Underleading AK after OLOOT

[ahydra]

At the club last night West was declarer in 3D but South opening-led the SQ out of turn. After the TD explained the options, declarer opted to have the SQ remain as a penalty card. North then led small from her AKxx of spades.

 

Declarer went one off in the end. It turns out West had QJ doubleton and on the natural lead of SA the contract might end up making if North continued with SK and another so that South ruffs, as declarer would then be practically forced into dropping the DQ later on. It might also make if North continued with a small one to the J (the more likely continuation), but I'm not sure - dummy had four spades to the ten, but not many entries.

 

My understanding is that while North can know that South must play the penalty card rather than anything else if spades are led (50E1), the fact the penalty card is specifically the SQ is unauthorized under 50E2. Is that correct? Would you adjust the score to 3D=? (We did have a huge thread on this recently but I can't remember what conclusion we came to.)

 

ahydra

[campboy]

I don't think there is a UI problem here. Presumably a spade lead is clear on this hand, and once the player has decided to lead a spade it is AI that partner will be forced to play the queen on this trick. So the player is allowed to lead a low card. The TD may then decide to adjust the score under 50E3, however.

 

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 don't think there is a UI problem here. Presumably a spade lead is clear on this hand, and once the player has decided to lead a spade it is AI that partner will be forced to play the queen on this trick. So the player is allowed to lead a low card. The TD may then decide to adjust the score under 50E3, however.

There indeed seems to be.

 

The knowledge that South must play the SQ at his first legal time to play this card is AI, but the fact that he has the SQ and intended to make an opening lead with this card is UI to North.

 

Only if North has no logical alternative other than to leading a spade (of any rank) to trick one may he lead a spade in this situation (and only in that case may he lead a low spade).

[barmar]

Does the fact that declarer could have chosen to prohibit a spade lead instead of leaving it as a penalty card make any difference? Did he contribute to his own demise by choosing wrongly there?

[ahydra]

Does the fact that declarer could have chosen to prohibit a spade lead instead of leaving it as a penalty card make any difference? Did he contribute to his own demise by choosing wrongly there?

 

He mentioned afterwards that he thought I had values in spades (not sure why though given I'd only bid hearts :))

 

ahydra

[Bbradley62]

There indeed seems to be.

 

The knowledge that South must play the SQ at his first legal time to play this card is AI, but the fact that he has the SQ and intended to make an opening lead with this card is UI to North.

 

Only if North has no logical alternative other than to leading a spade (of any rank) to trick one may he lead a spade in this situation (and only in that case may he lead a low spade).

I agree with the second paragraph here, but not the third. Presumably, the fact that South wanted to lead ♠Q indicates that he has either ♠J or shortness; this additional info about South's spade holding is UI to North and he cannot use it.

 

With respect to the statement about logical alternatives... Suppose South held singleton ♠Q and North held ♠KJxxx. Maybe based on the auction and the rest of South's hand, he wanted to lead his singleton to get a ruff, and he makes this OLOOT... West makes ♠Q a penalty card... It is now AI to North that his partner's card fills in his tenace and he can underlead his spade honors, whereas he might have led from ♦QJT9 otherwise. This could be where director adjusts the score, but North has done nothing wrong in using the AI.

[mycroft]

I expect (without the hand and auction, of course) that with ♠AKxx, there's no logical alternative to a spade lead. Kaplan's rule.

 

Having said that, you are allowed to know that the ♠Q fills in the tenace, but not that partner has that card or wanted to lead it. So the fact that almost certainly it's singleton or doubleton is UI, *as is the fact that your spades are 1-loser*. So, yes, if as a result of seeing that card, you lead a spade rather than ♦QJT9, that's use of UI and adjustable. What is AI, and not adjustable, is "he can underlead his spade honours" - but only *after* determining that there is no Logical Alternative to a spade lead.

[pran]

Does the fact that declarer could have chosen to prohibit a spade lead instead of leaving it as a penalty card make any difference? Did he contribute to his own demise by choosing wrongly there?

NO !

 

So long as the (major) penalty card is faced (and not yet played) the information that offender must play this card at his first legal opportunity is AI to offender's partner.

Any other information that can be derived from the existence of the penalty card is UI to him.

 

This implies that when offender's partner must play, or legally (see below) has selected to play, a card in the denomination of the penalty card he may select which of his cards in that suit to play from the knowledge that offender must eventually play his penalty card to the trick.

 

But whenever offender's partner has a choice between suits for a lead or discard he may not use any information from the existence of the penalty card when selecting one suit over another alternative suit.

 

(added: Note also that once a penalty card for whatever reason has been restored to offender's hand the knowledge that offender has this card is no longer AI to his partner.)

