[BudH]

This happened on the first board of a session yesterday at a regional tournament with my partner having the choice.

She held J108 K97 AQ6 Q1032 and the auction with no interference was 1C-1D-1NT-2H-2NT-3NT. In my (our) bidding style, it is very likely my responding hand will be 2=4=5=2 since I would frequently have bid my 3-card fragment with 3=4=5=1 or 1=4=5=3 unless my singleton was a high honor.

Opening lead out of turn by her RHO was the S3. They play fourth best leads. Which of the five options do you choose?

It is my understanding that under the present Law 50, if you tell LHO to lead anything, knowledge of the penalty card is UI for him, so he can't lead a spade if there is any other logical alternative. But can he lead the K from Kxx to account for partner's possible AQx32 knowing the S3 must be played even if he'd never normally lead the king from that holding? It appears since he allowed to know the PC must be played he could legally do that only of spades was his only logical suit to lead.

I think most would deny the spade lead, but I think there is some reasoning to let the S3 stay on the table. However, the paragraph above is important to whether that is a viable option.

Note that the new laws on Law 50E1 are different, with the new Law 50E4 thrown in. Would that change things?



Present version of Law 50E (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 the sight of a penalty card is unauthorized for the partner of the player who has the penalty card (but authorized for declarer).
3. If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the nonoffending side he shall award an adjusted score.

======================================
Upcoming version of Law 50E (Information from a Penalty Card):
1. Information derived from a penalty card and the requirements for playing that penalty card are authorized for all players for as long as the penalty card remains on the table.
2. Information derived from a penalty card that has been returned to hand [as per Law 50D2(a)] is unauthorized for the partner of the player who had the penalty card (see Law 16C), but authorized for declarer.
3. Once a penalty card has been played, information derived from the circumstances under which it was created is unauthorized for the partner of the player who had the card. (For a penalty card which has not yet been played, see E1 above.)
4. If following the application of E1 the Director judges at the end of play that without the assistance gained through the exposed card the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non‐offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board without the effect of the penalty card(s).

[blackshoe]

The auction:

---

East led the ♠3 out of turn.

OP asks "which of the five options do you choose?"

This is not a laws question, it's a bridge judgement question. That said, the director should give the putative declarer his options, fully explaining all the ramifications under whichever law applies, and then it's up to the player to make his choice.

The five choices mentioned by the OP are:

1. Putative declarer may accept the lead and spread his hand, becoming dummy. His partner becomes declarer. Play proceeds normally.
2.Putative declarer may accept the lead. He becomes declarer, and dummy spreads his hand. Declarer plays to the lead first from his hand.
3. Putative declarer may refuse the lead. The card becomes a major penalty card, and offender's partner leads, subject to:
3a. Putative declarer may require or forbid the lead of the suit of the penalty card. In that case, the card is no longer a penalty card, and is returned to its owner's hand. If the lead is forbidden, the prohibition continues as long as the leader retains the lead.
3b. Putative declarer may specify that the leader may choose any lead. In that case the penalty card remains a major penalty card until it is played (and it must be played at the first legal opportunity).

With the hand given, if it were me, I'd choose to refuse the lead and prohibit offender's partner from leading a spade. Caveat: I'm no expert player; this may well not be the choice an expert would make.

[BudH]

My big question, under current and future law, if the major penalty card S3 is left on the table: Can opening leader lead high from Kxx or Qxx when that card would normally not be led?

Also, if holding

7642
J8
K43
AJ64

is a club lead a logical alternative to a spade lead? (Would at least two players choose a club lead if 9 or 10 were asked?)

[blackshoe]

Can he? Sure. Might he get an adverse score adjustment if he does? Maybe. Let's see...

Quote

Law 16B1b: A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.

This law is identical in both the current and the upcoming version of the laws.

Quote

Would at least two players choose a club lead if 9 or 10 were asked?

