[pretender]

Defender wins trick one.
Both defenders lead simultaneously to the next trick.

Director ruled declarer has a choice to accept either lead, with the other card remaining as a penalty card.

1. Is the ruling correct by law?
2. With the option to choose, it feels to me like it's more severe than if the correct defender leads and the other defender then has an exposed card. Is this equitable?

[Vampyr]

pretender, on 2012-October-16, 21:49, said:

Defender wins trick one.
Both defenders lead simultaneously to the next trick.

Director ruled declarer has a choice to accept either lead, with the other card remaining as a penalty card.

1. Is the ruling correct by law?
2. With the option to choose, it feels to me like it's more severe than if the correct defender leads and the other defender then has an exposed card. Is this equitable?

LAW 58: SIMULTANEOUS LEADS OR PLAYS
A. Simultaneous Plays by Two Players
A lead or play made simultaneously with another player’s legal lead or play
is deemed to be subsequent to it.

[blackshoe]

1. No.
2. Is what equitable? The scenario you propose here (correct defender leads, etc.) is correct in law (see, as Vampyr says, Law 58). The second defender's card is a major penalty card (Law 49, Law 50) and must be played at the first legal opportunity, but if the second defender's card is not of the suit led by his partner, and he has a card or cards of the suit led, he must follow suit. If he wins the trick, he must lead the PC. If his partner's lead holds the trick, declarer now has lead options. He can forbid or require the lead of the suit of the penalty card, in which case the PC is put back in the defender's hand and the defender can play any legal card, or declarer can say he doesn't care what is led, in which case the PC remains a PC, and declarer has the same options so long as the other defender has the lead (Law 50).

[iviehoff]

pretender, on 2012-October-16, 21:49, said:

2. With the option to choose, it feels to me like it's more severe than if the correct defender leads and the other defender then has an exposed card. Is this equitable?

Whether it is or isn't more severe will depend upon numerous chance factors.

But both rules, one the rule written in the book, the other the rule invented by your director, are examples of procedural rectifications which are not based upon equity. There are quite a few of these.

[barmar]

If the normal application of the Laws result in the NOS being damaged, the TD can use 12A1 to adjust and restore equity.

[bluejak]

I don't think so!

Law 12B2 said:

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

Law 12A1 only applies if there is no Law to cover the specific infraction.