Underleading AK after OLOOT

[dburn]

Isn't that precisely what I have written?

I don't believe so, but I am sorry if if have misinterpreted your position. Perhaps a more specific question will help us focus on the relevant issue.

 

South, declarer in a heart contract with plenty of trumps remaining in both hands, leads a spade towards ♠Jx on the table. West has ♠AK43 and East has ♠Q as a penalty card.

 

Now, West has no logical alternative to playing a spade, since revoking is not considered in that category. But he has logical alternatives among the spades he might play. Not knowing that East has ♠Q he would consider playing high, in case declarer had it; knowing that East must play ♠Q to this trick, he might well choose to play low.

 

May he do the latter? Or, put another way, if he does the latter and his side obtains an advantage thereby, should the Director adjust the score?

[pran]

I don't believe so, but I am sorry if if have misinterpreted your position. Perhaps a more specific question will help us focus on the relevant issue.

 

South, declarer in a heart contract with plenty of trumps remaining in both hands, leads a spade towards ♠Jx on the table. West has ♠AK43 and East has ♠Q as a penalty card.

 

Now, West has no logical alternative to playing a spade, since revoking is not considered in that category. But he has logical alternatives among the spades he might play. Not knowing that East has ♠Q he would consider playing high, in case declarer had it; knowing that East must play ♠Q to this trick, he might well choose to play low.

 

May he do the latter? Or, put another way, if he does the latter and his side obtains an advantage thereby, should the Director adjust the score?

Sure he may:

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).

[...]

so everybody at the table is entitled to know that East must play the Queen to the trick when it becomes his turn to play.

 

(An interesting variant is if East has two penalty cards: the Queen and the 2 of spades:

Again everybody at the table is entitled to know that East must play one of his penalty (spade) cards when it becomes his turn to play, but now West has no knowledge of which of the two penalty cards declarer will eventually request. In fact declarer may request the Queen if West plays one of his high honours and the deuce if West plays small.)

[dburn]

In that case, I haven't misinterpreted your position and I do not agree with it. Suppose that the only successful defence is for East to win the first spade. At a table where East does not have a penalty card this defence may or may not be found; at a table where he does it will certainly be found.

[campboy]

In that case, I haven't misinterpreted your position and I do not agree with it. Suppose that the only successful defence is for East to win the first spade. At a table where East does not have a penalty card this defence may or may not be found; at a table where he does it will certainly be found.

And then the score will be adjusted under Law 50E3. What's the problem?

[dburn]

I am not sure that pran believes the score should be adjusted, under Law 50E or any other. I myself believe that it is faintly ridiculous to allow a player to do something on the basis that we will then adjust the score as if he had not done it. True, many of the laws are ridiculous, but we should try to conceal this fact from hoi polloi.

[campboy]

I am not sure that pran believes the score should be adjusted, under Law 50E or any other. I myself believe that it is faintly ridiculous to allow a player to do something on the basis that we will then adjust the score as if he had not done it. True, many of the laws are ridiculous, but we should try to conceal this fact from hoi polloi.

Well, that's not quite what happens. We allow West to play low (using the AI that his partner is required to play the queen), but then we adjust on the basis of what might have happened if East had not had a penalty card in the first place.

 

In particular, we will be considering the likely result if West played a high card but East was not required to drop the queen under it; this will generally be more favourable to EW than the result of forcing West to crash his partner's honour.

[dburn]

I see. So, we have a bunch of rules that specify what happens when someone has a penalty card. And then we adjust the score as if he didn't have a penalty card. Wonderful game, bridge. Must give it a try sometime.

[Trinidad]

The laws here have always seemed clear to me:

E. Information from a Penalty Card

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

This part basically says that knowledge of the laws about penalty cards, as well as the fact that East does have a penalty card is AI to 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).

All other information from seeing the penalty card is UI to partner. The first UI that comes to mind is the face value of the card.

 

So, my position has always been:

- A defender is allowed to know that his partner has a penalty card.

- He is allowed to know all legal consequences, e.g. that his partner must play it at his first legal opportunity, or that if he himself wins a trick, declarer may force or forbid a lead.

- What the penalty card is, is UI. (Not only is he not allowed to know it, he needs to "bend over backwards".)

- When partner has played the penalty card, the defender is allowed to take into account that his partner was forced to play it. As a concrete example, in this case, if partner leads the ♠Q, the defender does not have to assume that this promises the jack and denies the king (which is what he would do if partner would have had a free choice of plays, assuming standard leads). Instead, he can allow for partner to hold the king (except that West has the ♠K himself).

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Well, that's not quite what happens. We allow West to play low (using the AI that his partner is required to play the queen), but then we adjust on the basis of what might have happened if East had not had a penalty card in the first place.