I don't think 2 out of 10 is a significant proportion. 4 out of 10 is more like it. Also, what constitutes a LA depends on the class of player using the offending partnership's methods. You don't say what those are. I'll take a shot, though. Assuming intermediate players and standard (whatever that means) methods, I would not expect a club lead to be a LA. For beginners maybe it would be.

Quote

Can opening leader lead high from Kxx or Qxx when that card would normally not be led?

Well, if "would not normally be led" means he has a LA to that lead, then under current law, if he does lead that way, he's likely to get a score adjustment. Under the new law 50E1, information from the penalty card is authorized to both sides so long as the PC remains on the table, so no, there would be no problem if he led that way.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-10, 20:20, said:

Can he? Sure. Might he get an adverse score adjustment if he does? Maybe. Let's see...

And possibly also a PP for blatant use of UI?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-10, 20:20, said:

Well, if "would not normally be led" means he has a LA to that lead, then under current law, if he does lead that way, he's likely to get a score adjustment. Under the new law 50E1, information from the penalty card is authorized to both sides so long as the PC remains on the table, so no, there would be no problem if he led that way.

For the offender's partner the knowledge that a penalty card must be played at the first (legal) option is AI, but any other knowledge about the penalty card (e.g. how it happened to become a penalty card) is UI.

So this partner may not choose to lead a card in the denomination of the penalty card from his knowledge about the penalty card as such, but he is free to choose which of his cards in that denomination to play from his knowledge that the penalty card must eventually be played by the offender.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-June-11, 12:59, said:

And possibly also a PP for blatant use of UI?

Maybe, if you can show how it was blatant use of UI.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2017-June-11, 14:09, said:

For the offender's partner the knowledge that a penalty card must be played at the first (legal) option is AI, but any other knowledge about the penalty card (e.g. how it happened to become a penalty card) is UI.

So this partner may not choose to lead a card in the denomination of the penalty card from his knowledge about the penalty card as such, but he is free to choose which of his cards in that denomination to play from his knowledge that the penalty card must eventually be played by the offender.

Are you talking about the current laws or the upcoming laws?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-11, 18:10, said:

Are you talking about the current laws or the upcoming laws?

The current, I hadn't so far checked for possible changes to this principle in the upcoming laws.
I see now that the upcoming Law 50E4 essentially ensures the same effect.
However, while under the current laws an offender's partner is never "required" for instance to sacrifice his King (from Kx) when declarer plays a small towards a penalty Ace in the fourth hand, that may very well become so under the upcoming laws.

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2017-June-12, 01:03, said:

The current, I hadn't so far checked for possible changes to this principle in the upcoming laws.
I see now that the upcoming Law 50E4 essentially ensures the same effect.
However, while under the current laws an offender's partner is never "required" for instance to sacrifice his King (from Kx) when declarer plays a small towards a penalty Ace in the fourth hand, that may very well become so under the upcoming laws.

The answer is: that it is and it isn't.

Law 50E1: Information derived from the penalty card and its requirement to be played is authorised for all players whilst the card is faced up on the table BUT
Law 50E4: If the Director believes that the information (in 50E1) would have helped the defence and the declarer is thereby damaged, then an adjusted score is awarded - NB The adjusted score is based on the position if the penalty card had no effect.

Reading the law, I think that you would be able to duck since if the penalty card wasn't there, it might not have had to have been played by the defender in 4th position.

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2017-June-12, 03:42, said:

The answer is: that it is and it isn't.

Law 50E1: Information derived from the penalty card and its requirement to be played is authorised for all players whilst the card is faced up on the table BUT
Law 50E4: If the Director believes that the information (in 50E1) would have helped the defence and the declarer is thereby damaged, then an adjusted score is awarded - NB The adjusted score is based on the position if the penalty card had no effect.

Reading the law, I think that you would be able to duck since if the penalty card wasn't there, it might not have had to have been played by the defender in 4th position.

The important question for the Director is:
Would West holding Kx when declarer played a low card in that suit play his K unless he knows that his partner holds the Ace? My Guess is that he would secure a trick for his King at least 9 out of 10 times.

