[BudH]

As director in an ACBL open club game (still in progress as I am typing this), I am called to the table and learn dummy called me about a defender's lead out of turn early in the play. I asked if any of the other three players drew attention to the lead out of turn before I was called. None of the other three players had drawn attention to the defender's lead out of turn.

I ruled (apparently incorrectly) that the lead out of turn stood and declarer did not have the option to accept it or not. Then I looked (during the next round) at Law 43B3 and saw the "play continues as though no irregularity had occurred" only applies after a violation of Law 43A2 (exchange hands, leave seat, or look at defender' hand) and not after a violation of Law 43A1 (which includes dummy drawing attention improperly to an irregularity).

The violations of Law 43B1 only mentions Law 90 (Procedural Penalties) for the penalty of this violation. It appears you might be able to apply Law 90A ("Director’s Authority -
The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences
other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score.").

It seems to me that in some cases, the results for both sides won't change, but in other cases, the defense might start a defensive crossruff which would not have occurred. (In my case, dummy was on lead and it was declarer's RHO who led out of turn.)

What is the ruling you would give if (1) it didn't matter how many tricks each side won or (2) it cause the defenders to score at least one extra trick if the lead out of turn was allowed to stand?

[pran]

BudH, on 2019-June-03, 13:16, said:

As director in an ACBL open club game (still in progress as I am typing this), I am called to the table and learn dummy called me about a defender's lead out of turn early in the play. I asked if any of the other three players drew attention to the lead out of turn before I was called. None of the other three players had drawn attention to the defender's lead out of turn.

I ruled (apparently incorrectly) that the lead out of turn stood and declarer did not have the option to accept it or not. Then I looked (during the next round) at Law 43B3 and saw the "play continues as though no irregularity had occurred" only applies after a violation of Law 43A2 (exchange hands, leave seat, or look at defender' hand) and not after a violation of Law 43A1 (which includes dummy drawing attention improperly to an irregularity).

The violations of Law 43B1 only mentions Law 90 (Procedural Penalties) for the penalty of this violation. It appears you might be able to apply Law 90A ("Director’s Authority -
The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences
other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score.").

It seems to me that in some cases, the results for both sides won't change, but in other cases, the defense might start a defensive crossruff which would not have occurred. (In my case, dummy was on lead and it was declarer's RHO who led out of turn.)

What is the ruling you would give if (1) it didn't matter how many tricks each side won or (2) it cause the defenders to score at least one extra trick if the lead out of turn was allowed to stand?

My personal understanding is that Law 43 is incomplete on how to handle this situation:

There are three possible scenarios:
a}: The defender's lead out of turn is never noticed, play proceeds and a ("normal") result is obtained.
b}: The defender's lead out of turn is noticed in a regular way and Law 56 applies with all it's consequences (MPC etc.)
c}: The defender's lead out of turn is first noticed and called attention to by Dummy.

a} and b} leads to no problem of any kind.

So how should the Director treat c} ?

With the present Law 43 I feel that the Director must proceed in exactly the same way as in b} but stand ready to impose a PP on dummy when play of the board is completed.

In my opinion this PP should leave the declaring side with their result as in a} above and the defending side with the actual table result (as in b} above).

Effectively this means that the Director should possibly assign an adjusted split score as in a} for the declaring side and b} for the defending side.

IF the irregularity has had no effect on the results then no adjusted score is needed but the Director should still impose a PP, now in the form of a warning to Dummy.

[blackshoe]

The director is enjoined to rectify irregularities in accordance with the law, no matter how the director becomes aware of them (Law 81C3). So he arrives at the table, finds that declarer's RHO has led out of turn, and that dummy was first to call attention to that irregularity (possibly by simply calling the director). So the director deals first with the LOOT. The fact that it was dummy who called him is not relevant; the irregularity is rectified as normal (Law 56). Dummy has still committed an irregularity. How do we handle that? Well, the breach was of Law 43A1{a} and possibly also 43A1{b}. Both of these say dummy "may not" do those things. Law 43B1 says dummy is liable for a procedural penalty (PP) for such breach. Of "may not" the introduction to the laws says 'Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong, but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”'. So it should incur a PP "more often than not", as discussed earlier in the same paragraph in the introduction in which the quote above appears. Because of this phrasing, I think dummy should get a PP in MPs unless he is clearly inexperienced, in which case he should get a warning and the director should ensure, if dummy does it again, that he gets a MP penalty. Whether a score adjustment was required is not relevant.

