Law 50E

[blackshoe]

WBFLC Minute #3, at Lille, 24 August 1998: 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.

 

WBFLC Minute #2, at Philadelphia, 12 October 2010: The committee recorded that reference to ‘any card’ in Law 50D is subject to the provisions of Law 50E.

 

Does the later minute change anything wrt the earlier one? In particular, this example came up: LOOT of the ♣J against a 6♠ contract. The uncontested auction went 1♠-4♠-6♠. Proper leader holds ♠xxxx ♥KJxx ♦- ♣AKQxx. Declarer opts to let the ♣J remain a MPC. Proper leader leads a low club to the J, gets a diamond return, ruffs. Down 1. Was the low club lead improper? The first minute says no. The second one, well, I'm not sure. I note that Law 50E did not appear in the 1997 laws.

[pran]

Does the later minute change anything wrt the earlier one? In particular, this example came up: LOOT of the ♣J against a 6♠ contract. The uncontested auction went 1♠-4♠-6♠. Proper leader holds ♠xxxx ♥KJxx ♦- ♣AKQxx. Declarer opts to let the ♣J remain a MPC. Proper leader leads a low club to the J, gets a diamond return, ruffs. Down 1. Was the low club lead improper? The first minute says no. The second one, well, I'm not sure. I note that Law 50E did not appear in the 1997 laws.

No. The second minute only emphasises that the reference to an Ace and the other honours is an example. The stated principle applies to any combination of card ranks in similar situations.

 

And the (simple) rule is this:

 

When offender's opponent on the lead has a choice between several logical alternatives as to which suit to lead he may not choose any particular suit from the knowledge that the offender holds a particular card (whether this card is still a penalty card or has been restored to the closed hand) and that he (for whatever reason) wanted to play this card when such play was illegal.

 

Once offender's opponent legally has selected to lead the suit of the penalty card he may select the rank of the card to lead from the knowledge that the penalty card must be played to that trick.

 

(And whenever offender's LHO leads a card in the suit of a penalty card offender's partner may select the rank of the card to play in that suit from the knowledge that the penalty card must eventually be played to that trick.)

 

However, once the penalty card for whatever reason ceases to be a penalty card and is restored to the offender's hand the knowledge that offender has this card is no longer authorized to his partner.

 

So in your case: The lead of a low club was indeed improper unless the player had no other logical alternative card to lead (absent the knowledge that partner had the ♣J)

[campboy]

I think the lead of a low club is legal (since I don't think leading a different suit is an LA). However, we should adjust the score under law 50E3:

If the director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score.

[pran]

I think the lead of a low club is legal (since I don't think leading a different suit is an LA). However, we should adjust the score under law 50E3:

 

That statement appears presumptuous.

 

The Director should rule the same as he would have ruled in case the offender (without any penalty card) had uttered something like: "I prefer that you lead a club because that is what I wish for this trick.

 

If there is no logical alternative to leading a club at this time then of course that lead shall be accepted, otherwise not.

 

And if a club lead is accepted then there is absolutely no foundation for adjusting the result under Law 50E3 because in that case it was not the information from the penalty card that caused damage to NOS.

[campboy]

And if a club lead is accepted then there is absolutely no foundation for adjusting the result under Law 50E3 because in that case it was not the information from the penalty card that caused damage to NOS.

Of course it was. Without the information from the penalty card he would have led a high club and the contract would have made.

[aguahombre]

And if a club lead is accepted then there is absolutely no foundation for adjusting the result under Law 50E3 because in that case it was not the information from the penalty card that caused damage to NOS.

If the club lead is accepted, there would be no penalty card. Partner follows lowest and gets his Diamond ruff. You might have meant, "If a club lead from the other side is Declarer's chosen option...." But there still would be no penalty card when that happens.

[blackshoe]

 

And the (simple) rule is this:

 

When offender's opponent on the lead has a choice between several logical alternatives as to which suit to lead he may not choose any particular suit from the knowledge that the offender holds a particular card (whether this card is still a penalty card or has been restored to the closed hand) and that he (for whatever reason) wanted to play this card when such play was illegal.

 

So in your case: The lead of a low club was indeed improper unless the player had no other logical alternative card to lead (absent the knowledge that partner had the ♣J)

You seem to contradict yourself. Which is it, card or suit?

