Fourth Best Leads [SB]

[aguahombre]

....but they shouldn't be able to use it gain deliberately. Leading low from KQJx is the most obvious example of that. They just couldn't imagine that the lawmakers really intended to condone this when they wrote the law about what is AI and UI w/r/t the exposed penalty card.

Agree. It would be nice if an official change or clarification (WBF minute?) were forthcoming. So far, the attempts at dealing with this particular issue have been as cloudy as the law itself.

[campboy]

Players aren't generally supposed to be able to take advantage of their own side's infractions. They're allowed to get lucky, that's rub of the green (e.g. if you bar partner, and when you guess the contract it turns out that it's better than the one you would have reached by a normal auction), but they shouldn't be able to use it gain deliberately. Leading low from KQJx is the most obvious example of that. They just couldn't imagine that the lawmakers really intended to condone this when they wrote the law about what is AI and UI w/r/t the exposed penalty card.

If you lead low here, you're not trying to gain from your side's infraction. You're merely trying to avoid losing out by ridiculously crashing honours. And that is exactly the sort of thing the lawmakers do intend to be permitted.

 

It's really just like the partner has to pass case. You don't have to make a conventional bid when you know partner will be forced to pass it; you don't have to play a high card when you know partner will be forced to play high too. The only difference is that the law is already harsher on penalty cards -- if you happen to gain by some fluke (or carefully constructed hand, as the case may be) you always get an adjusted score; there is no "could have known" test. I don't understand why some people want it to be even harsher.

[aguahombre]

If you lead low here, you're not trying to gain from your side's infraction. You're merely trying to avoid losing out by ridiculously crashing honours. And that is exactly the sort of thing the lawmakers do intend to be permitted.

Whether trying to gain or not, you are gaining by your side's infraction; there was nothing ridiculous about leading the King of Clubs at trick one here. The ridiculous lead of a low one without the information is what the lawmakers should not intend to be permitted.

[pran]

If you lead low here, you're not trying to gain from your side's infraction. You're merely trying to avoid losing out by ridiculously crashing honours. And that is exactly the sort of thing the lawmakers do intend to be permitted.

 

It's really just like the partner has to pass case. You don't have to make a conventional bid when you know partner will be forced to pass it; you don't have to play a high card when you know partner will be forced to play high too. The only difference is that the law is already harsher on penalty cards -- if you happen to gain by some fluke (or carefully constructed hand, as the case may be) you always get an adjusted score; there is no "could have known" test. I don't understand why some people want it to be even harsher.

 

Whether trying to gain or not, you are gaining by your side's infraction; there was nothing ridiculous about leading the King of Clubs at trick one here. The ridiculous lead of a low one without the information is what the lawmakers should not intend to be permitted.

 

Well, at least campboy understands my point.

 

No, there was nothing ridiculous about leading the King of Clubs at trick one here so long as East had not exposed his Ace.

But it is certainly ridiculous to lead the King when West knows that East is forced to play his Ace to that same trick.

 

The relevant UI discussion should be if leading a(ny) club could be suggested by the OLOOT from East, and whether West has any logical alternative to leading a Club once East has shown his desire to attack the Club suit with his Ace.

 

And don't forget that Declarer did not execute his option (Law 50D2) 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

[lamford]

Well, at least campboy understands my point.

 

No, there was nothing ridiculous about leading the King of Clubs at trick one here so long as East had not exposed his Ace.

But it is certainly ridiculous to lead the King when West knows that East is forced to play his Ace to that same trick.

 

The relevant UI discussion should be if leading a(ny) club could be suggested by the OLOOT from East and whether West has any logical alternative to leading a Club once East has shown his desire to attack the Club suit with his Ace.

It was not an opening lead out of turn; it was a card exposed during the auction. It did not show any desire to attack clubs or not. If there were no penalty card, then the lead would automatically have been the king of clubs. It is ridiculous to change this lead to the two of clubs because of knowledge of the rank and suit of the penalty card. Had the secretary bird not been present, West would have got away with it, as the TD would not have known to adjust. And if Pran had been TD, he would have refused to adjust.

[pran]

It was not an opening lead out of turn; it was a card exposed during the auction. It did not show any desire to attack clubs or not. If there were no penalty card, then the lead would automatically have been the king of clubs. It is ridiculous to change this lead to the two of clubs because of knowledge of the rank and suit of the penalty card. Had the secretary bird not been present, West would have got away with it, as the TD would not have known to adjust.

