Law 50

[gombo121]

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.

 

May be I do. But in my reading of the Law it is definitely AI that if I lead a spade partner will play the penalty card ace and we take the trick, the latter being simple consequence of the former. I just cannot imagine how information that ace is certain to win the trick in NT contract can be deemed unauthorized.

 

What is meant under "other information", which is UI, in my understanding, are things related to partnership agreements about the leads or point counting or other indirect conclusions. Like "we lead ace from ace-king, so I'm safe leading queen from Qx" (not in 7NT, obviously), or "he denied 3 control points during bidding, so he does not hold a king".

 

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.

No, I'm not a pedant. This is equivalent to prohibition in my book.

[gombo121]

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.

 

May be in this case the contract should not make after all, OLOOT or not? TD is responsible for equity; does 7NT lacking an ace and with only 12 tricks making feels like an equity to you? I'd say this case is a very strong argument that leading spade should be allowed when declarer chose "penalty card" option.

[blackshoe]

The law is ambiguous here. On the one hand, it says that knowledge that partner has a PC and that he must play it at the first legal opportunity is AI, and when declarer chooses the "let it remain a PC" option, the law says that leader can lead whatever he wants. On the other hand, the law says that the knowledge that partner has the ♠A, in a 7NT contract, makes leading a spade very attractive, is knowledge that the leader would not have absent the infraction, and is UI, so he is prohibited from leading a spade. I suppose we could ask the ACBLLC or WBFLC (or both) for clarification, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it. So what do we do? I'm inclined to lean toward giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS and ruling that leader can't lead a spade.

 

Another point: if the TD rules this way, an AC would not be permitted to rule instead that Law 50 applies and leader can lead a spade because 50D says he can lead any card. Which law applies is a matter of law, not judgment, and the TD has already decided it.

 

Last comment: if knowledge that the PC is the ♠A is not UI, then 50E2 and 50E3 are meaningless. Whatever the lawmakers intended, that can't be it. B-)

[mycroft]

May be in this case the contract should not make after all, OLOOT or not? TD is responsible for equity; does 7NT lacking an ace and with only 12 tricks making feels like an equity to you? I'd say this case is a very strong argument that leading spade should be allowed when declarer chose "penalty card" option.

The Law "says" that if you forget to take your ace, 7NT off an ace should be allowed to make. Why is an OLOOT less of a mistake than that?

 

Your own version of ethics (and mine) might say "down 1"; but it's not imProper (and therefore, not unethical according to the Laws and Proprieties of Bridge) to make them pay for their mistakes, if the Law says they should pay. The people that go down that route are going to get a reputation fast, though - and shouldn't expect their opponents to let anything go when the Law says they're going to get a better result than "equity".

[Vampyr]

I was thinking it was because they were so precise and well-considered.

 

You are denying, though, that they really ought to be a lot more accessible?

[lamford]

You are denying, though, that they really ought to be a lot more accessible?

I think both Cascade and I were being sarcastic. But it would indeed help if there were a current up-to-date version of the Laws with interpretations. I recall chess suffering from this problem - yes there are disputes there as well!

[fbuijsen]

I think both Cascade and I were being sarcastic. But it would indeed help if there were a current up-to-date version of the Laws with interpretations. I recall chess suffering from this problem - yes there are disputes there as well!

 

Probably of little help to you, but the Dutch bridge union NBB has an on-line version with annotations at http://www.nbbclubsites.nl/spelregelboekje/html/index.html

[lamford]

Probably of little help to you, but the Dutch bridge union NBB has an on-line version with annotations at http://www.nbbclubsites.nl/spelregelboekje/html/index.html

I think of great help. Using Google Translate on the Dutch version probably produces better English than in the Official Laws. And I suppose everyone knows that GRATTANESE can be made from the letters of Google Translate.

[barmar]

I think of great help. Using Google Translate on the Dutch version probably produces better English than in the Official Laws. And I suppose everyone knows that GRATTANESE can be made from the letters of Google Translate.

GT claims it's translating it for me, but nothing changes.

[lamford]

GT claims it's translating it for me, but nothing changes.

Does it go into Double Dutch, but you are not noticing the changes?