 

And if a club lead is accepted then there is absolutely no foundation for adjusting the result under Law 50E3 because in that case it was not the information from the penalty card that caused damage to NOS.

 

Of course it was. Without the information from the penalty card he would have led a high club and the contract would have made.

Precisely.

[WellSpyder]

Without the information from the penalty card he would have led a high club and the contract would have made.

It feels to me like this should actually be the key consideration, but it appears to be excluded by the WBLF minutes. So which club would actually be led without seeing the penalty card? I think it depends on the bidding and the rest of opening leader's hand whether he would normally lead a high club and hope for another trick somewhere or would normally lead a low club because the diamond ruff was the only realistic chance for a second trick.

 

Similarly, if the opening leader has KQJx, it feels to me that you are entitled to know partner has to play A IF HE HAS IT, but not that he actually has it. So if you know you need 4 club tricks, it is probably right to lead low rather than to crash 2 honours on the same trick. But if you are just choosing the lead because it is a good combination of both a relatively safe and an attacking lead, then it feels wrong to be allowed to lead the low one.

[pran]

First one sentence by me which appears misunderstood by everyone:

 

"And if a club lead is accepted then there is absolutely no foundation for adjusting the result under Law 50E3 because in that case it was not the information from the penalty card that caused damage to NOS."

 

"Accepted" here means accepted by the Director that offender's partner had no logical alternatives. It has nothing to do With declarer accepting the lead out of turn.

 

 

And to repeat what I hoped was clear enough: Offender's partner may not chose which suit to lead if that suit "could be suggested" by the fact that offender has (or has had) a penalty card.

 

But when offender's partner shall select which card (rank) to play in the suit where the offender has a penalty card he is free to choose any of his ca<rds in that sujit card even if the chosen card is suggested by the existence of the penalty card so long as the card remains a penalty card.

[pran]

You seem to contradict yourself. Which is it, card or suit?

 

No contradiction. Selecting which suit to play is not the same as selecting which of his cards in that suit to play once the suit has been (properly) selected.

 

He may not select the suit of the penalty card if that selection could be suggested over another logical alternative by the penalty card.

 

But once he must select which of his cards in that suit to play he may take into account the rank of the penalty card so long as it remains a penalty card.

[blackshoe]

No contradiction. Selecting which suit to play is not the same as selecting which of his cards in that suit to play once the suit has been (properly) selected.

 

He may not select the suit of the penalty card if that selection could be suggested over another logical alternative by the penalty card.

 

But once he must select which of his cards in that suit to play he may take into account the rank of the penalty card so long as it remains a penalty card.

So the concept of logical alternative applies to the choice of suit, but once the suit is legally chosen, the concept is irrelevant to the choice of card. Fair enough, but that's not what you seemed to be saying earlier.

 

You didn't really answer Campboy's concern, and mine, regarding the knowledge of the location (in my scenario) of the ♣J.

Law 50E3: If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the nonoffending side he shall award an adjusted score.

The exposed card conveyed the information that the opening leader can get into his partner's hand by leading a low club. This allows a "brilliant" defense when partner leads back a diamond for a ruff. Absent the knowledge conveyed by the penalty card, opening leader would lead a high club, and never get his ruff (declarer has a singleton club, and third hand has no other entry). It seems to me and, I think, to Campboy, that per Law 50E3, which is specifically mentioned in the second minute I quoted above, the director should adjust the score.

[pran]

Of course it was. Without the information from the penalty card he would have led a high club and the contract would have made.

 

It feels to me like this should actually be the key consideration, but it appears to be excluded by the WBLF minutes. So which club would actually be led without seeing the penalty card? I think it depends on the bidding and the rest of opening leader's hand whether he would normally lead a high club and hope for another trick somewhere or would normally lead a low club because the diamond ruff was the only realistic chance for a second trick.

 

Similarly, if the opening leader has KQJx, it feels to me that you are entitled to know partner has to play A IF HE HAS IT, but not that he actually has it. So if you know you need 4 club tricks, it is probably right to lead low rather than to crash 2 honours on the same trick. But if you are just choosing the lead because it is a good combination of both a relatively safe and an attacking lead, then it feels wrong to be allowed to lead the low one.

 

I don't know about English players, but it would certainly not be the first time a Norwegian player led low from a sequence of high honours in order to get his partner in and give him a setting ruff.

 

The key question here is if a Club lead is considered "could be suggested" by the penalty card (and history leading up to it). If so then a Club lead is inhibited. (And I consider that to be the case here).

