[dickiegera]

East is playing a contract in 1NT. Midway thru South is leading clubs and everyone shows out, north playing a heart.
Norths corrects before next trick playing a lower club.

It was always my understanding that the heart [a 4] was a major penalty card and I as east now have 3 options among which is to require the lead of a heart.

Director said no. Said something about revoke had not been established and said that 4 of hearts was to remain on table to be played at 1st opportunity.

Am I wrong?

Also it happened that south did not have a heart to lead.

What should have happened?

Thank you

[pran]

dickiegera, on 2012-November-06, 15:13, said:

East is playing a contract in 1NT. Midway thru South is leading clubs and everyone shows out, north playing a heart.
Norths corrects before next trick playing a lower club.

It was always my understanding that the heart [a 4] was a major penalty card and I as east now have 3 options among which is to require the lead of a heart.

Director said no. Said something about revoke had not been established and said that 4 of hearts was to remain on table to be played at 1st opportunity.

Am I wrong?

Also it happened that south did not have a heart to lead.

What should have happened?

Thank you

According to your description North played the ♥4 deliberately, he did not expose it by accident.
He retracted the card in time to avoid his revoke to become established so the ♥4 becomes a major penalty card. (Law 62B1)

The procedures for dispositioning of this penalty card are given in Law 50.

You were right and the director was wrong.

[barmar]

As pran said, the TD was wrong. It's precisely because the revoke was not established that the ♥ becomes a major penalty card. And it seems like the TD agreed with that, since leaving the card on the table and playing the card at his first legal opportunity is one of the ways that a MPC is dealt with. But if his partner has the lead while the MPC is still on the table, you have lead options -- the TD obviously forgot about this.

This is a bad TD, IMHO. There are a few laws that come up frequently, require little judgement to apply, and any competent director should be expected to know off the top of their head: leads out of turn, revokes, and penalty cards are the most obvious (I don't include calls out of turn, because there are several different cases and the consequences vary). Getting this ruling wrong is a bad sign.

[Vampyr]

dickiegera, on 2012-November-06, 15:13, said:

What should have happened?

What should have happened is the director coming to the table with the Lawbook.

barmar, on 2012-November-06, 16:46, said:

There are a few laws that come up frequently, require little judgement to apply, and any competent director should be expected to know off the top of their head: leads out of turn, revokes, and penalty cards are the most obvious

Many directors, particularly volunteer directors, are not entirely "competent", but realise it and get their rulings from the Lawbook.

I got the first question right at the County Directors Course a few years ago:

Q: How do you do book rulings? A: With the book.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-06, 16:54, said:

What should have happened is the director coming to the table with the Lawbook.



Many directors, particularly volunteer directors, are not entirely "competent", but realise it and get their rulings from the Lawbook.

I got the first question right at the County Directors Course a few years ago:

Q: How do you do book rulings? A: With the book.

Good start!

At TD training courses and exams in Norway a candidate is not credited with "correct" even if he makes the right ruling by heart unless he finds the relevant law(s) in the book and read it from there. This was the general practice when I passed my tests (years ago) and I assume it still is.

[fito]

dickiegera, on 2012-November-06, 15:13, said:

East is playing a contract in 1NT. Midway thru South is leading clubs and everyone shows out, north playing a heart.
Norths corrects before next trick playing a lower club.

It was always my understanding that the heart [a 4] was a major penalty card and I as east now have 3 options among which is to require the lead of a heart.

Director said no. Said something about revoke had not been established and said that 4 of hearts was to remain on table to be played at 1st opportunity.

Am I wrong?

Also it happened that south did not have a heart to lead.

What should have happened?

Thank you

No, you are right. TD was wrong.

If East asks for a heart lead, and South does no way to play a heart, because he has no one in his hand, he may lead any other suit (Art. 59).

[CamHenry]

fito, on 2012-November-07, 01:51, said:

No, you are right. TD was wrong.

