B1(a) - "When the Director determines that there has 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); both sides having played to the next trick, he proceeds as follows: When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the Director shall require him forthwith to expose a card face-up in front of him and then place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); if the offender has a card of the suit led to the defective trick; he must choose such a card to place among his played cards. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2."

South had at least one club, so I had her show the club card face up for all the other players to see, then had her put it with her quitted tricks face down in the trick 4 position. (Note the law never says to turn the card face down!) Declarer gained a one trick transfer after play was completed.

It's been a long time since I had to take more than 2 or 3 minutes to find the correct law reference for a ruling. I was fairly sure it was going to be a "deemed to have revoked" situation with a one trick transfer, but still needed to find it in the book.

With regards to the earlier incorrect information, should the declaring side in some way be penalized for having a part in what happened earlier with the CJ "lead" by South that wasn't really a lead, even though the defenders did not refute the facts given to me at the time on my initial call to the table?

NOTE TO SELF - CONFIRMING HOW MANY CARDS EACH PLAYER HELD AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL RULING WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SECOND CALL TO THE TABLE!

[pran]

Well done!

I would say that your rulings were correct in every respect.
1: You were told at the table that North led the C8 at his partner's turn to lead.
Had the two leads been simultaneous then Law 58A would apply.
Now Law 56 applies on the C8, and Law 49 (Major penalty card) applies on the CJ.
2: When South is eventually found to have an extra card in his hand and his trick 4 was missing one card then Law 67B1a applies.

[barmar]

BudH, on 2018-July-22, 13:17, said:

(Note the law never says to turn the card face down!)

It says to place it "appropriately" among the played cards. If it were face up it wouldn't be appropriate.

[axman]

BudH, on 2018-July-22, 13:17, said:

As Director in an open club game, I arrive at the table with defender South's club jack (CJ) faced and North's club 8 (C8) also faced after completion of trick 4. I am told the contract is 2S by West with South on lead, but North led the C8 out of turn followed a second or two later by South's CJ. South did not notice North's C8 lead, as you would suspect. In my opinion, they were not nearly simultaneous (Law 58A), so North's
C8 was led before South's CJ.

West accepts the North's out of turn C8 lead, plays the CQ from dummy, and South has to follow with the major penalty card CJ.

End of ruling and I leave the table. Or so I thought.

A minute later, I am called to the same table and learn after trick 8 South holds one card more than the other three players. The players then remember South's CJ from before was not really a lead out of turn, but was the card that won the trick prior to North's C8 lead out of turn. Contrary to what both sides told me previously. So South failed to play a card to trick 4 (the CJ should have been part of trick 4) and the CJ was instead part of trick 5.

Players in my club know I am a student of the laws, so when they saw me looking through a law book, they knew this must have been an unusual and/or uncommon ruling. I did find it difficult to find the correct law reference for this (I initially checked LAW 13 - INCORRECT NUMBER OF CARDS and LAW 14 - MISSING CARD unsuccessfully) but finally found it in Law 67 - DEFECTIVE TRICK:

Law 67B1(a) - "When the Director determines that there has 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); both sides having played to the next trick, he proceeds as follows: When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the Director shall require him forthwith to expose a card face-up in front of him and then place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); if the offender has a card of the suit led to the defective trick; he must choose such a card to place among his played cards. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2."

South had at least one club, so I had her show the club card face up for all the other players to see, then had her put it with her quitted tricks face down in the trick 4 position. (Note the law never says to turn the card face down!) Declarer gained a one trick transfer after play was completed.

It's been a long time since I had to take more than 2 or 3 minutes to find the correct law reference for a ruling. I was fairly sure it was going to be a "deemed to have revoked" situation with a one trick transfer, but still needed to find it in the book.

With regards to the earlier incorrect information, should the declaring side in some way be penalized for having a part in what happened earlier with the CJ "lead" by South that wasn't really a lead, even though the defenders did not refute the facts given to me at the time on my initial call to the table?

NOTE TO SELF - CONFIRMING HOW MANY CARDS EACH PLAYER HELD AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL RULING WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SECOND CALL TO THE TABLE!