 

But if the Director considers a Club lead legal then the fact that the penalty card is the Jack and must be played whenever legal is authorized, so there is no way the Director can allow the lead of a high Club while forbidding the lead of a low Club.

[blackshoe]

We cross posted, but I still don't think you've answered the question. Note that Law 50E3 only comes into play after the hand is over.

[pran]

So the concept of logical alternative applies to the choice of suit, but once the suit is legally chosen, the concept is irrelevant to the choice of card. Fair enough, but that's not what you seemed to be saying earlier.

I do indeed hope it is. At least that is what I have tried to say.

 

Note that the concept is irrelevant for the choice of card only for so long as the card remains a penalty card. Once the card is restored to his (closed) hand the knowledge that he (still) has that card becomes unauthorised to his partner!

[pran]

The exposed card conveyed the information that the opening leader can get into his partner's hand by leading a low club. This allows a "brilliant" defense when partner leads back a diamond for a ruff. Absent the knowledge conveyed by the penalty card, opening leader would lead a high club, and never get his ruff (declarer has a singleton club, and third hand has no other entry). It seems to me and, I think, to Campboy, that per Law 50E3, which is specifically mentioned in the second minute I quoted above, the director should adjust the score.

Isn't this a major factor for the Director to rule that a club lead is suggested and therefore illegal in the circumstances?

[campboy]

But if the Director considers a Club lead legal then the fact that the penalty card is the Jack and must be played whenever legal is authorized, so there is no way the Director can allow the lead of a high Club while forbidding the lead of a low Club.

You do not seem to understand how 50E3 operates. If a club lead is legal (which I believe it is), then a low club lead is also legal. However, in this instance OS will gain from the low club lead, and it is unlikely that they would have found it otherwise. That does not change the fact that the low club lead is legal.

 

What is not legal is the exposure of the jack of clubs in the first place. The irregular exposure of the jack of clubs damaged NOS. So we adjust to what would have happened if it had never been exposed.

[VixTD]

The key question here is if a Club lead is considered "could be suggested" by the penalty card (and history leading up to it). If so then a Club lead is inhibited. (And I consider that to be the case here).

I don't think that's the key question, and no one is arguing that the ♣J lead does not suggest leading a club over any other suit. They are arguing that a club lead is so obvious from this hand that there is no logical alternative to a club.

[pran]

I don't think that's the key question, and no one is arguing that the ♣J lead does not suggest leading a club over any other suit. They are arguing that a club lead is so obvious from this hand that there is no logical alternative to a club.

Why did declarer not forbid a club lead? If he had done then the existence of the ♣J in offender's hand would become UI to offender's partner, fully effective when Clubs eventually would become played.

[aguahombre]

Why did declarer not forbid a club lead? If he had done then the existence of the ♣J in offender's hand would become UI to offender's partner, fully effective when Clubs eventually would become played.

Are you suggesting that failure to forbid a club lead with that hold was SEWog? I don't think it is even close to that.

[RSliwinski]

I think you should consider The Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing 

on Friday, 10th October, 2008.

 

Law 50E ‐ Mr. Di Sacco asks that examples be provided of the application of this law.  

A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this 

card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from K Q J x 

to partner’s A x is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 

applies.  

Mr.Bavin observes that the player must convince the Director that he has not gained 

from the information that the player possesses the card. This continues the WBF Laws 

Committee decision made in previous years. 

[blackshoe]

I think you should consider The Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing 

on Friday, 10th October, 2008.

 

Law 50E ‐ Mr. Di Sacco asks that examples be provided of the application of this law.  

A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this 

card and information that the player has the card. Initially the underlead from K Q J x 

to partner’s A x is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 

applies.  

Mr.Bavin observes that the player must convince the Director that he has not gained 

from the information that the player possesses the card. This continues the WBF Laws 

Committee decision made in previous years. 

Bingo! This tells me that in my case (post #1) the ruling should be that initially, the lead by proper leader of a low club is legal (per the 1998 minute), but subsequently it is found that the OS gained from knowledge that the penalty card was the ♣J, and so the score should be adjusted per Law 50E3.

 

One could also say, I think, that while the fact that the ♣J is a MPC is authorized, the inference that leader can put his partner on lead by underleading his AKQ is not authorized (Law 50E2). Does anyone disagree? If so, why?