Sjoerds Posted August 24, 2013 Report Share Posted August 24, 2013 Simple question.Someone leads ♠A but his partner should lead. TD explains the ruling and the leader chooses to leave the card open @ table under restriction of LAW50.Is the information that partner possesses ♠A allowed for the offenders? The setting: leader plays 7NT. With the start of ♠x this contract is down of course. But it is not that obvouis to start ♠x. And with any other lead 7NT is made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 24, 2013 Report Share Posted August 24, 2013 The defender on lead is allowed to know that his partner must play his penalty card at the first legal opportunity. He is not allowed to know that card is the ♠A. So unless there is no LA to a spade lead, leader must choose a different lead. "I was always going to lead spades" won't cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnichols Posted August 24, 2013 Report Share Posted August 24, 2013 Simple question.Someone leads ♠A but his partner should lead. TD explains the ruling and the leader chooses to leave the card open @ table under restriction of LAW50.Is the information that partner possesses ♠A allowed for the offenders? The setting: leader plays 7NT. With the start of ♠x this contract is down of course. But it is not that obvouis to start ♠x. And with any other lead 7NT is made. Why did declarer not forbid the lead of a ♠? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted August 24, 2013 Report Share Posted August 24, 2013 Why did declarer not forbid the lead of a ♠? Because there were only 13 on another lead because declarer could then run his long suit and force the A♠ to be discarded as a penalty card. If he prohibits a spade lead the card is picked up. It appears you extract 2 penalties by leaving it on the table which is why I think this is unfair, you effectively prohibit a spade lead AND get the benefit of a penalty card. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sjoerds Posted August 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2013 The defender on lead is allowed to know that his partner must play his penalty card at the first legal opportunity. He is not allowed to know that card is the ♠A. So unless there is no LA to a spade lead, leader must choose a different lead. "I was always going to lead spades" won't cut it. Tx, that's what I thought. But we had a small discussion you guessed <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sjoerds Posted August 24, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2013 Why did declarer not forbid the lead of a ♠? That was actually what leader did. But that wasn't sufficient. Leaving the card @ table would have been successful. Offender had only one club and had to discard his ♠A after playing ♣AH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted August 24, 2013 Report Share Posted August 24, 2013 The defender on lead is allowed to know that his partner must play his penalty card at the first legal opportunity. He is not allowed to know that card is the ♠A. So unless there is no LA to a spade lead, leader must choose a different lead. "I was always going to lead spades" won't cut it.There is a small inaccuracy here: Partner is not allowed to select a spade lead if he has other logical alternatives, but at the time he is about to play a spade (for instance by following suit) he may select which spade to play knowing that his partner must follow suit with the Ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenMan Posted August 24, 2013 Report Share Posted August 24, 2013 Because there were only 13 on another lead because declarer could then run his long suit and force the A♠ to be discarded as a penalty card. If he prohibits a spade lead the card is picked up. Kantar wrote about a hand where this actually happened. Jim Linhart was the declarer. (In the story, the ♦A was exposed during the auction when East doubled 7♦ and slapped it on the table. Linhart then bid 7NT to right-side the penalty card.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 There is a small inaccuracy here: Partner is not allowed to select a spade lead if he has other logical alternatives, but at the time he is about to play a spade (for instance by following suit) he may select which spade to play knowing that his partner must follow suit with the Ace.There is no inaccuracy. I was asked to address the situation where partner of the player with a MPC is on lead. I addressed that situation. I did not address any other situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 There is no inaccuracy. I was asked to address the situation where partner of the player with a MPC is on lead. I addressed that situation. I did not address any other situation.You wrote: He is not allowed to know that card is the ♠A. When he is on lead the situation is such that he may lead a spade then he is also allowed to know that the penalty card partner must play is the ♠A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gombo121 Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 The defender on lead is allowed to know that his partner must play his penalty card at the first legal opportunity. He is not allowed to know that card is the ♠A. Is it making any sense at all?! The defender on lead knows that his partner must play something at every legal opportunity, so if his not allowed to know what the penalty card is, he is no different knowing or not knowing about the penalty card at all. Besides, this is applying two penalties at once - not only the penalty card remains on the table (with requirement to be played at first opportunity, which is a HUGE advantage for declarer), you also effectively prohibited lead to this suit, because there is always some LA for the lead. And, BTW, prohibiting lead to the suit is completely separate option in the choice offered to declarer and it leaves no penalty card. With such interpretation the penalty card become a killer option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 Is it making any sense at all?! The defender on lead knows that his partner must play something at every legal opportunity, so if his not allowed to know what the penalty card is, he is no different knowing or not knowing about the penalty card at all. Besides, this is applying two penalties at once - not only the penalty card remains on the table (with requirement to be played at first opportunity, which is a HUGE advantage for declarer), you also effectively prohibited lead to this suit, because there is always some LA for the lead. And, BTW, prohibiting lead to the suit is completely separate option in the choice offered to declarer and it leaves no penalty card. With such interpretation the penalty card become a killer option.An example of what definitely is UI in connection with a major penalty card is the fact that offender indended to play this card. This leads to the correct rule that offender's partner may not lead a card in the suit of the penalty card (even if declarer refrains from any lead restriction) if he has any logical alternative(s) and such lead could be suggested by the fact that offender (apparently) intended the play that resulted in the penalty card. However, I question any decision that knowledge of partner holding a particular card shall be unauthorized so long as the card is faced on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 Perhaps I should have said "leader is not permitted to take any inferences about his partner's hand from the fact that he now has a MPC which he tried to lead"? If the contract is cold on the lead of any non-spade, and goes down if a spade is led, is there anyone here (gombo?) who would allow a spade lead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 Don't we already have two other threads that have been going for several days regarding the what partner of the player with the MPC is allowed to do? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/62154-crocodile-coup/http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/62078-a-tale-of-two-loots/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 Perhaps I should have said "leader is not permitted to take any inferences about his partner's hand from the fact that he now has a MPC which he tried to lead"? If the contract is cold on the lead of any non-spade, and goes down if a spade is led, is there anyone here (gombo?) who would allow a spade lead?Sure yes if the offender during the auction has definitely called for a spade lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 Perhaps I should have said "leader is not permitted to take any inferences about his partner's hand from the fact that he now has a MPC which he tried to lead"? If the contract is cold on the lead of any non-spade, and goes down if a spade is led, is there anyone here (gombo?) who would allow a spade lead? Yes, but the hand on lead would need to be J10987, xxx, xxx, xx with an auction where nobody considers anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 Simple question.Someone leads ♠A but his partner should lead. TD explains the ruling and the leader chooses to leave the card open @ table under restriction of LAW50.Is the information that partner possesses ♠A allowed for the offenders? The setting: leader plays 7NT. With the start of ♠x this contract is down of course. But it is not that obvouis to start ♠x. And with any other lead 7NT is made.I am amazed that anyone should think that there is any ambiguity in Law 50, especially as there has been a WBFLC minute about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 I am amazed that anyone should think that there is any ambiguity in Law 50, especially as there has been a WBFLC minute about it. Is that because the minutes are so easy to find and well advertised? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 Sure yes if the offender during the auction has definitely called for a spade lead.<grumble> Quit changing the damn scenario! </grumble> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 Sure yes if the offender during the auction has definitely called for a spade lead.<grumble> Quit changing the damn scenario! </grumble> Changing the scenario???? We have not been told anything from the auction and I just pointed out one condition where a spade lead is permitted in spite of partner's MPC. There is no automatic in Law 50 that the existence of MPC prevents partner from leading in that suit (as there is no automatic in Law 16 that the existence of UI prevents a player from selecting an action that "could be suggested by the UI"). The Director must always investigate if the player in question has other (relevant) alternative actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gombo121 Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 If the contract is cold on the lead of any non-spade, and goes down if a spade is led, is there anyone here (gombo?) who would allow a spade lead? Yes, I think I would. Generally speaking, a priori there was a 25% chance for setting of the contract. Due to the OLOOT declarer have got chance to make it with 100% certainty by prohibiting spade lead; this is his compensation for the infraction, in full. If he blew it, tough luck (though I can't imagine anyone NOT prohibiting spade lead under the circumstances ;) ). :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: My understanding of the relevant rules is that the set of options for declarer after OLOOT is so large and powerful exactly because it is supposed to compensate for UI obtained by defenders. Consider this: why the rules does not say "the card is UI, your partner can't use it, specifically, he can't choose any action suggested by seeing it if you have any LA, now, take back this card and go on playing"? Won't that be enough to correct the infraction? Defenders are under severe restrictions and declarer have some information about them for free. Why so many options then? I believe that this is because it is recognized that policing UI-LA tangles is difficult and the infraction is quite common. So instead declarer is offered a handicap of his chosing to compensate for the UI of the opposing side. But it is instead, not in addition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 Seems to me you're overthinking it. And the rules do say that knowledge of the specific card is UI. Law 50E seems pretty clear. Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is AI. Other information derived from sight of the card is UI to the partner of the player who holds the card, who is on lead. What knowledge is that? How about the knowledge that, in 7NT, the contract is certainly down if he leads a spade? That knowledge will certainly damage the NOS if it's acted on, so if leader leads a spade the director "shall award an adjusted score". Unless of course he has no logical alternative to a spade lead. If you want to be pedantic about it, leader is not prohibited from leading a spade, but if he does, the score will be adjusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 The person above said that it makes on the lead of a non-spade because the ♠A will have to be discarded on the run of another suit. Simply refusing the lead of a spade does not lead to contract making; only letting any suit be led, and hoping that the auction, and the real opening leader's hand, do not meet the requirements Law 16 requires for a spade lead. Oh, and a TD that can explain this, and can understand it, and can rule it; and can explain it to the offenders and the AC in such a way as to have the ruling stay. I had to explain this to a pair who should be able to understand it - and he led the PC suit "because that means it goes away". It being the loser Swiss, and nothing was going to affect this contract, and...made me let this one go. Maybe I shouldn't have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 Is that because the minutes are so easy to find and well advertised?I was thinking it was because they were so precise and well-considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 27, 2013 Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 I had to explain this to a pair who should be able to understand it - and he led the PC suit "because that means it goes away". It being the loser Swiss, and nothing was going to affect this contract, and...made me let this one go. Maybe I shouldn't have.I think you shouldn't have. When you are called to make a ruling, you should make the correct ruling whatever its impact on anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.