If I have not missed anything, it was agreed that the CJ was first exposed at least 1s after the c8???

For this to have been the case, when the c8 was exposed it was not south's turn to lead. Further, the c8 was a second card by north exposed during the 4th trick.

[pran]

axman, on 2018-July-23, 15:26, said:

If I have not missed anything, it was agreed that the CJ was first exposed at least 1s after the c8???

For this to have been the case, when the c8 was exposed it was not south's turn to lead. Further, the c8 was a second card by north exposed during the 4th trick.

As I understand OP South won trick 4 with his CJ.

North then "led" (out of turn) to trick 5 with his C8, after which South picked up(?) his CJ again and led this CJ to trick 5. Then the Director was summoned.

West now chose to accept the lead out of turn, with the consequence that the CJ became a major penalty card and also that trick 4 became a defective trick.

(I can only wonder what was going on in South's mind here?)

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2018-July-23, 15:59, said:

(I can only wonder what was going on in South's mind here?)

Not much, apparently.

[blackshoe]

BudH, on 2018-July-22, 13:17, said:

South had at least one club, so I had her show the club card face up for all the other players to see, then had her put it with her quitted tricks face down in the trick 4 position. (Note the law never says to turn the card face down!)

Law 65A.

[axman]

pran, on 2018-July-22, 15:50, said:

Well done!

I would say that your rulings were correct in every respect.
1: You were told at the table that North led the C8 at his partner's turn to lead.
Had the two leads been simultaneous then Law 58A would apply.
Now Law 56 applies on the C8, and Law 49 (Major penalty card) applies on the CJ.
2: When South is eventually found to have an extra card in his hand and his trick 4 was missing one card then Law 67B1a applies.

Without knowing who said what and when it was said. The cJ was played first to T4 and then T5. When the cJ is restored to T4, it is T5 that to which no card was played- even though indeed a card was played. Ownership of T4 is determined by the cards played to it (cJ).

The remedy is specified by:

67B 3. When the Director determines that the offender did play a card to the trick, but that was not placed among the quitted tricks, the Director finds the card and places it correctly among the offender's played cards. The Director **shall award an adjusted score** if the card was played to a subsequent trick and it is too late to correct the illegal play.

But it appears that there was serious TD error involved.

[BudH]

axman, on 2018-July-24, 11:01, said:

Without knowing who said what and when it was said. The cJ was played first to T4 and then T5. When the cJ is restored to T4, it is T5 that to which no card was played- even though indeed a card was played. Ownership of T4 is determined by the cards played to it (cJ).

The remedy is specified by:

67B 3. When the Director determines that the offender did play a card to the trick, but that was not placed among the quitted tricks, the Director finds the card and places it correctly among the offender's played cards. The Director **shall award an adjusted score** if the card was played to a subsequent trick and it is too late to correct the illegal play.

But it appears that there was serious TD error involved.

I stand corrected. I never saw B3 and I agree that is what should have been used, and it appears an adjusted score should have been awarded.

Annoying from my standpoint that I contributed initially from the CJ being a penalty card (due to what the players told me) and if I had taken a count of how many cards each player held, it likely would have been caught prior to the insanity that was identified a few minutes later.

[axman]

BudH, on 2018-July-25, 19:59, said:

I stand corrected. I never saw B3 and I agree that is what should have been used, and it appears an adjusted score should have been awarded.

Annoying from my standpoint that I contributed initially from the CJ being a penalty card (due to what the players told me) and if I had taken a count of how many cards each player held, it likely would have been caught prior to the insanity that was identified a few minutes later.

Two things to think about as a TD.
1. This adj score business is not well conceived.
2. Just how does one go about ascertaining a player has LOOT prior to issuing a ruling on that basis?

[pran]

axman, on 2018-July-26, 12:22, said:

Two things to think about as a TD.
1. This adj score business is not well conceived.
2. Just how does one go about ascertaining a player has LOOT prior to issuing a ruling on that basis?

2: You listen to what the players tell you and rule according to that unless you notice any discrepancy or disagreement.