Oh here is an example of something I am so guilty of and I have been cautioned not to "Self Direct."  The problem arises in assuming everyone has a working knowledge of the nuances of penalties that can arise.  Bad assumption.  And here is an example from ACBL Duplicate Decisions on how any assumption can go south: Example: A defender drops an honor on the table. Declarer tells the defenders: “Don’t worry, it’s just a penalty card,” and the card stays on the table with no call for the Director. A few tricks later, declarer calls the Director when the partner of the player with a penalty card ends up on lead, to enforce the lead restrictions. The defenders now say if they knew about lead restrictions, they would have defended differently and maneuvered to have the penalty card played earlier without any consequences (which is true). The Director deals with the penalty card, giving declarer their options, and then applies Law 11A. The defending side will get the table score, and the declaring side will get an adjusted score based on what would have happened if the Director had been summoned when the irregularity occurred.   NOTE to SELF Do not self direct.

Oh here is an example of something I am so guilty of and I have been cautioned not to "Self Direct."  The problem arises in assuming everyone has a working knowledge of the nuances of penalties that ..........

The concept of a minor penalty card came about more or less in 2012.. Notably 25 years after I became a director and while I was playing nearly exclusively on line where a penalty card is impossible.  The laws define a Minor Penalty Card as a single card of rank nine or lower, accidentally exposed—like being dropped or played unintentionally. It must remain face up on the table and be played before any other card of the same suit and rank or lower, though not necessarily at the first legal opportunity.  Every card not a minor penalty card is a major penalty card. So if you have a minor penalty card what happens?

The concept of a minor penalty card came about more or less in 2012.. Notably 25 years after I became a director and while I was playing nearly exclusively on line where a penalty card is impossible. ..........

Here is a summary on the Law when the wrong opponent leads during the play.  This is offered to raise awareness not as a substitute for a director call.  The dangerous thing is a partial explanation of any Law or Law driven procedure  to opponents leaves you on the hook for a subsequent complaint by the opponent they would have acted differently if they knew all the rules.

If a defender leads when it was their partner’s turn to lead, declarer may:

1. Accept the Lead
   • Declarer can simply play to the trick.
   • However declarer does not lose the right to accept the lead by stopping play and calling the Director
2. Reject the Lead
   • Declarer may require the lead to be retracted.
   • The card improperly led becomes a major penalty card 
3. Exercise Penalty Card Rights
   If the lead is rejected and the card becomes a penalty card, declarer may:

• Require the proper defender to lead the suit of the penalty card (once only).
• Prohibit the proper defender from leading that suit as long as they hold the lead.  (In either of these cases the penalty card is then picked up. In the event partner of offender is unable to comply with request, too bad Declarer does not get to choose again.)
• Or allow the proper defender to lead any suit, leaving the penalty card on the table.

 Important Notes:

• Dummy cannot intervene or call attention to the irregularity during play.
• Declarer’s rights kick in immediately upon noticing the irregular lead.
• From a Defender's point of view if Partner leads when it should be your lead, say nothing unless you know what to do.  You do not have an obligation to call attention to your own partner's mistake.  If declarer accepts the lead it is over and there is no more penalty.

Opening Lead Out of Turn

This is just like the forgoing but two options are added.   Suppose you are declarer and RHO makes the opening lead.

• You may accept the lead, lay down your hand as dummy and have partner play the hand.
• You may accept the lead and see dummy before you play from your hand. 
•  You may reject the lead then the card lead becomes a major penalty card and  #2 and #3 above apply.

But, what if... 

West is on lead and North leads, East plays, South plays and West says "Hold on its my lead."  Director!! West should be given the option to accept the lead (except on Trick 13.)  But if the lead is not accepted all three cards played thus far are returned to the appropriate hand. East does NOT have a penalty card Why?? Show Answer In this case Declarer must have lead from his hand or dummy thus inducing East to play a card. Because Declarer was the offender East / West are not penalized. but, Unathorized Information (UI) may apply.