If the director has given an incorrect ruling, that is handled via Law 82C, Director's Error.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-June-03, 15:39, said:

The director is enjoined to rectify irregularities in accordance with the law, no matter how the director becomes aware of them (Law 81C3). So he arrives at the table, finds that declarer's RHO has led out of turn, and that dummy was first to call attention to that irregularity (possibly by simply calling the director). So the director deals first with the LOOT. The fact that it was dummy who called him is not relevant; the irregularity is rectified as normal (Law 56). Dummy has still committed an irregularity. How do we handle that? Well, the breach was of Law 43A1{a} and possibly also 43A1{b}. Both of these say dummy "may not" do those things. Law 43B1 says dummy is liable for a procedural penalty (PP) for such breach. Of "may not" the introduction to the laws says 'Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong, but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”'. So it should incur a PP "more often than not", as discussed earlier in the same paragraph in the introduction in which the quote above appears. Because of this phrasing, I think dummy should get a PP in MPs unless he is clearly inexperienced, in which case he should get a warning and the director should ensure, if dummy does it again, that he gets a MP penalty. Whether a score adjustment was required is not relevant.

If the director has given an incorrect ruling, that is handled via Law 82C, Director's Error.

A PP in MP should in my opinion (more or less) match the amount of MP gained by declaring side from having the irregularity rectified.
This is not as such a question of assigning an adjusted score but the effect is the same.

[sanst]

Let me get this right: there was a LOOT earlier in the play. It seems that that happened before the current trick. Somewhat later the dummy called the director, but the play hadn’t finished. Well, you can’t turn back the clock, which is covered biyLaw 11A, so there’s no rectification. Even if the OS has gained through the infraction, you’re not allowed to take that advantage away.
What you didn’t make clear in the post is, whether the dummy was the first to draw attention to the irregularity. If so, you might give a PP, but a warning is more than enough in this case. This infraction didn’t influence the outcome, since the play had already continued.

[pran]

sanst, on 2019-June-04, 01:45, said:

Let me get this right: there was a LOOT earlier in the play. It seems that that happened before the current trick. Somewhat later the dummy called the director, but the play hadn’t finished. Well, you can’t turn back the clock, which is covered biyLaw 11A, so there’s no rectification. Even if the OS has gained through the infraction, you’re not allowed to take that advantage away.
What you didn’t make clear in the post is, whether the dummy was the first to draw attention to the irregularity. If so, you might give a PP, but a warning is more than enough in this case. This infraction didn’t influence the outcome, since the play had already continued.

According to OP the Director was apparently called to the table at the time of the LOOT to which attention had been called by Dummy (alone).
The Director made his ruling but then posted the case here for possible comments.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2019-June-04, 00:38, said:

A PP in MP should in my opinion (more or less) match the amount of MP gained by declaring side from having the irregularity rectified.
This is not as such a question of assigning an adjusted score but the effect is the same.

I agree with Ed. PPs should not be a back door route to making a score adjustment that is not provided for in the Laws.

[BudH]

sanst, on 2019-June-04, 01:45, said:

Let me get this right: there was a LOOT earlier in the play. It seems that that happened before the current trick. Somewhat later the dummy called the director, but the play hadn’t finished. Well, you can’t turn back the clock, which is covered biyLaw 11A, so there’s no rectification. Even if the OS has gained through the infraction, you’re not allowed to take that advantage away.
What you didn’t make clear in the post is, whether the dummy was the first to draw attention to the irregularity. If so, you might give a PP, but a warning is more than enough in this case. This infraction didn’t influence the outcome, since the play had already continued.

