When is a PC not a PC?
I'm sure we've all come across this at Club sessions and probably even tournaments for us that direct those too:
You are called to the table to be told that defender has a penalty card on table and their partner is now on lead and could you please explain declarer's rights.
What is the view of others how to proceed?
Personally, I ask how it is a penalty card and am usually told there was an unestablished revoke. I then ask who ruled that it was a penalty card. This is usually met with silence at which point I instruct defender to pick up the card and player on lead to continue leading whatever they like. I explain that as the director didn't rule it was a penalty card, it is not actually a penalty card. (I often also find out that it is dummy who initiated the call and remind them of the rules against this too).
Do others take this approach?
I actively discourage self-directing and at tournament level especially am very tough on it.
Latest Posts on this Thread
- Dougal WATSON14 Jun 2019 at 01:24PM
> Do others take this approach?
I do not think I’d take that approach. Unless there was something else very irregular I’d probably explain declarer’s rights as relate to a major penalty card and let them get on with their hand.
I’d then take the opportunity, and the next shift, to caution players to please call the director when stuff happens … so they do not inadvertently find themselves disadvantaged by at-table decisions (and besides, being called helps me stay awake).
As I see it, explained a little more below, that card is a penalty card and so declarer has some rights that they need to be aware of.
> I explain that as the director didn't rule it was a penalty card, it is not actually a penalty card
Law 50 includes “A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise”. My reading of this is that it does not require the director to rule the card as being a penalty card. Quite the converse, it *is* a penalty card unless the director rules otherwise.
See also, Law 62B1: “To correct a revoke the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card. A card so withdrawn becomes a major penalty card if it was played from a defender’s unfaced hand.”
> … am usually told there was an unestablished revoke.
Whether or not a revoke is established does not influence that card being a penalty card. Establishing a revoke does alter other aspects of the remedy, but not whether or not the exposed card is a penalty card.
Of course, if it was led by a defender then their revoke becomes established.
Am I missing anything important here?
- Ed Roggeveen14 Jun 2019 at 01:53PM
How about Law 9B After Attention is Drawn to an Irregularity
1(a). The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.
2. No player shall take action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.
- Dougal WATSON14 Jun 2019 at 03:17PM
Yes, sure, but that does not change the fact of that card being a penalty card ... whether or not the revoke was established.
You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Click here to log in.
