Quick question - 2017 lead penalties

[BudH]

North opens 1D out of turn when East is dealer and is not accepted.

 

Auction proceeds

 

1S-Pass-4NT-Pass

5C-Pass-6S-all pass

 

4NT was keycard ask

5C showed West was missing one keycard between the partnership.

 

West holding KJ109 of spades was about to ask for the spade queen when he realized East would be able to force an opening spade lead under the new 2017 laws.

 

Is this correct?

[blackshoe]

Yes.

 

LAW 31 - BID OUT OF ROTATION

When a player has bid out of rotation, has passed artificially or has passed partner’s artificial call (see Law 30C) and the call is cancelled, the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, the following provisions apply:

A. RHO’s Turn to Call

When the offender has called at his RHO’s turn to call, then:

1. If that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation, and when that call is legal there is no rectification.

2. If that opponent makes a legal8 bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call:

(a) When the call is a comparable call (see Law 23A), there is no further rectification. Law 26B does not apply, but see Law 23C.

(b) When the call is not a comparable call (see Law 23A), offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply.

B. Partner’s or LHO’s Turn to Call

When the offender has bid at his partner’s turn to call, or at his LHO’s turn to call if the offender has not previously called, then:

1. Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies.

2. Offender may make any legal call at his correct turn and the Director rules as in A2(a) or A2(b) above.

C. Later Bids at LHO’s Turn to Call

Later bids at LHO’s turn to call are treated as changes of call and Law 25 applies.

LAW 26 – CALL WITHDRAWN, LEAD RESTRICTIONS

...

B. Lead Restrictions

When an offending player’s call is withdrawn and it is not replaced by a comparable call, then if he becomes a defender declarer may, at the offender’s partner’s first turn to lead (which may be the opening lead) either:

1. require the offender’s partner to lead any (one) suit which has not been specified in the legal auction by the offender; or

2. prohibit offender’s partner from leading any (one) suit which has not been specified in the legal auction by the offender. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender’s partner retains the lead.

The emphasis in Law 26B1 is mine.

 

So, South leads a low spade, East plays the J (or the 9 or the 10) from dummy, and North plays a low spade. Which way should declarer finesse on the second round?

[BudH]

Thanks - that is how I read it also.

 

It seems strange to either "require ..any one suit" OR to "prohibit ... any one suit".

 

Just require one of those suits you were not going to prohibit. Seems pointless to need the the prohibit part in 26B2!

 

(Perhaps there is a theoretical reason for a case involving multiple suits shown or not shown by withdrawn calls, but 99% of cases can be dealt with by 26B1 only to pick a suit (not specified in the legal auction by the offender) and make the defender lead it.

[gordontd]

Yes but a change to this, deleting 26B1, is imminent.

[nige1]

Yes but a change to this, deleting 26B1, is imminent.

Wow -- a rational clarification and simplification? Not a radical change but another welcome break with WBFLC tradition :)

[gordontd]

Wow -- a rational clarification and simplification? Not a radical change but another welcome break with WBFLC tradition :)

It was already simplified from the last edition and less frequent in application but rather harsh when it did apply.

[blackshoe]

Yes but a change to this, deleting 26B1, is imminent.

Oh? What happened to "no changes for ten years"? B-)

[BudH]

Yes but a change to this, deleting 26B1, is imminent.

 

Does "imminent" mean "ooops, that was a bit harsh, we're going to correct this in the next month or two"?

 

Or is this change expected September of this year or later?

[BudH]

Yes.

 

 

 

The emphasis in Law 26B1 is mine.

 

So, South leads a low spade, East plays the J (or the 9 or the 10) from dummy, and North plays a low spade. Which way should declarer finesse on the second round?

 

Since I assumed 5-card major openings and both defenders followed suit with a 9-plus card trump fit, the queen is coming down on the next two trump leads.

[blackshoe]

Since I assumed 5-card major openings and both defenders followed suit with a 9-plus card trump fit, the queen is coming down on the next two trump leads.

An indirect answer, but you got the point. B-)

[gordontd]

Does "imminent" mean "ooops, that was a bit harsh, we're going to correct this in the next month or two"?

 

Or is this change expected September of this year or later?

Sooner than that. It has already been notified to TDs and I think NBOs but the precise wording not yet released.

[BudH]

Sooner than that. It has already been notified to TDs and I think NBOs but the precise wording not yet released.

 

Thanks, Gordon! I created a short Powerpoint presentation to begin training local ACBL club directors later today on the new laws and Law 26B1 is presently included in my presentation. I likely will show it "struck out" and mention this part is expected to be removed from the new laws.

 

The exact wording should be easy to predict with 26B1 deleted so there will be no need for a 26B1 or 26B2 with wording such as the following:

 

B. Lead Restrictions

"When an offending player’s call is withdrawn and it is not replaced by a comparable call, then if he becomes a defender declarer may, at the offender’s partner’s first turn to lead (which may be the opening lead) prohibit offender’s partner from leading any (one) suit which has not been specified in the legal auction by the offender. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender’s partner retains the lead."