Fortunately, Law 50E is easier. The fact that partner will have to play the card is AI, but the fact that the card is the ♠Q is UI (50E2). If the TD has instructed the players properly regarding the consequences of the penalty card, I would slap the player who dares to underlead AK with a PP, for blatant use of UI.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Fortunately, Law 50E is easier. The fact that partner will have to play the card is AI, but the fact that the card is the ♠Q is UI (50E2). If the TD has instructed the players properly regarding the consequences of the penalty card, I would slap the player who dares to underlead AK with a PP, for blatant use of UI.

 

Rik

First you have to find a TD who properly clarifies the distinction between knowing Partner has to play a card (AI) and knowing Partner has that card (UI). I believe I could properly word that, but am unsure the recipient would grasp it.

 

Therefore, the PP is a big question mark.

[campboy]

I see. So, we have a bunch of rules that specify what happens when someone has a penalty card. And then we adjust the score as if he didn't have a penalty card.

Well, that's a funny way of looking at it, since the thing that tells us to adjust the score is one of that "bunch of rules". But yes, the lawmakers, rightly or wrongly, favour laws which give OS some chance of getting a normal result, but sometimes require the TD to step in and restore equity.

[Bbradley62]

Fortunately, Law 50E is easier. The fact that partner will have to play the card is AI, but the fact that the card is the ♠Q is UI (50E2). If the TD has instructed the players properly regarding the consequences of the penalty card, I would slap the player who dares to underlead AK with a PP, for blatant use of UI.

 

Rik

I still don't think that what 50E means. If 50E1 allows me to know that my partner must play ♠Q at his first legal opportunity, then I must also know that he holds that card. 50E2 prevents me from knowing that partner's spade holding is such that Q is the natural lead from his holding (presumably showing either shortness or an honor sequence).

[weejonnie]

I still don't think that what 50E means. If 50E1 allows me to know that my partner must play ♠Q at his first legal opportunity, then I must also know that he holds that card. 50E2 prevents me from knowing that partner's spade holding is such that Q is the natural lead from his holding (presumably showing either shortness or an honor sequence).

 

 

here is correspondence on something very similar

To: Jeremy Dhondy

Although Law 50 gives instruction as to the procedure with a penalty card, I need some clarification – particularly 50E.

 

Suppose that partner’s penalty card is a Jack of clubs, I hold the AKQX and want to get across to partner’s hand.

 

1) Can I use the information that partner has the Jack to underlead my AKQ?

2) Can I use the information that partner has the jack to select clubs as the suit to get across to partner’s hand? Or must there be no LA?

3) For completeness – I assume that I cannot use the Jack of clubs as a potential suit preference (e.g. partner wants Spades) or count (e.g. partner has an even number)

4) Is there a conflict between 50E3 and 10C4 in any of these scenarios? I am assuming the play of the Jack was not intending to tell partner that this was an entry (law 23)

 

Many thanks

 

 

Dear John,

Your email has come to me for a reply. The careful wording of your questions 1 & 2 suggests to me that you already have a very good understanding of this law, so I hope it will suffice if I just say yes to Q1 and no to Q2 (but do feel free to get back to me if that’s not enough!)

Again for Q3 you are correct: the law says “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 that would include any suit-preference or distributional information that might have been contained in its intended role as a discard.

 

As for Q4, I do not see a conflict but it is for the director to make a decision based on the facts of each particular case. Indeed 10C4 directs us to Law 50, and I think it is the interplay between these two laws that leads us to the answers to your first two questions.

 

Do get back to me if you think I have missed anything.

 

Regards,

 

Gordon Rainsford

Chief Tournament Director

[jallerton]

The laws here have always seemed clear to me:

 

This part basically says that knowledge of the laws about penalty cards, as well as the fact that East does have a penalty card is AI to all players.

 

All other information from seeing the penalty card is UI to partner. The first UI that comes to mind is the face value of the card.

 

So, my position has always been:

- A defender is allowed to know that his partner has a penalty card.

- He is allowed to know all legal consequences, e.g. that his partner must play it at his first legal opportunity, or that if he himself wins a trick, declarer may force or forbid a lead.

- What the penalty card is, is UI. (Not only is he not allowed to know it, he needs to "bend over backwards".)

 

Sorry? Are you saying that a player is supposed to assume that his partner be forced to play a particular card to this trick, but is not allowed to know which one? Or indeed to "bend over backwards", he is supposed to assume that his partner will be forced to play some other random card to this trick?

 

Fortunately, Law 50E is easier. The fact that partner will have to play the card is AI, but the fact that the card is the ♠Q is UI (50E2). If the TD has instructed the players properly regarding the consequences of the penalty card, I would slap the player who dares to underlead AK with a PP, for blatant use of UI.

 

Rik

 

That could be interesting. It sounds like you'll be awarding PPs to these two experienced TDs:

 

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).