Here is a summary on the Law when the wrong opponent leads during the play.  This is offered to raise awareness not as a substitute for a director call.  The dangerous thing is a partial explanatio ..........

Rule 57 caught me off guard.  Read it carefully, then read it again. (which I did) then I thought: “Uff ta, that one could bite you in the butt.”  Here is the rule in question.

LAW 57 PREMATURE LEAD OR PLAY
 A. Premature Play or Lead to Next Trick When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options. He may:

•    1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or
• 2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or
• 3. require offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer,
• 4. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer.

The defender that gets ahead of his partner because “it doesn’t matter” or “I know what’s going to happen” can cause havoc with a premature play.  Situationally, Declarer seeing a high winning card from his RHO before LHO has played can say to LHO “Trump it if you can.” Or “Play High.” (or Low.)  In the fifty plus years I have been playing I am sure I have seen a defender get ahead of their partner a few times. I have probably been guilty of it myself.  But I have never seen the Law executed, but a Law is a Law.  It is in the book.

For completeness here is the rest of Law 57 (it does not soften the result found in Part A, or at least not very much.)

B. Offender’s Partner Cannot Comply with Rectification When offender’s partner is unable to comply with the rectification selected by declarer (see A above) he may play any card, as provided in Law 59.

C. Declarer or Dummy Has Played 1. A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands. However, a card is not considered to be played from dummy until declarer has instructed (or otherwise indicated the play). 2. A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if dummy has of his own volition prematurely selected a card before his RHO or has illegally suggested that one be played. 3. A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and if legal may not be withdrawn.

D. Premature Play at RHO’s Turn When a defender attempts to play (not lead) to a trick at his RHO’s turn, Law 16 may apply. If his card can be legally played to the trick, it must be played at his proper turn: otherwise, it becomes a major penalty card.

Rule 57 caught me off guard.  Read it carefully, then read it again. (which I did) then I thought: “Uff ta, that one could bite you in the butt.”  Here is the rule in question.

LAW 57 PREMATURE ..........

Numerous situations may create lead penalties. Some are obvious (or should be), while others are less apparent and may not take effect immediately.

This is doubly problematic as a lead when Declarer has a right to impose a penalty becomes a major penalty card.  Here are some examples:

1. Probably the most common partner has a Major Penalty Card then if you gain the lead Declarer has three options:
   1. Require a lead in the penalty card suit. Or
   2. Deny a lead in the penalty suit the ban continues as long as the player retains the lead  In either case the penalty card is returned to the player's hand and may be played at any time.
   3. Declarer may say the player may do as they wish in which case the penalty card remains on the table.
2. If a defender during the course of the auction changed a bid in such a way as to convey information not shown by the actual auction official auction then if the partner of the bidder obtains the lead (even after the initial lead) penalties may apply then, say at trick six.

Here is an example:  After a call is replaced by a non compatible call then lead penalties may occur. When offender’s partner is first on lead, declarer may prohibit the partner from leading any (one) suit not specified by the offender in the legal auction.  The following example is from Director training materials:

I think the part of this rule that sutprises me that not only is incompatible bid punished by barring partner for one round but after the "illness" is arguably cured the lead penalties still apply.  In the foregoing example had East rebid spades then at Wests first turn to lead Declarer would have had his choice of one of three suits.

Numerous situations may create lead penalties. Some are obvious (or should be), while others are less apparent and may not take effect immediately.

This is doubly problematic as a lead when Declarer ..........

Law 16B is the heart of Unauthorized Information.  Frankly, without having my attention called to the practical aspects of the Law, despite years of playing I have not understood "Unauthorized Information" (UI) and still, certainly, have more to learn.  First, here is 16B(1):

B. Extraneous Information from Partner
1. Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism.
(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative. 
(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.