[weejonnie]

I had a long discussion with this on bridgewinners and contacted the EBU - who confirmed that YES - you are entitled to know that the Queen has to be played and NO you cannot use any knowledge deriving from the fact that the card is visible i.e. you can't know that it is an entry, showing a doubleton/ tripleton, or suit preference or is encouraging/ discouraging - or even use it to work out declarer's strength in other cards. 16B1 comes into play (may not choose from among LAs one that could demonstrably been suggested over another by the UI)

[campboy]

Only if North has no logical alternative other than to leading a spade (of any rank) to trick one may he lead a spade in this situation (and only in that case may he lead a low spade).

Yes, I agree. When I said "presumably a spade lead was clear" what I really meant was "it sounds likely there was no LA to leading a spade, and assuming that was the case...". Of course we'd need to see the full hand to be sure, but knowing OP I'd expect him to be aware of this and have mentioned other plausible leads if there were any.

[weejonnie]

Yes, I agree. When I said "presumably a spade lead was clear" what I really meant was "it sounds likely there was no LA to leading a spade, and assuming that was the case...". Of course we'd need to see the full hand to be sure, but knowing OP I'd expect him to be aware of this and have mentioned other plausible leads if there were any.

He may lead a spade, but he must not lead a low spade unless there is no LA. Holding AK there is obviously a LA.

[jallerton]

There indeed seems to be.

 

The knowledge that South must play the SQ at his first legal time to play this card is AI, but the fact that he has the SQ and intended to make an opening lead with this card is UI to North.

 

Only if North has no logical alternative other than to leading a spade (of any rank) to trick one may he lead a spade in this situation (and only in that case may he lead a low spade).

 

I agree with your second paragraph (which follows from the wording of Law 50E), but I struggle to understand the legal basis for the conclusion stated in your third paragraph (even though most other replies agree with what you saying).

 

Suppose, for example, that North holds ♠AK62 ♥J1098 ♦862 ♣84 against the auction 1♦-P-3♦-All Pass

 

As North my choice of leads in order of preference might be: top spade, heart, trump, club, low spade. It's debatable how many of this leads constitute logical alternatives, but I'm sure that a low spade (my last choice of lead) is not one of them.

 

E. Information from a Penalty Card

 

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

 

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).

 

It seems to me that there are two possible interpretations here:

 

(a) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" means that I am allowed to know partner has ♠Q then I can lead whatever I like; or

(b) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" does not include allowing me to know partner has ♠Q then I must 'carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI' (Law 73C) and 'may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information' (Law 16B). In this case Law 73C tells me that I must not lead a low spade.

 

Whichever of (a) and (b) is supposed to apply, I can't see the relevance of whether or a not a top spade lead is the only logical alternative.

[lamford]

It seems to me that there are two possible interpretations here:

 

(a) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" means that I am allowed to know partner has ♠Q then I can lead whatever I like; or

(b) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" does not include allowing me to know partner has ♠Q then I must 'carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI' (Law 73C) and 'may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information' (Law 16B). In this case Law 73C tells me that I must not lead a low spade.

 

Whichever of (a) and (b) is supposed to apply, I can't see the relevance of whether or a not a top spade lead is the only logical alternative.

I agree. The problem is that the Lawmakers have produced two clauses which are incompatible, because they do not want to force defenders to crash honours when the only LA is to do so. If they just had "A penalty card is UI" then there would be no problem. In the current situation they have to fall back on a catch-all clause when defenders avoid crashing honours which they might otherwise have done.

[pran]

The important question is not whether leading a low spade could be suggested by the penalty card but rather if leading any spade at all could be suggested.

 

Only if the player has no LA other than leading a spade may he lead a spade even when this could be suggested by seeing the faced penalty card.

 

But once leading a spade is his only choice then he is free to lead (or play) a low spade from AKxx because knowing that partner must play his Queen is AI to him.

[jallerton]

But why, Sven, do you consider that to be the important question given the wording of Laws 50E and 73C?

[pran]

The important question is not whether leading a low spade could be suggested by the penalty card but rather if leading any spade at all could be suggested.

 

Only if the player has no LA other than leading a spade may he lead a spade even when this could be suggested by seeing the faced penalty card.

 

But once leading a spade is his only choice then he is free to lead (or play) a low spade from AKxx because knowing that partner must play his Queen is AI to him.

 

But why, Sven, do you consider that to be the important question given the wording of Laws 50E and 73C?

Because Law 73C is irrelevant here since Law 50E is more specific for the situation and

Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card is authorized information for all players.

explicitly addresses the situation.

 

So once the player has legally chosen to play a spade then he is free to select which of his own spades to play knowing that his partner must play the Queen.

 

But this knowledge does not itself authorize him in the first place to choose leading a spade when he has other logical alternatives available.

[barmar]

NO !

 

So long as the (major) penalty card is faced (and not yet played) the information that offender must play this card at his first legal opportunity is AI to offender's partner.

Any other information that can be derived from the existence of the penalty card is UI to him.