Sorry, my error.

But the key point is that it was a major penalty card, not so clearly suggesting an attack in clubs.

 

But to the core of this "problem" I challenge you to rule if West had made his opening lead in any of the suits other than Clubs and with that lead set the contract.

 

Do you still adjust on the ground that any lead other than the ♣K is suggested by UI?

 

Edit:

I had to go back and found:

Double dummy, the lead of a high club or the J♥ gives 9 tricks, all other leads give 8.

[jallerton]

This is what the minutes say:

 

I would suggest that one of the words in the minute needs to be changed:

 

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 ambiguity made in previous years.  

[barmar]

It's really just like the partner has to pass case. You don't have to make a conventional bid when you know partner will be forced to pass it; you don't have to play a high card when you know partner will be forced to play high too.

The difference is that barring partner is already a pretty harsh penalty. You have to make a total guess as to the final contract, so they don't compound it by forcing you to bid within your system.

[Cascade]

The difference is that barring partner is already a pretty harsh penalty. You have to make a total guess as to the final contract, so they don't compound it by forcing you to bid within your system.

 

Disagree. In that the lead penalties are also pretty harsh. Declarer can prohibit, demand or allow free choice with a penalty card. This choice is harsh on the defense.

[aguahombre]

Disagree. In that the lead penalties are also pretty harsh. Declarer can prohibit, demand or allow free choice with a penalty card. This choice is harsh on the defense.

I fail to see the link between the harshness of Declarer's choices and the inequity of allowing a low Club lead with the EI that partner has the club Ace. Whatever Declarer chooses cannot overcome the damage from that knowledge.

[pran]

I fail to see the link between the harshness of Declarer's choices and the inequity of allowing a low Club lead with the EI that partner has the club Ace. Whatever Declarer chooses cannot overcome the damage from that knowledge.

Oh yes,

if Declarer requests a Club lead from West then the ♣Ace ceases to be a penalty card and the knowledge that East has this card is UI to West.

 

Consequently West may not lead a small club because that would most certainly be suggested by the (now) UI that East has the Ace.

[blackshoe]

The minute people are quoting refers to earlier determinations by the LC. I found this, from the minutes of the meeting of 24 August 1998, at Lille:

 

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.

I note that this minute was issued when the 1997 laws were in effect. Law 50E did not exist then. It seems then that prior to 2007 it was legal for a player holding KQJ2 to lead the two when his partner has the Ace as a MPC, provided there was no LA to the lead of that suit. If he gained by that, so be it.

 

Law 50E changes things. In the case at hand, lead of the deuce gains, 50E3 comes into play, and the director adjusts the score. Maybe the law is an ass; maybe there's a better way. None of that matters. The law is what it is. Until the next revision. B-)

[Cascade]

I fail to see the link between the harshness of Declarer's choices and the inequity of allowing a low Club lead with the EI that partner has the club Ace. Whatever Declarer chooses cannot overcome the damage from that knowledge.

 

I am disagreeing with the reasoning. Although there is a case surely that if a penalty is imposed from a free choice that should be enough. The game is not deterministic. Declarer presumably thought they made a good choice. Should they really get to revisit it if it turns out badly?

[lamford]

But to the core of this "problem" I challenge you to rule if West had made his opening lead in any of the suits other than Clubs and with that lead set the contract.

Even if you consider leads other than clubs as LAs, the problem is that only a low club beats the contract when East has the ace of clubs as an MPC. On the lead of any other suit, declarer will cross to South and lead a club towards the ten of clubs. This Morton Fork's West, and he has to choose between the Scylla of playing high, when SB can develop a club trick, and the Charybdis of playing low, when the TD would adjust the score, again under 50E3, despite the WBFLC minute allowing him to play low on the first club. SB would be careful not to make the first club lead from dummy, when West will indeed be entitled to play low on his partner's ace of clubs.

[lamford]

Declarer presumably thought they made a good choice. Should they really get to revisit it if it turns out badly?

Yes. Law 50E3 gives them a second bite at the cherry. And so it should. In addition to East's infraction of exposing a card, West used the UI of the rank and suit of that card - other information derived from the sight of the card.

 

There is a question here as to whether there should be one adjusted score or two. Should East-West get to keep their good result because of TD error in not explaining Law 50E3 at the time?