[Trinidad]

I still don't think that what 50E means. If 50E1 allows me to know that my partner must play ♠Q at his first legal opportunity, then I must also know that he holds that card.

But law 50E1 doesn't allow you to know that your partner must play the ♠Q at his first legal opportunity.

 

It allows you to know that partner has a card that he needs to play at his first legal opportunity. You are even allowed to know that it is the card that is lying face up on the table. But the knowledge that the card that is lying face up is the ♠Q is UI (50E2).

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

That could be interesting. It sounds like you'll be awarding PPs to these two experienced TDs:

I seriously doubt that these two experienced TDs would blatantly use UI when they have been clearly instructed not to do that. If they would not agree with my ruling that the value of the penalty card is UI, then they will know their options. Simply ignoring the TD's ruling (even if it would be completely wrong) is not one of them. If they would indeed ignore the ruling, they fully deserve the PP.

 

Rik

[mycroft]

I thought it was reasonably clear. To paraphrase my at the table paraphrase:

 

"I realize this may be difficult to understand, but the Law says that while you are entitled to know that partner will play the ♠Q at the first legal opportunity, the fact that she has it, the fact that she wanted to play it, and any information you can get from the fact that she wanted to play it, you may not know, and must carefully avoid using."

 

Which gets me back to my original comment in this thread:

 

You can not use the fact that partner has the ♠Q to choose to lead spades if some other Logical Alternative exists.

If there is no Logical Alternative to a spade, you are allowed to know that playing the A will crash the Q, and if that is not helpful, you don't have to play the A (or the K).

 

Which seems to be what GordonTD said above.

[campboy]

But law 50E1 doesn't allow you to know that your partner must play the ♠Q at his first legal opportunity.

 

It allows you to know that partner has a card that he needs to play at his first legal opportunity. You are even allowed to know that it is the card that is lying face up on the table. But the knowledge that the card that is lying face up is the ♠Q is UI (50E2).

I can see that this would be a reasonable interpretation of the law, but it is not the interpretation which is generally accepted as correct. In fact, looking in the White Book I discovered there is a minute about it, albeit one which was written for a previous version of the laws.

 

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 KQJx 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.

[Trinidad]

That minute is pretty clear. The example is pretty much exactly what we have here. So, I stand corrected.

 

Nevertheless, I think that if that is what they intended as the meaning of Law 50E, they should have rewritten it.

 

I also think that the minute is a strange contruction: For the purpose of selecting which suit to lead the penalty card is UI, but for selecting which card in that suit to lead it is AI. And this, we are supposed to be able to conclude from Law 50E, which doesn't mention any distinction between choosing suits and cards within suits.

 

Am I the only one who finds that odd?

 

Rik

[barmar]

- What the penalty card is, is UI. (Not only is he not allowed to know it, he needs to "bend over backwards".)

- When partner has played the penalty card, the defender is allowed to take into account that his partner was forced to play it. As a concrete example, in this case, if partner leads the ♠Q, the defender does not have to assume that this promises the jack and denies the king

These seem inconsistent with each other.

 

If you're not allowed to know what the PC is, why are you allowed to know that when he plays this card that it was the PC, and hence may not have its normal meaning as a signal?

 

I was initially thinking along the same lines as you, but whenever I try to turn it into examples of how to play or rule, I keep running into problems like this. Could the lawmakers really have intended something like the aforementioned minutes, where it's UI for choosing a suit to lead, but AI for choosing a card within the suit? That seems like a very weird and arbitrary distinction.

[jallerton]

That minute is pretty clear. The example is pretty much exactly what we have here. So, I stand corrected.

 

Nevertheless, I think that if that is what they intended as the meaning of Law 50E, they should have rewritten it.

 

I also think that the minute is a strange contruction: For the purpose of selecting which suit to lead the penalty card is UI, but for selecting which card in that suit to lead it is AI. And this, we are supposed to be able to conclude from Law 50E, which doesn't mention any distinction between choosing suits and cards within suits.

 

Am I the only one who finds that odd?

 

Rik

 

No, you are not, In post #12 I said:

 

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.

 

There was no equivalent of Law 50E in the 1997 Laws, and I assume that the 1998 WBF minute quoted by Campboy was intended to deal with that. Now that the penalty card UI/AI is dealt with in the 2007 Law 50E, the 1998 minute is superseded and we should be using the new Law 50E instead.

 

Reading another of the 2007 Laws, I now know why I prefer my interpretation (a) over interpretation (b). The answer lies in the Law immediately above:

 

When a defender has the lead while his partner has a major penalty card, he may not lead until declarer has stated which of the options below is selected (if the defender leads prematurely, he is subject to rectification under Law 49). Declarer may choose:

 

(a) to require* the defender to lead the suit of the penalty card, or to prohibit* him from leading that suit for as long as he retains the lead (for two or more penalty cards, see Law 51); if declarer exercises either of these options, the card is no longer a penalty card and is picked up.