[blackshoe]

Sooner than that. It has already been notified to TDs and I think NBOs but the precise wording not yet released.

Not to this TD. Not that anyone cares about me. :P

 

Who's doing this? WBFLC? Do you know if anything's going on wrt this issue in the ACBL? (They may be waiting for the WBF to do its thing).

[BudH]

Not to this TD. Not that anyone cares about me. :P

 

Who's doing this? WBFLC? Do you know if anything's going on wrt this issue in the ACBL? (They may be waiting for the WBF to do its thing).

 

Good reason for the ACBL to wait until September on one of the Mondays after Labor Day to implement the new laws. The kinks can be worked out by others, then they can arrange printing of the law books and other materials starting in July or August.

 

Note that in 2008, there was a full page article describing law changes in the July issue. Less than a month away for ACBL members!

[lamford]

I am not sure that the change is necessary. People should not bid out of turn or make insufficient bids, and the penalty should always be sufficient that they cannot gain, unless declarer makes an unlucky choice of course.

[weejonnie]

I am not sure that the change is necessary. People should not bid out of turn or make insufficient bids, and the penalty should always be sufficient that they cannot gain, unless declarer makes an unlucky choice of course.

Being low down in the pecking order I haven't received anything - but can someone in the know confirm that 26B1 has now been abolished and there is nothing to replace it - i.e. declarer now has NO OPTION to demand the lead of ANY suit?

[barmar]

In the email list for the 2017 Laws, Adam Wildavsky replied:

I've heard that the WBF management committee voted in favor of this change today (Monday), which would mean that it will be implemented. I'd expect official word soon.

[blackshoe]

Link to the change: http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/RevisedLaw26B.pdf

 

You can download an updated copy of the whole law book too.

 

I'm told that the ACBL Bulletin's "Ruling the Game" column will run some (I don't know how many) articles about the new laws starting with the July issue. I've not heard anything yet about an implementation date here.

[pran]

Link to the change: http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/RevisedLaw26B.pdf

 

You can download an updated copy of the whole law book too.

 

I'm told that the ACBL Bulletin's "Ruling the Game" column will run some (I don't know how many) articles about the new laws starting with the July issue. I've not heard anything yet about an implementation date here.

Didn't WBFLC declare September 30 as the time limit before which the new laws should come into force? I believe I have seen that somewhere?

[blackshoe]

Didn't WBFLC declare September 30 as the time limit before which the new laws should come into force? I believe I have seen that somewhere?

Yes, they did. Which is why I've posted a couple of times now that I expect they will go into effect in North America at 11:59 PM on that date. B-) But the ACBL has made no official announcement yet.

[peterb001]

North opens 1D out of turn when East is dealer and is not accepted.

 

Auction proceeds

 

1S-Pass-4NT-Pass

5C-Pass-6S-all pass

 

4NT was keycard ask

5C showed West was missing one keycard between the partnership.

 

West holding KJ109 of spades was about to ask for the spade queen when he realized East would be able to force an opening spade lead under the new 2017 laws.

 

Is this correct?

Going back to the original question, my reading of it is that the contract is being played by East, in which case East has to decide on any lead requirement without any input from West. So it may not be obvious to East to ask for a spade lead. If on the other hand, West asks for QS, and then still bids the slam even if East denies it, then it will be fairly obvious to East to ask for a trump lead?

[BudH]

Yes, they did. Which is why I've posted a couple of times now that I expect they will go into effect in North America at 11:59 PM on that date. B-) But the ACBL has made no official announcement yet.

 

Monday September 11, 18, or 25 are very likely, so as to not interfere with a regional tournament changing laws midstream.

 

Note in September 2008, it was the FIRST half of September (one week after Labor Day Monday) when the laws changed in ACBL play. September 11 would be the equivalent date to that, although I won't be surprised if they choose one of the last two Mondays.

[pran]

I don't believe there is any clear or fixed rule for this, but in my opinion a multi-session event that lasts over several days should be run in its entirety under the Laws that applies at the start of that event. (Rules should never be changed in the middle of an event.)

 

Now, as I understand, WBFLC has announced September 30 as the latest date for implementing the 2017 Laws, and I don't know anything that prevents an organiser from applying the 2017 Laws at an earlier date for a multisession event that crosses this date?

[barmar]

I don't believe there is any clear or fixed rule for this, but in my opinion a multi-session event that lasts over several days should be run in its entirety under the Laws that applies at the start of that event. (Rules should never be changed in the middle of an event.)

It depends on what you consider the "rules" to be. If it's the Conditions of Contest, then you're not really changing the rules. If the CoC say that you're using the 2007 Laws for day 1, 2017 Laws for day 2, it's one set of rules that refers to two versions of the Laws.

[pran]

It depends on what you consider the "rules" to be. If it's the Conditions of Contest, then you're not really changing the rules. If the CoC say that you're using the 2007 Laws for day 1, 2017 Laws for day 2, it's one set of rules that refers to two versions of the Laws.

And if the CoC is silent?