While 16B(1) specifies UI from your partner other places in the Laws refers back to 16B or repeats the same language.  In short if partner messes up, in almost any way, the partnership is in an Unauthorized  Information mode.   If the director is called before the recipient of the unauthorized information takes action, the Director will instruct the recipient they cannot choose an action demonstrably suggested by that information, IF there are logical alternatives. This is not the same thing as “ignoring the information.”  When there are logical alternatives, calls or plays suggested by unauthorized information are not allowed, even if those calls or plays are majority actions (actions that a majority of players would take).  To put this another way, when you are the recipient of unauthorized information you are penalized.  You may not take a course of action suggested by the UI even if it appears to be the best alternative of several logical choices.  For example if you are in third seat holding 20 HCP, you are not required to Pass when it is  your turn to call just because partner huddled over his cards before passing.  You do have UI.  (i.e. partner is not holding  9 or fewer HCP and 4-3-3-3) but "Pass" is not a logical alternative holding a 20 point hand in third seat. No problem.  But later in the auction depending upon what transpires in all seats that initial huddle may come back into play.  Is a slam try justified?  Should I invite game?  Often bridge comes down to a choice of two or three actions.  If you have UI you can not choose an action suggested by the UI, even if without such information most players at your skill and experience level would choose that action.  This is indeed a heavy burden. 

While we are on the topic, also see Law 50E  (Law 50 generally deals with Penalty Cards.)

E. Information from a Penalty Card
1. Information derived from a penalty card and the requirements for playing that penalty card are authorized for all players for as long as the penalty card remains on the table. 
2. Information derived from a penalty card that has been returned to hand [as per Law 50D2(a)] is unauthorized for the partner of the player who had the penalty card (see Law 16C), but authorized for declarer.
3. Once a penalty card has been played, information derived from the circumstances under which it was created is unauthorized for the partner of the player who had the card. (For a penalty card which has not yet been played, see E1 above.)

Again the implications of this Law had not occurred to me. (YMMV) For example ...  Partner plays a small club when you lead the Ace of Hearts "No hearts Partner?"   Oh!!!, then plays a heart.  Club on the table.  Declarer exercising their rights says: "Lead a club if you can." The small club is picked up and is no longer a penalty card. 50E(2) "information derived from a penalty card ... returned to the hand ... is unauthorized." In choosing what club to lead you can not select a lead suggested by the rank of the misplayed club or the fact the card is in their hand at all.  Worse yet if there is a choice A or B and the small card removed from the table could suggest one or the other you must select the one not suggested.  Holy Buckets!  And 50E(4) enforces this outcome: "4. If following the application of E1 the Director judges at the end of play that without the assistance gained through the exposed card the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment, he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board without the effect of the penalty card(s)."

Law 16B is the heart of Unauthorized Information.  Frankly, without having my attention called to the practical aspects of the Law, despite years of playing I have not understood "Unauthorized Inform ..........

Revokes: Penalty or Adjustment?

Before 2007, the Laws of Duplicate Bridge imposed a general two-trick penalty for an established revoke. Today, the rules focus on equity—adjusting the score to reflect what would likely have happened without the infraction. The automatic adjustment may be zero, one, or two tricks depending on the situation. But an adjusted score may be assigned if the automatic adjustment is insufficient to restore the hand.

Four Concepts to Understand

1. Established Revoke
A revoke becomes established when the offending side plays to the next trick. Once established, a defective trick is not repaired, except at Trick 12.   Play continues until the hand is completed.  A revoke may also be established by a claim or concession by the offending side.

2. Correction Before Establishment
If a revoke is discovered before it becomes established, it is corrected in place:

• The offending player withdraws the incorrect card and substitutes a legal one.
  If the offender is declarer or dummy, the withdrawn card is returned to the hand.
  If the offender is a defender, the withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card.