 

(b) not to require or prohibit a lead, in which case the defender may lead any card; the penalty card remains a penalty card**. If this option is selected Law 50D continues to apply for as long as the penalty card remains.

 

Please note the part I have put in bold. It says "may lead any card". It does not say, for example, "may lead any card (subject to Law 50E2)".

 

So I think the Laws say this:

 

1. The player can lead any card (Law 50D2).

2. The fact that his partner holds♠Q, and has to play it at the first legal opportunity, is authorised information (Law 50E1).

3. The fact that his partner is likely to hold ♠J (assuminng they lead top of sequence) and is unlikely to have an attractive sequence to lead from in another suit is unauthorised information (Law 50E2).

4. If the defence gained by this player knowing that his partner held ♠Q, we adjust the score to what might have happened had the penalty card not existed (Law 50E3). [Presumably a weighted score could be a possibility here - Law 12C1C.]

5. If the player fails to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the information about ♠J/attractivenesss of lead in other suits, then the TD may adjust the score under the general UI Laws (Laws 73C/12A1 and/or Laws 16B/12C].

[weejonnie]

No, you are not, In post #12 I said:

 

 

 

There was no equivalent of Law 50E in the 1997 Laws, and I assume that the 1998 WBF minute quoted by Campboy was intended to deal with that. Now that the penalty card UI/AI is dealt with in the 2007 Law 50E, the 1998 minute is superseded and we should be using the new Law 50E instead.

 

Reading another of the 2007 Laws, I now know why I prefer my interpretation (a) over interpretation (b). The answer lies in the Law immediately above:

 

 

 

Please note the part I have put in bold. It says "may lead any card". It does not say, for example, "may lead any card (subject to Law 50E2)".

 

So I think the Laws say this:

 

1. The player can lead any card (Law 50D2).

2. The fact that his partner holds♠Q, and has to play it at the first legal opportunity, is authorised information (Law 50E1).

3. The fact that his partner is likely to hold ♠J (assuminng they lead top of sequence) and is unlikely to have an attractive sequence to lead from in another suit is unauthorised information (Law 50E2).

4. If the defence gained by this player knowing that his partner held ♠Q, we adjust the score to what might have happened had the penalty card not existed (Law 50E3). [Presumably a weighted score could be a possibility here - Law 12C1C.]

5. If the player fails to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the information about ♠J/attractivenesss of lead in other suits, then the TD may adjust the score under the general UI Laws (Laws 73C/12A1 and/or Laws 16B/12C].

 

1. Subject to the leader carefully avoiding taking advantage of UI.

2. Agree

3. Agree

4. A weighted score is possible (EBU) - but must not include any defence where the UI could have been used.

5. Agree

 

Now all you have to do is work out a speil to explain this to the player at the table - before you call the next round.

[Trinidad]

These seem inconsistent with each other.

 

If you're not allowed to know what the PC is, why are you allowed to know that when he plays this card that it was the PC, and hence may not have its normal meaning as a signal?

Perhaps it helps to think of a time line:

 

Initially, you are allowed to know that partner has a PC, but not which one it is.

After the PC has been played, you are allowed to know that partner doesn't have a PC anymore. And, of course, you are allowed to know what cards partner has been playing.

 

So, here you are, knowing that partner has a PC, until suddenly, right after partner has played the ♠Q, you know that he doesn't have a PC. What could that PC have been?

 

So, you are allowed to know that the ♠Q was a penalty card once it has been played, because that is readily available from AI. You are allowed to know that it might not be the card that partner would normally play (e.g. to signal) since the knowledge that partner is forced to play the PC (which was the ♠Q) is AI.

 

Rik

[VixTD]

2. The fact that his partner holds♠Q, and has to play it at the first legal opportunity, is authorised information (Law 50E1).

 

Initially, you are allowed to know that partner has a PC, but not which one it is.

I disagree with both of these interpretations.

 

I believe the original draft of this law made the identity of the penalty card unauthorized for the offending side, then the law was changed to mitigate the effects of offender's partner crashing honours, which was considered too high a price to pay for exposing a card. So offender's partner is not allowed to know that offender has ♠Q, but if the restrictions upon them still permit them to lead a spade or play to a spade trick, they are allowed to know that the card offender must play to this trick will be the queen and use that knowledge to, for instance, avoid crashing honours.

[barmar]

I can believe that was their intent. But if so, I hope we can agree that they expressed it incredibly poorly. Most of the time you can use a little common sense intuition, or resort to knowledge of bridge tradition and history, to disambiguate confusing laws or deal with potentially conflicting laws. But this one doesn't seem amenable to any of that.