If East asks for a heart lead, and South does no way to play a heart, because he has no one in his hand, he may lead any other suit (Art. 59).

Note that the ♥4 then ceases to be a major penalty card, and its presence is AI to EW but UI to S.

[barmar]

Maybe I have high standards, but I think anyone who has been directing for more than 6 months and needs to check the book for the common irregularities I mentioned should find some other line of work. I have no problem with them double checking, or even reading the book on all occasions, but an error like the one in the OP is eggregious IMO. It's like consulting a copy of traffic laws every time you encounter a traffic light, to check what red and green mean.

[blackshoe]

People make mistakes. Directors are people. Ergo, directors make mistakes.

If a director gives you a ruling you don't understand, or that you think is wrong in law, ask him politely to read it from the book. If you disagree with the director's judgment in a judgment matter, you should appeal (if you can convince your partner or team captain to go along with you).

A director who will not comply with a polite request to "read it from the book" should have drastic sanctions laid against him. If he owns the club in which he's directing (the usual case in NA, I think), the most drastic sanction you can lay is to reduce his revenue by the amount of your weekly table fee.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-November-07, 12:47, said:

Maybe I have high standards, but I think anyone who has been directing for more than 6 months and needs to check the book for the common irregularities I mentioned should find some other line of work.

Not all directors have had training, and not all of them have encountered "common" irregularities with any frequency. I am shocked by the idea that it is better to rule without the Lawbook. Maybe some people think it is more "cool", but it is also unprofessional and unnecessary.

By the way, the OP seems to be in the ACBL. In the ACBL, do clubs pay to send their directors on training courses?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-07, 20:44, said:

By the way, the OP seems to be in the ACBL. In the ACBL, do clubs pay to send their directors on training courses?

The ACBL is a big place, and I haven't been everywhere in it, but I've never seen it. AFAIK, many (most?) club directors get certified the same way I did - take the open book test. OTOH, there is a TD cert course at every NABC, and some Regionals, and I suppose someone must be taking those courses. And on the gripping hand, many (again, most?) clubs in the ACBL are privately owned, and the owner is the director. I suppose someone might "pay himself" to take the course as a prerequisite to setting up his club.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-07, 21:51, said:

The ACBL is a big place, and I haven't been everywhere in it, but I've never seen it. AFAIK, many (most?) club directors get certified the same way I did - take the open book test. OTOH, there is a TD cert course at every NABC, and some Regionals, and I suppose someone must be taking those courses. And on the gripping hand, many (again, most?) clubs in the ACBL are privately owned, and the owner is the director. I suppose someone might "pay himself" to take the course as a prerequisite to setting up his club.

I got certified by taking a test about 20 years ago, but I had assumed that by now they had a proper training programme similar to those in the rest of the world.

I think that the ACBL are uncharacteristically missing out on a cash cow by not requiring course participation and assessment for club director certification. Although if people are setting up clubs on their own, and directing the games themselves, no one would be in a position to insist on certification.

There are privately owned clubs in England as well, but I think they normally hire directors, and often club managers as well. But perhaps someone will correct me if I am wrong about this.

[blackshoe]

There are, iirc, something like 3000 ACBL sanctioned bridge clubs in the US. That's a lot of clubs for the ACBL to worry about. It seems to me they'd rather just take their piece of the action, and not have to worry about whether the club has a competent director, or enforces the rules evenly, or lets players know what the rules are in advance of play, even though those are all things clubs are, by ACBL regulations, supposed to do.

[barmar]

I took the club director course at an NABC about a decade ago. I think there were about 20 people in the class. I just checked the ACBL Bulletin, there's a similar class being offered in San Francisco, as well as a "refresher" course for people who are already certified. I recall our club manager saying that if anyone wanted to take one of these classes, the club would reimburse them (the price is $50 for the regular class, $15 for the refresher).

This past spring I took the Tournament Assistant exam. It was also $50, and our unit reimbursed me. As far as I know, there's no formal training process available for this -- I think experience as a club director is considered sufficient training.