Law 62C1 allows each member of the non-offending side to withdraw and return any card played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it. Additionally:

• When the offender changes the card played to the trick, their left-hand opponent may also change their card.
  For Declarer or Dummy the original card is returned to hand and does not become a penalty card.  However, if the Offender was also a Defender, then the withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card.
  If Offender’s LHO changes their card, then the third player (offender’s partner) may also change theirs—but that card becomes a penalty card.

If correcting the trick changes who won it, and a lead has already been made, that lead is retracted without penalty—provided it was made by the non-offending side. Had the offending side led, the revoke would have become established. See Law 62C3.

If both sides revoke on the same trick and only one side has played to the next trick, both revokes must be corrected. Every withdrawn card by the defending side becomes a penalty card.

3. Adjustment After Establishment
Once a revoke is established, the laws provide for adjustments:

• If the offender wins the revoke trick and their side also wins a subsequent trick, two tricks are transferred to the non-offending side.
  If the offending side wins the revoke trick or a subsequent trick, one trick is transferred.
  If the offending side does not win any trick from the revoke onward, no adjustment is made.

If these adjustments fail to restore equity, the Director may, at the request of the non-offending side, assign a different score under Law 64C.

4. Trick Twelve

Law 64B 6 is often quoted "There is no automatic trick adjustment following an established revoke if ...(6) It is a revoke on the twelfth trick."  The Law however is sometimes misapplied.  Law 62D provides a revoke on the 12th trick must be corrected even if established. It is simply replayed and the board scored as if the error did not occur.

Takeaway
Revokes are no longer punished automatically—they are adjusted to preserve fairness. The adjustment may benefit the non-offending side, but if it fails to make them whole, they should appeal to the Director for further remedy. Revokes often result in a penalty card and Unauthorized Information.  The Director should be called.  Both the player with the penalty card and their partner must understand their options and obligations.  In general, the non-offender does not want to be the one providing an explanation. Further any player may find it difficult to to explain all options without providing UI to their own partner.

Revokes: Penalty or Adjustment?

Before 2007, the Laws of Duplicate Bridge imposed a general two-trick penalty for an established revoke. Today, the rules focus on equity—adjusting the score to reflect what would likely have happened without the infraction. The automatic adjustment may be zero, one, or two tricks depending on the situation. ..........

Another example of the rules changing but my mindset had not, until now

Historical Context: Back in the 1970s, the Laws of Duplicate Bridge were much stricter about claims. Once a claim was made, play ceased immediately, and the director was summoned if there was any doubt. The non-claiming side could challenge the claim, and the director would adjudicate based on the stated line of play when there was no stated line of play the non-claiming side could argue any "illogical but not irrational" defense. There was no provision for resuming play by mutual agreement.

 2017 Update – Law 68D2b: The current Law 68D2b introduces a new flexibility: if all four players agree, they may continue playing the hand after a claim. This is a notable departure from prior law.  It reflects a more player-driven approach, especially useful in casual or club settings where players might prefer to resolve things themselves without summoning the director.
 Why the Change?

• To reduce unnecessary director calls for obvious claims.
• To speed up play in situations where all parties are comfortable.
• To mirror online bridge norms, where play often continues unless challenged.

So, play does not necessarily cease.  It may continue by agreement.  Further cards exposed DO NOT become penalty cards and are authorized information for the non-claiming side.  Hence, if Declarer claims and Defenders say: “Not so fast.” Insight gained by the defenders objecting to the claim may be used in the continued defense of the hand.

So when it’s over, its over, right?  Again, “Not so fast.”  An agreement to a claim or concession is not established until the non-claiming side actually makes a call on the next board.  Wait, what?  That’s right confirm score on the Bridgemate, take cards out of the next board, and the light goes off, it is not too late to argue the claim about alternative lines of play.  (Law 69A.), Unless the round has been called, that’s the end too.  So that’s it right? Round called or start to bid the next hand its over.  No!!  Look at Law 69B:

B. Withdrawal of Established Agreement Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C: 1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or 2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

The “Correction Period” is generally 30 minutes after the scores for the game are posted.  The materials guiding the Director in this case basically give every break to the original claimant but it is still possible.  Maybe I should retitle this “Exactly when does the fat lady sing?”