I don't see how that addresses my question? I didn't ask anything about AI and UI. My point was that declarer could have prohibited a spade lead entirely, thus preventing any problem.

[pran]

Does the fact that declarer could have chosen to prohibit a spade lead instead of leaving it as a penalty card make any difference? Did he contribute to his own demise by choosing wrongly there?

NO !

 

So long as the (major) penalty card is faced (and not yet played) the information that offender must play this card at his first legal opportunity is AI to offender's partner.

Any other information that can be derived from the existence of the penalty card is UI to him.

 

This implies that when offender's partner must play, or legally (see below) has selected to play, a card in the denomination of the penalty card he may select which of his cards in that suit to play from the knowledge that offender must eventually play his penalty card to the trick.

 

But whenever offender's partner has a choice between suits for a lead or discard he may not use any information from the existence of the penalty card when selecting one suit over another alternative suit.

 

(added: Note also that once a penalty card for whatever reason has been restored to offender's hand the knowledge that offender has this card is no longer AI to his partner.)

I don't see how that addresses my question? I didn't ask anything about AI and UI. My point was that declarer could have prohibited a spade lead entirely, thus preventing any problem.

So what?

Declarer did not prohibit a spade lead at this time so the penalty card remained a penalty card with all the consequences from Law 50 (and in particular Law 50 E) in force.

 

It is true that declarer could have explicitly prohibited a spade lead, but when he did not then a spade lead is still not permissible if it "could be suggested over another logical alternative" by the UI available from the existence of the penalty card.

[blackshoe]

Barry is apparently thinking that perhaps if declarer makes the wrong choice, he gets no redress if the OS gains, because he made the wrong choice. I don't think the laws allow that - if the OS gains, the NOS is entitled to redress under 50E, whatever choice declarer made. If 50D said something like "with no further rectification" after the choice, well, that would be a different law. The current law doesn't say that.

[weejonnie]

Barry is apparently thinking that perhaps if declarer makes the wrong choice, he gets no redress if the OS gains, because he made the wrong choice. I don't think the laws allow that - if the OS gains, the NOS is entitled to redress under 50E, whatever choice declarer made. If 50D said something like "with no further rectification" after the choice, well, that would be a different law. The current law doesn't say that.

 

No - the declarer can make the 'wrong' choice. He only gets redress if "the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side" - which is different. If declarer demands a Spade lead and it turns out that the Spade lead is the only one that cuts communication for a squeeze then no redress is available, nor desirable.

[barmar]

Yeah, somehow I was thinking that making the wrong choice might rise to the level of Serious Error, so he loses redress. But a simple judgement error is not a SE. And even if it did, I think it might be judged to be related to the infraction, so he still doesn't lose redress.

[pran]

Yeah, somehow I was thinking that making the wrong choice might rise to the level of Serious Error, so he loses redress. But a simple judgement error is not a SE. And even if it did, I think it might be judged to be related to the infraction, so he still doesn't lose redress.

When a player has several options after an opponent's irregularity the case is usually "closed" after he has selected one of his options.

 

So when he chooses to either forbid or require lead in a particular suit according to Law 50 D then that's it. and if he chooses to let the lead be free he simply postpones the final rectification till later during the play. He shall have no redress if his choice turns out unfortunate.

 

However, Law 50 E remains in force during the entire board so if offender's partner has used UI from the penalty card and thereby damaged declaring side there is still cause for redress.

 

A similar situation might occur when a player chooses to accept (or alternatively not accept) an insufficient bid or a call out of turn, and his choice turns out to be unfortunate. He will not have any redress from choosing an unfortunate alternative.

[blackshoe]

I said the NOS is entitled to redress under Law 50E. That means they're entitled to redress when 50E says they're entitled to redress, whatever choice the declarer makes about the disposition of the penalty card. If 50E doesn't say they're entitled to redress (because, presumably, the exposed card did not "convey such information…") then they don't get redress.

 

Is that clearer?

[dburn]

It seems to me that there are two possible interpretations here:

 

(a) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" means that I am allowed to know partner has ♠Q then I can lead whatever I like; or

(b) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" does not include allowing me to know partner has ♠Q then I must 'carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI' (Law 73C) and 'may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information' (Law 16B). In this case Law 73C tells me that I must not lead a low spade.

You are allowed to know that partner has to play the queen of spades. You are not, however, allowed to know that he has the queen of spades. Pran, who cannot grasp this point, is talking rhubarb, but he should be forgiven for this because the point is not all that easy to grasp.

[pran]

You are allowed to know that partner has to play the queen of spades. You are not, however, allowed to know that he has the queen of spades.

Isn't that precisely what I have written?

Pran, who cannot grasp this point, is talking rhubarb, but he should be forgiven for this because the point is not all that easy to grasp.

It is not easy to grasp for someone who fails to understand the logic behind that Law.