I was called (by dummy) immediately after the defender’s LOOT.

Now that I’ve looked at the laws thoroughly, I think I should have enforced the LOOT and additionally penalized declarer’s side one matchpoint (on a 7 top) as dummy should have known better.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2019-June-04, 02:02, said:

I agree with Ed. PPs should not be a back door route to making a score adjustment that is not provided for in the Laws.

Did dummy violate Law 43A1{b} ? sure he did.
Has Dummy violated Law 43A2 ? No, there is no indication of this.
Do the laws prescribe any rectification for the violation of Law 43A1 in this situation? Not that I can see.
So:

Law 12 A 1 said:

The Director may award an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant when he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed.

[gordontd]

You were not proposing "awarding an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant". This is not surprising, since both sides were offending.
You were proposing issuing a PP to one side, with which I agree, but you were suggesting using it as a method of score adjustment, which which I do not.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2019-June-04, 10:23, said:

You were not proposing "awarding an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant". This is not surprising, since both sides were offending.
You were proposing issuing a PP to one side, with which I agree, but you were suggesting using it as a method of score adjustment, which which I do not.

It is not an offence to fail noticing an irregularity and therefore not calling attention to it.
And it is not an offence to (inadvertently) lead out of turn when this irregularity goes unnoticed and therefore next player in turn plays to the trick in turn.

The only violation here for which the Laws do not prescribe any rectification was Dummy's violation of Law 43A1{b} and this violation had only one offending side.

[blackshoe]

Idf you're going to adjust the score, then you adjust the score. If you're going to issue a PP, then you issue a PP. While it is true that a director has discretion as to the size of a PP, he should not choose it because it matches the size of an offending side's gain. That is IMO a mis-use of Law 90.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2019-June-04, 13:58, said:

And it is not an offence to (inadvertently) lead out of turn when this irregularity goes unnoticed and therefore next player in turn plays to the trick in turn.

We'll have to disagree on this one. You think that whether or not it's an offence depends on whether or not attention is called to it?

[gordontd]

pran, on 2019-June-04, 13:58, said:

The only violation here for which the Laws do not prescribe any rectification was Dummy's violation of Law 43A1{b} and this violation had only one offending side.

Even if this were true, your proposal was not to make an adjustment in favour of their opponents, but to penalise this side, so 12A1 hasn't come into it.

[pran]

pran, on 2019-June-04, 13:58, said:

It is not an offence to fail noticing an irregularity and therefore not calling attention to it.
And it is not an offence to (inadvertently) lead out of turn when this irregularity goes unnoticed and therefore next player in turn plays to the trick in turn.

The only violation here for which the Laws do not prescribe any rectification was Dummy's violation of Law 43A1{b} and this violation had only one offending side.

gordontd, on 2019-June-05, 00:12, said:

We'll have to disagree on this one. You think that whether or not it's an offence depends on whether or not attention is called to it?

In that case the laws prescribe a rectification, i.e. that there is no rectification. (The LOOT is accepted.)

[weejonnie]

Well it seems to me:

1) Director is made aware of an infraction (the LOOT)
2) Director notes dummy made the call to the director (Breach of 43A1)
3) Dummy is liable for a procedural penalty under 43B1 - there is no other rectification for dummy's actions.
4) Director now deals with LOOT (Law 53)
5) Director makes an error.
6) Director reads law 82C

C. Director’s Error
If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no
rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating
both sides as non‐offending for that purpose.

So the only question would appear to be:

a) The director works out what would have happened if Declarer had been offered the rectification under Law 53. The result(s) could be weighted in accordance with law 12. Does this mean that "the board can be scored normally"? If not:

b) The director scores the board for the side that led out of turn and only works out a) for the other side, (assuming a better result).

Any advice on whether b) should apply or whether a) is sufficient for scoring purposes.