Another example of the rules changing but my mindset had not, until now

Historical Context: Back in the 1970s, the Laws of Duplicate Bridge were much stricter about claims. Once a claim was made, play ceased immediately, and the director was summoned if there was any doubt. The non-claiming side could challenge the claim, and the director would adjudicate based on the stated line of play when there was no stated line of play the non-claiming side could argue any "illogical but not irrational" defense. ..........

Are momeentary lapses of attention "Senior Moments" a reason to allow a change of call or for designation of which card to play from dummy?  Strangely it is not.. While there is some discretion on the part of the director they are limited by the Laws which expressly prohibit a " momentary loss of attention" as a reason to permit a change in either play or call.. (See Law 25(A) 2; Law 45 (C) (4)(b).). NB the previous Laws contained language similar to "without pause for thought"  this has gone by the wayside.  Also an obviously unintended call is also not able to be withdrawn.  One example: opponents silent 1H -- 3D [Alert] {explanation a Bergen Raise shows 4 Hearts and 9-11 HCP,  no it is not forcing to 4H.} After making the explanation, the Opener Passes.   The pass stands, no matter how unintended.  It is deemed a monetary loss of attention.  

Are momeentary lapses of attention "Senior Moments" a reason to allow a change of call or for designation of which card to play from dummy?  Strangely it is not.. While there is some discretion on the part of the director they are limited by the Laws which expressly prohibit a " momentary loss of attention" as a reason to permit a change in either play or call.. (See Law 25(A) 2; Law 45 (C) (4)(b).). NB the previous Laws contained language similar to "without pause for thought"  this has gone by the wayside.  Also an obviously unintended call is also not able to be withdrawn. ..........

🧭 What the Laws Say:

• Law 20F5: Declarer (But not presumed  dummy) may ask for explanations after the auction ends but before the opening lead is faced.
• Law 25A5:  A change of an unintended call is only allowed, during the auction period, and prior to the partner's call.
• Law 41A: The opening lead must be made face down, and only then may questions be asked.
• Law 41B: Once the lead is faced, the auction period ends and a player may ask for a review of the auction only when it first his turn to play. However  further questions about the meaning of a particular bid may be asked whenever it is any player's turn and prior to his play to the trick.

I have recently become aware of some technical differences in the rules revolving around the "auction period" as opposed to "the auction."  The auction period for each side begins when either partner removes their hand from the tray,  The auction begins when a call has been made.  The auction ends when each player has had an opportunity to bid or three consecutive passes.  The auction period ends when declarer's LHO faces his lead on the table, or all the hands have been returned to the tray.  The time between the final pass and the opening lead being faced is referred to as the "Clarification Period."  The Clarification Period is part of the auction period.  During this time, not only may leader's partner ask a question but declarer or dummy may clarify a mistaken explanation or may offer a delayed alert for a conventional bid above 3NT.  Whereas, the defense may prejudice their own position by not giving declarer adequate time to offer a clarification. While, declarer may and should offer necessary explanations even if the opening lead has been faced, the opening lead once faced can not be retracted.  If the opening lead has not been faced then the defender may retract such lead, if the Director permits such action. 

A change of call may also be permitted by the Director during the auction period, when an unintended call has occurred or a call has been made based upon miss information.

Another difference exists at the beginning of the auction period and prior to the auction beginning, a card inadvertently exposed may not become a penalty card of any kind.  However, it may constitute Unauthorized Information (UI) for the partner of the offender.  Don't assume, call the Director.

🧭 What the Laws Say:

• Law 20F5: Declarer (But not presumed  dummy) may ask for explanations after the auction ends but before the opening lead is ..........