Lead out of Turn

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqjt94ha6dkcaj832&w=sa5hkqj95dqt65c76&n=sk8763htd94ckqt54&e=s2h87432daj8732c9&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1h2h(Michaels)5h5s6h6sppp]399|300[/hv] Teams; Table result 6S-1 by South, NS-100.

 

East led the ace of diamonds against South's contract of 6 Spades on the above hand, playing too quickly in a Speedball teams at a national congress. South, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, had no intention of waiving a penalty and called the director, and said "I know the five options. I want West to lead what he likes and to leave the ace of diamonds as a major penalty card."

 

West led a diamond, as one might, and the contract went one off. SB now wanted the director again, and stated, "The knowledge that the ace of diamonds must be played at the first opportunity is AI to West, but the knowledge that East has the ace of diamonds is UI to him. West has a normal lead of the king of hearts, and I will win and play two rounds of clubs on which East will have to discard the ace of diamonds. Then I concede a trump. +1430, I think, TD, and as it is a Speedball, I would appreciate a quick ruling so that we may move on. While you are at it, you might like to consider a PP for the egregious use of UI by West in leading a diamond." Your ruling, and would you behave this way as South?

[c_corgi]

I rule director error for failing to point out the UI implications of the penalty card before West led a diamond. South has violated 74B5 (obviously) and 74A2 (requesting that an opponent be issued with a PP for an infraction that was induced largely through South's own behaviour), so South incurs the requisite PP/DP himself. No, I would not behave this way as South, at least in terms of the secretary bird behaviour; if West had received a proper explanation re UI and led a heart, then playing clubs in order to force the penalty card discard seems legitimate.

[lamford]

I rule director error for failing to point out the UI implications of the penalty card before West led a diamond.

The TD did read out 50D2(b), footnote 17 and Law 50E 1, 2 and 3 at breakneck speed as it was a Speedball. West did not really understand "other information derived from the sight of a penalty card", and thought it was something other than the fact that his partner has to play the ace of diamonds at the first opportunity, perhaps that his hand was such that he would choose to lead an ace. West should have asked: "could you explain that more fully, please?". Ignorance of the Law is no defence. Perhaps the AI that East has to play the ace of diamonds at his first opportunity makes the diamond lead the only LA, however, even though the UI makes it illegal!

 

And SB always remains just on the right side of 74B5.

[pran]

No way.

 

The following informationn is AI to West:

The fact that East has the ♦Ace as a major penalty card and must play it at his turn to play the first time such play becomes legal.

 

The following information is UI to West: The fact that East selected his ♦Ace rather than any of his other twelve cards for his lead out of turn.

 

The following information is UI to West after the ♦Ace ceases to be a major penalty card and is restored to East's hand (i.e. because the lead of a Diamond by West is either requested or forbidden): The fact that East now holds the ♦Ace.

 

So the table result here stands and South should find himself at the edge of a PP.

 

From a quick look at the cards it seems to me that South could have saved his contract by forbidding a Diamond lead? no sorry - forget it

[lamford]

No way.

 

The following information[n] is AI to West:

The fact that East has the ♦Ace as a major penalty card and must play it at his turn to play the first time such play becomes legal.

This is not what the Law says; unless there is yet another mistranslation into Norwegian. The relevant clauses:

E. Information from a Penalty Card

1. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players. [my emphasis]

2. Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer).

 

So, the only AI that West has is the "requirements" for playing a penalty card. It does not even say "the" penalty card, just a penalty card generally. The rank and suit of the penalty card should be considered UI. On County Director courses we are taught (rightly or wrongly) that the fact that East has a penalty card is AI. The fact that East has the ace of diamonds is UI.

[iviehoff]

This is not what the Law says; unless there is yet another mistranslation into Norwegian.

Clearly someone noticed a risk it might be misunderstood, for WBFLC betook themselves to minute an interpretation.

 

WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#3]

Example However, they may not act as though they know partner has that card. If a king

was led out of turn and the king is now a penalty card, then partner must act as

though they do not know about the king, nor about the queen, a normal

deduction when partner leads a king. They may not choose to lead the suit if the

suit is suggested by the king and play of a different suit is a logical alternative.

[blackshoe]

I would have, when first called, told West before he led that the fact that his partner has an MPC and must play it at his first legal opportunity is AI to him (West), but the fact that the card is the ♦A is UI and he must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of that knowledge. When called back I would say "Mr. SB, you would do well not to try to tell me how to do my job, lest you incur a DP." If he wisely keeps his mouth shut, I'd let it go this time, but if he doesn't, he'll get one to remind him to shut up next time. If he used the word "egregious" as stated, and I had mistakenly not told West of his obligations before leading, I would give him a PP as well. Unfortunately, since I did tell West his obligations, the word is not inappropriate, albeit close.

 

He gets the score adjustment, though.

[pran]

This is not what the Law says; unless there is yet another mistranslation into Norwegian. The relevant clauses:

E. Information from a Penalty Card

1. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players. [my emphasis]

2. Other information derived from sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer).

 

So, the only AI that West has is the "requirements" for playing a penalty card. It does not even say "the" penalty card, just a penalty card generally. The rank and suit of the penalty card should be considered UI. On County Director courses we are taught (rightly or wrongly) that the fact that East has a penalty card is AI. The fact that East has the ace of diamonds is UI.

No there is no mistranslation into Norwegian here, but I may have erred in concentrating on Law 16D2 (withdrawn penalty card) and understood Law 50E to authorize the knowledge of rank and denomination of the faced penalty card for as long as it is faced.

 

I don't really understand the effect of Law 50E1 if knowledge about when a penalty card must be played shall exclude all knowledge about rank and denomination of the penalty card?

[pran]

Clearly someone noticed a risk it might be misunderstood, for WBFLC betook themselves to minute an interpretation.