Consequently not playing the K is a consequence ow knowing not only that his partner has the Ace, but that partner is forced to play the Ace. Thus the 2017 Laws appear stronger against the offending side in this situation because of Law 50E4 that did the 2007 Laws.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-11, 18:08, said:

Maybe, if you can show how it was blatant use of UI.

Leading K from Kxx would be an extremely unusual lead. It only makes sense if you have information that partner has high cards in the suit, and in this case that information would be UI from the OLOOT.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-June-12, 08:28, said:

Leading K from Kxx would be an extremely unusual lead. It only makes sense if you have information that partner has high cards in the suit, and in this case that information would be UI from the OLOOT.

The situation I pointed out was declarer leading a small, LHO holding Kx (not Kxx!) and RHO having the Ace as a penalty card.

Without the knowledge that RHO has the Ace LHO will almost always play his K to that trick.

LHO playing low in a situation with the penalty Ace should definitely result in a Law 50E4 adjustment.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-June-12, 08:38, said:

The situation I pointed out was declarer leading a small, LHO holding Kx (not Kxx!) and RHO having the Ace as a penalty card.

Without the knowledge that RHO has the Ace LHO will almost always play his K to that trick.

LHO playing low in a situation with the penalty Ace should definitely result in a Law 50E4 adjustment.

I missed the fact that the conversation had drifted away from the situation in the OP to the penalty card being the ace of this suit.

[BudH]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-10, 20:20, said:

Can he? Sure. Might he get an adverse score adjustment if he does? Maybe. Let's see...


This law is identical in both the current and the upcoming version of the laws.


I don't think 2 out of 10 is a significant proportion. 4 out of 10 is more like it. Also, what constitutes a LA depends on the class of player using the offending partnership's methods. You don't say what those are. I'll take a shot, though. Assuming intermediate players and standard (whatever that means) methods, I would not expect a club lead to be a LA. For beginners maybe it would be.


Well, if "would not normally be led" means he has a LA to that lead, then under current law, if he does lead that way, he's likely to get a score adjustment. Under the new law 50E1, information from the penalty card is authorized to both sides so long as the PC remains on the table, so no, there would be no problem if he led that way.

From the Houston Spring 2009 NABC ACBL Laws Commission Minutes

"There was a consensus that in Law 16B1 where the word 'some' is used it should suggest to the tournament director and a committee more than one, and the word 'significant' should suggest to the tournament director and a committee more than a minor proportion (e.g. 2/100) but less than a major proportion (e.g. 40/100)."

Also, in England, "significant proportion" is "at least one in five" (ie 20%) and "some" is "more than just an isolated exception".

[blackshoe]

Firstly, I think this insistence on putting specific numbers on these terms is misguided. Secondly, "some" has several meanings, but I believe the gist in this context is "a few" or "a couple" so "more than one" is fine. Thirdly the laws use the phrase "significant proportion". I'm not sure defining "significant" as "somewhere between 'major' and 'minor' is all that helpful, with or without arbitrary numbers. "Significant" means "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy", so the question is what proportion of players choosing a particular thing would make that choice worthy of attention or noteworthy. OTOH "noteworthy" means "significant" so that part, at least, seems a little circular. If you must have a number, I'd say 40% would make the choice worthy of attention. You have a problem then if you're only going to poll five people. Two would have to give whatever it is "serious consideration" and if you're going to do it this way, half of them would have to choose it.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-14, 20:41, said:

Firstly, I think this insistence on putting specific numbers on these terms is misguided.

And even if you do, the numbers are not that useful, since it's practically impossible to determine the actual values with any precision. Even if you poll, the sample size and polling methodology leave enormous room for error. So there's quite a bit of estimation involved, and trying to distinguish between 15% and 25%, or even between 20% and 50%, is futile.

So it's perfectly reasonable that the Law uses such vague terms as "some" and "significant proportion", because it reflects the (lack of) precision in the process.