 

WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#3]

Example However, they may not act as though they know partner has that card. If a king

was led out of turn and the king is now a penalty card, then partner must act as

though they do not know about the king, nor about the queen, a normal

deduction when partner leads a king. They may not choose to lead the suit if the

suit is suggested by the king and play of a different suit is a logical alternative.

It is always dangerous to make an incomplete quote.

 

The quoted minute reads:

 

The Committee considered the question of information arising from possession of a penalty card. Information that the player must play the penalty card as the law requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when partner’s penalty card is the Ace). Information based on sight of partner’s penalty card is unauthorised so that, for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit is a logical alternative.

 

(My Enhancement)

[lamford]

It is always dangerous to make an incomplete quote.

 

The quoted minute reads:

 

The Committee considered the question of information arising from possession of a penalty card. Information that the player must play the penalty card as the law requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when partner’s penalty card is the Ace). Information based on sight of partner’s penalty card is unauthorised so that, for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit is a logical alternative.

 

(My Enhancement)

Your quotation is incomplete as well. The player must convince the TD that he has not gained from the information that partner has the ace of the suit, and a low lead from KQJx may fall foul of that.

[blackshoe]

It's not a question of when it must be played, which is AI, but rather a question of what card it is. In the case at hand, knowing that partner has the ♦A and that he has the trump A gives a pretty good roadmap to how they might defeat the small slam, and it's a roadmap opening leader would not have if his partner hadn't led out of turn.

 

OTOH, I'm not sure the laws haven't gone a little too far here in protecting the NOS. Giving declarer the choice whether to require or forbid lead of that suit, or to allow lead of "any card", is IMO pretty huge. Now on top of that the OS are constrained by UI. Maybe that's the way it should be, but is seems like a lot to give declarer. :unsure:

 

This does raise another question, though. Suppose declarer had said "lead a diamond". Suppose also that opener had ♦QJ(x)(x). Is it the case that the UI (partner has the ♦A) demonstrably could suggest the lead of the Q? Is opening leader then constrained to lead a low card, forgoing the possible finesse of the K in dummy (which, mind you, hasn't been exposed yet)? (Note that in this case the ♦A will no longer be a PC, so a finesse is at least possible.

 

In practice it rarely seems to matter - in most cases IME once declarer has made his choice he doesn't try this SB gambit, he just moves on to the next board.

[campboy]

It is always dangerous to make an incomplete quote.

 

The quoted minute reads:

 

The Committee considered the question of information arising from possession of a penalty card. Information that the player must play the penalty card as the law requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when partner’s penalty card is the Ace). Information based on sight of partner’s penalty card is unauthorised so that, for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit is a logical alternative.

 

(My Enhancement)

I'm not sure you have enhanced the right bit. The relevant sentence seems to be the last -- a diamond lead is suggested by the sight of partner's ace, and another suit (hearts) is a logical alternative, so he must lead another suit.

 

Personally I would have barred a diamond lead. Had I not done so then I would also have asked for a UI ruling, but I would have done so more diplomatically.

[pran]

Your quotation is incomplete as well. The player must convince the TD that he has not gained from the information that partner has the ace of the suit, and a low lead from KQJx may fall foul of that.

My quote was a complete copy and paste directly from the published:

 

Minutes of the Meeting of the

WBF Laws Committee

Held on 24 August 1998

Lille, Flandres

[pran]

I'm not sure you have enhanced the right bit. The relevant sentence seems to be the last -- a diamond lead is suggested by the sight of partner's ace, and another suit (hearts) is a logical alternative, so he must lead another suit.

 

Personally I would have barred a diamond lead. Had I not done so then I would also have asked for a UI ruling, but I would have done so more diplomatically.

I agree that is a possibility that should be considered. Whether it is sufficient to bar a Diamond lead . . . . .?

[iviehoff]

It is always dangerous to make an incomplete quote.

I quoted it in the form it appears in the EBU White Book (para 8.50.2 in the new 2013 edition), so the danger started there.

 

The point is that - it is usually understood - if you are playing a diamond you are allowed to play a low card not to sacrifice your high card under the Ace which must be played (though in fact the EBU expresses some doubt even about that). But otherwise you cannot take advantage of knowledge of the penalty card which is UI. I was drawing attention to what you clearly aren't allowed to do, rather than what possibly you may.

[RMB1]

Clearly someone noticed a risk it might be misunderstood, for WBFLC betook themselves to minute an interpretation.

 

WBFLC minutes 1998-08-24#3]

Example However, they may not act as though they know partner has that card. If a king

was led out of turn and the king is now a penalty card, then partner must act as

though they do not know about the king, nor about the queen, a normal

deduction when partner leads a king. They may not choose to lead the suit if the

suit is suggested by the king and play of a different suit is a logical alternative.

 

In the White Book, extracts from WBFLC minutes appear in italic before the "[WBFLC minutes yyyyy-mm-dd#n]"

 

Any following text in upright font is EBU L&E interpretation of the minute.

[gnasher]

In the White Book, extracts from WBFLC minutes appear in italic before the "[WBFLC minutes yyyyy-mm-dd#n]"

Are all such extracts exact quotes? I seem to remember that in an earlier edition of the White Book the WBF minutes were sometimes paraphrased.

[RMB1]

Are all such extracts exact quotes? I seem to remember that in an earlier edition of the White Book the WBF minutes were sometimes paraphrased.

 

In the 2013 White Book, they are intended to be direct quotes, as paraphrasing seemed no more valuable than substituting an EBU interpretation. Some spelling and punctuation has been altered, pre-2007 law references replaced, but otherwise they should be directly quoted extracts, with omissions denoted by [...]. Turning the paraphrases back into quotations was an unexciting weekend's work.